Comments on: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:11:48 -0800

It's morning in America again -- but for the thousands of committed gay couples who got married in California [warning: Dan Fogelberg music, sweet visuals], the long nightmare of intolerance and hate is not yet over with the probable victory of Proposition 8. Supported by the anti-equality stances of Sarah Palin and "divinely" inspired others, and paid for by members of the Mormon Church and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, many of the ads for Prop. 8 featured the faces of Obama and Joe Biden, who declared their opposition to the initiative but refused to support equal marriage rights for all, preferring to talk about "civil unions." Even excellent Democratic-leaning politics sites like Talking Points Memo were saturated with the deceptive ads, which overwhelmed those comparing the proposition to other forms of discrimination in California's history.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:15:47 -0800

I wasn't expecting to feel proud of my country and deeply ashamed of my state at the same time today.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:16:32 -0800

I was so happy last night watching Obama win. Such promise for our country, such hope. This morning I'm despondent about 8. I live in Calfornia, I'm gay. And the people of my state just voted against my civil rights. It feels very personal.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:17:48 -0800

For the record, yes, I am a legally married gay man. While the legal status of my marriage to my partner of 14 years is now in doubt, I am ready to fight for it.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:18:15 -0800

Is there anything that can be done should prop 8 pass?

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:19:36 -0800

I must say one of the strangest moments in this very strange election cycle happened, for me, when I learned that the Mormons, of all people, were lecturing others about what is a normal marriage, and what isn't.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:20:03 -0800

Indeed. Supplementing with the FPP I was cobbling together: Mendacious Amendation: Separate and Unequal. the geography of prejudice Amidst last night and this morning's electoral euphoria, a massive downer lurks: California appears to be on the verge of passing Proposition 8, amending the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. ------- As early as 7PM PST exit polls suggested that Proposition 8 was on its way to a narrow passage, upsetting expectations. As the Times article mentions, this issue has split heterosexual voters along lines of ethnicity and age. Another dynamic worthy of note is the huge amount of money that has flowed into both sides of the campaign from all 50 states; especially from Mormons through groups such as Mormons for 8 and Protect Marriage. Fundraising patterns within the state are also interesting. Some interesting filters can be applied to the L.A. Times' interactive map, including ethnicity, income, and voting history . (some of these links may be duplicates, I haven't fully checked for older posts, or all the links above.) The opposition to Prop 8 hasn't conceded yet, although it doesn't look good. Reversing this decision needs to be Prop 1 on the next California ballot.

By: kaseijin

kaseijin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:20:08 -0800

That sucks. My heart goes out to my gay (and married, for now) friends in CA.

By: pearlybob

pearlybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:21:27 -0800

I'm in Georgia and was really hoping that California would start the tide turning a little bit for my gay friends and loved ones. What happened?? I'm crushed.

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:23:53 -0800

oh, and even if it's impossible to sugarcoat such a painful setback, I'd like to remind my progressive friends in California and elsewhere that, once you break the numbers down to voter age, the older the voter, in average the higher the opposition to gay marriage. I know time is a factor when you're being discriminated against, and your love is somehow considered unworthy of legal recognition, but time is on our side. with painful stuff like Proposition 8 they can only delay what's going to happen, and sooner than they think.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:24:21 -0800

Arkansas's Initiative 1 passed. Adoption is now limited to people who are married, in Arkansas. Overall the state-level ballot initiatives about social issues have some good news, some bad for civil liberties, gay rights, and reproductive freedom.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:24:48 -0800

I must say one of the strangest moments in this very strange election cycle happened, for me, when I learned that the Mormons, of all people, were lecturing others about what is a normal marriage, and what isn't. The way one (non-practicing) Mormon presented it to me was basically "well if we can't get married like we want to, neither should they." Dunno if that's the official version, but it's pathetic...

By: the dief

the dief — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:24:50 -0800

I wish that everybody who voted for Prop 8 in California could come to Canada and see just what a complete and utter non-issue gay marriage is. Nobody here even gives a wet slap about it -- I don't think any candidates in the last election cycle made it an issue, and the sky hasn't fallen. It's just so completely utterly normal. It's seriously no big deal at all.

By: cal71

cal71 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:25:41 -0800

This is painful, especially when coupled with the ballot measures in Arizona and Florida against gay marriage, and the shameful, hateful, and ill advised law in Arkansas banning gay couples from adopting. That one stings profoundly, and as a gay man and an advocate for vulnerable children, I feel confident saying that it is one of the dumbest decisions American voters have ever made. So many children need loving homes and no gay couple has a child they do not want, or an accidental child. I am sickened by this and sad for all those couples in California whose love is being put to a popular vote. But if last night proved anything, it is that the arc of the universe does indeed bend toward justice.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:25:54 -0800

matteo I was just looking through those stats on cnn.com and yes, young voters in most places voted very differently from the oldest demographic, while the middle-aged voters tended to vote somewhere inbetween. Very striking trends.

By: Hypnotic Chick

Hypnotic Chick — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:27:04 -0800

Wow, people in CA voted for Obama and Prop 8? Meanwhile, my state "protected" marriage (68% voted for Amendment 2). How did this ticket get split?

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:27:13 -0800

Also, friends in CA were telling me about fake Obama robocalls telling people to vote YES (despite Obama being against it).

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:27:30 -0800

and ill advised law in Arkansas banning gay couples from adopting. It bans unmarried straight people from adopting there, too. Today is not a good day for child advocates in Arkansas.

By: Saxon Kane

Saxon Kane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:27:38 -0800

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:28:05 -0800

This hurts. Americans voted to take rights away from other Americans, to make them second-class citizens. Not really sure what to say.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:29:07 -0800

And there's the horrible, painful irony that it the large African-American turnout inspired by Obama may have helped swing things Prop 8's way. I can absolutely understand why Obama thought he couldn't risk energising the religious right by coming out more forcefully against it - but god, I wish he'd felt he had the political capital to spend on a trip to California on Monday, to say "if you vote for me but also vote for Prop 8, then you're missing the entire fucking point."

By: mandymanwasregistered

mandymanwasregistered — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:29:22 -0800

We passed some mormons the other day with signs that said things like "prop 8=free speech" and "less government". It was odd.

By: chillmost

chillmost — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:29:39 -0800

Can't the California Supreme Court just say, "Uh, no. We already said it was unconstitutional"? Or do they have to rule on this specific law as well?

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:29:39 -0800

They gave Californians the Christian Finger. Really. . . Check the Members of the Mormon Church link, just under Kevin Seymour's name. If the last 8 years have taught us anything, it is the detrimental effect of the Christian Finger on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By: marginaliana

marginaliana — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:29:55 -0800

Oh, matteo, I hope you're right. I cheered last night and wept this morning. This XKCD strip is a perfect metaphor for how anti-gay marriage seems to me. "You know, caring about someone doesn't make you a real person. Guys? Didn't you hear me?? Stop loving each other! *stomps foot*"

By: Manhasset

Manhasset — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:30:16 -0800

Time to pull out my "Fuck you, old man." t-shirt. It's been in a drawer for 25 years.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:31:42 -0800

digaman - While the doctrine of ex post facto law is slipperly when applied to the states (as the protections in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution apply only to Federal criminal law) I would be very surprised if any attempt to invalidate marriages retroactively succeeded. xmutex - we can flip the switch right back in the next California election. We need an immediate response that educates Californians as to the degree to which this issue was manipulated by out of state interests.

By: uncleozzy

uncleozzy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:31:56 -0800

You know, I like to think that I'm generally pretty good about at least understanding the many viewpoints on an issue. But the "flip side" here is so far afield that I just can't grasp it. Fuck you, anybody, anywhere, who voted for hate.

By: Saxon Kane

Saxon Kane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:33:20 -0800

mandy- Here is Arizona, the anti-Prop 102 campaign (Prop 102 being the "protect traditional marriage" amendment) used the small government rhetoric, saying that we should keep politicians out of marriage and vote down the amendment. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Although, I wonder if campaign slogans confused some people; the pro-amendment group used the slogan "Vote Yes! for marriage!" It is possible that a few people on either side may have voted the wrong way. They should ask for a do-over.

By: RakDaddy

RakDaddy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:33:33 -0800

Dammit, dammit, dammit, dammit, dammit.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:35:02 -0800

chillmost-- the way this worked was that California previously passed a ballot initiative explicitly banning gay marriage. The California Supreme Court then ruled that the ban violated the state constitution. So, this time around, Prop 8 directly amended the Constitution of California to restrict marriage (harder to do than pass an initiative.) There's nothing the courts can do (aside from dealing with election law challenges to the validity of the result) until we can re-amend the other way.

By: phaedon

phaedon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:35:22 -0800

This should be an interesting 4 years.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:35:38 -0800

"intolerance and hate" Not exactly a fair characterization of what motivated many of those who voted for the proposition. And not a good start for the new day of "reaching across the aisle." Just sayin'.

By: yellowbinder

yellowbinder — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:36:02 -0800

This is very sad. So what happens now? Are all those couples who got married no longer married? And where does the fight go? How do you go about getting a state constitutional amendment repealed? While this gay Canadian is excited about an Obama presidency, my heart breaks for my US brethren. Stay strong.

By: Saxon Kane

Saxon Kane — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:36:18 -0800

MarshallPoe: What do you think the motivation is, then?

By: majick

majick — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:37:10 -0800

"How did this ticket get split?" One theory -- and I've yet to see much data supporting it apart from passing mention in the papers -- is that the Obama machine pushed AA and Hispanic voters to the polls; those same voters were largely churchgoers who were given the message weekly by religious authorities that they should vote in favor of the proposition. Superficially it makes sense, but I'm hesitant to pin the blame for enshrining discrimination with the force of the law on black and Latino citizens who seem like they should know better. The prop's supporters were putting some baffling and nonsensical shit on the television, and, hey, we're all susceptible to being bamboozled by the baffling and nonsensical shit on the television.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:37:43 -0800

I hear ya, snuffle, but I didn't want to be one of a handful of gay people who were allowed to get legally married before the dark ages descended again. The vile Byron York of the untrustworthy National Review Online credits minority voters with passing the bill.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:38:09 -0800

Not exactly a fair characterization of what motivated many of those who voted for the proposition. And not a good start for the new day of "reaching across the aisle." Just sayin'. I'd say its entirely fair, and I don't reach across the aisles to try and bargain with intolerance.

By: sindark

sindark — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:38:20 -0800

It’s a shame the open-mindedness demonstrated in the presidential election didn’t extend to some of the ballot initiative races that took place. I remain confident that, in fifty years, we will view bans on gay marriage as just as reprehensible and absurd as we would view a ban on interracial marriage today. The pathetic bigotry that drives voters to amend their state constitutions to strip basic rights from their fellow citizens is a demonstration that the slow process of building a tolerant and empathetic society, even within a single state, has a long way to go.

By: Salvor Hardin

Salvor Hardin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:38:42 -0800

So the state constitution of California now prohibits gay marriage? Heteronormative marriage is now part of the legal bedrock of California. That's just so...embarrassing! Well, at least the f%@&ing sanctity of marriage is safe from the spooky corrupting influence of the gays, right?

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:39:23 -0800

Anyone who voted for Obama in California and thought they were striking some kind of blow for civil rights and didn't vote against 8 at the same time should be very fucking ashamed of themselves right now. This is a fundamental issue of human rights.

By: batmonkey

batmonkey — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:41:52 -0800

Man. We've got a lot of work to do.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:42:14 -0800

To be far there's a whole lot of lies attached to gayness that get perpetuated and often people just don't have enough firsthand knowledge to know how deeply untrue they are. There's a strong misconception that gay men molest children. It's ridiculous, but it fuels these "we can't let them adopt, it's bad for the kids" malarkey. That and the idea that children need two parents, one of each gender. Statistics do not support that but some "pro-family" (anti your kind of family) groups funded crappy studies that they can cite as evidence that kids raised by gay or single parents have more substance abuse or what have you. There was wording about that in the Arkansas measure originally that was challenged and removed. The best thing to fight this with is knowledge, really. Gay parents? Not what you may think if you don't know any.

By: bibliowench

bibliowench — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:42:15 -0800

This pisses me off so much, and I don't want to be pissed off, today of all days. I hate to think that that many people would vote for a measure that does nothing for their everyday lives, but that takes rights away from other people. Your interpretation of religion tells you that gays are inferior - fuck you and your version of god! If Adam and Steve get the benefits of marriage - legal and psychological - your day-to-day life doesn't change one fucking bit - except for that pesky realization that perspectives you disagree with might be legitimized. Sorry the thought of gay sex disgusts you. That's a perfect reason to deny this group the legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy. I wish we could separate religious marriage from legal unions. Give people all the rights and benefits of marriage, but make the religious aspect something akin to baptism or confirmation: a ritual that has no ramifications outside that religion. Then people could discriminate against whomever they wanted in their place of worship but would have to act like fucking grown-ups the other six days of the week. I'm not knocking religion in general - my father is an Episcopal priest who performs commitment ceremonies and is incredibly depressed by the association of his calling with this sort of intolerance. He's just as angry as I am, although he probably uses a lot fewer "fucks" in his rants.

By: oblio_one

oblio_one — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:42:47 -0800

I was shocked this passed, a real downer on otherwise exciting election results. I wonder the same thing as chillmost, shouldn't the supreme court overturn this, can anyone explain the details of how that works?

By: lunit

lunit — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:43:04 -0800

This is really sad. What? I'm super emotional today.

By: pointless_incessant_barking

pointless_incessant_barking — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:43:57 -0800

This makes me very sad. While most of us are reveling in a historic victory, others are waking up to find out that the loves of their lives... are not legally theirs, any longer.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:44:21 -0800

This country is surreal. I, once again, resign from Team Sanity. Phbrbrwieoghjitit.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:45:29 -0800

Marshall, while I agree that now is not the time to pit oppressed minorities against one another as the Yes on Proposition 8 forces were happy to do, it wasn't pandering to segregationists and slave-owners that put an end to slave auctions and WHITES ONLY schools and water fountains. It was brave acts of civil disobedience and the force of law.

By: cashman

cashman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:46:03 -0800

We've got more work to do. I know a lot of these people, and now I have a lot of conversations that must occur. I'm going to try and start tonight while this feeling of being included in America is fresh in their minds. I'm going to use every excuse they give me against them. "But this old religious book tells me not to" - but that book was used to discriminate against you too. I guess a few of the people I'd like to talk to don't live in the states that passed this crap, but people need to be educated anyway.

By: A Terrible Llama

A Terrible Llama — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:46:52 -0800

This is heartbreaking, but it's a setback and no match at all for history--there will be gay marriage in this country, and I'd say nationally, within ten years. Enjoy it while you can, you turdly little bigots.

By: aliceinreality

aliceinreality — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:48:52 -0800

I was really hoping that this wouldn't pass. At least, though, Amendment 48 in Colorado didn't pass. But I still wish my faith in California had been realized.

By: Reverend John

Reverend John — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:49:18 -0800

Well, as a few have noticed, the people who supported 8 are old, and as they die off, support for gay marriage will increase. Hopefully prop 8 will be repealed some time in the not too distant future, and in the meantime at least the anti-8 folks can take some schadenfreude in the obits. Another thing has occurred to me, however. Prop 8 was needed by the anti-gay-marriage folks because the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay folks from getting married violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. So the anti-gay-marriage folks amended the California Constitution to say: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. That is, only heterosexual marriages are valid or recognized *IF* any are valid or recognized at all. Could a legal argument be made that, since marriage is now inherently discriminatory, the state should not recognize any marriage since the constitution guarantees equal protection, and instead, now, everyone, gay or straight can only get a civil union from the state, and if they want a marriage that's strictly a private religious affair? Maybe not right now, since it would just be followed up with another ballot initiative, but, say, 403,000 deaths from now.

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:49:45 -0800

Intolerance and hate is Not exactly a fair characterization of what motivated many of those who voted for the proposition. And not a good start for the new day of "reaching across the aisle." Just sayin'.? Did you hear any of the radio ads that FALSELY CLAIMED that allowing gay marriages to stand would mean that children would be "taught gay marriage in schools"? Vicious lies of this sort sound exactly like intolerance and hate to me.

By: uncleozzy

uncleozzy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:49:59 -0800

I know it doesn't mean a thing, but I think I'll get married by a justice of the peace in CT when the time comes. It just seems like the right thing to do. Plus, hey, Cracker Barrel.

By: treepour

treepour — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:50:57 -0800

I'm trying so hard to remain optimistic about Obama's victory, but it's really hard waking up to learn that you're once again a second-class citizen. Kind of like winning the lottery and losing a loved one at exactly the same moment. No, more like having one of the lottery officials take that loved one away from you. Wow, it really, really hurts. Much more than I thought it would. I thought I'd braced myself, but I hadn't. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'll confess there's a small part of me that's finding bitter solace by entertaining the notion that the marriages of every motherfucker who promoted this vile piece of psuedo-legislation will dissolve in the poison of their hatred.

By: A Terrible Llama

A Terrible Llama — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:53:34 -0800

Did you hear any of the radio ads that FALSELY CLAIMED that allowing gay marriages to stand would mean that children would be "taught gay marriage in schools"? What a bizarre notion. It's not like they're taught "straight marriage." I can't even imagine the context, or the scene.

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:53:49 -0800

By: sugarfish

sugarfish — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:54:41 -0800

Good job, Arkansas, on clearing out your foster care system so that there are no children looking for loving homes. And, wow, how did you fix it so that no woman ever carried a child to term and then decided that she must give it up for adoption? I mean, over here in the blue states we could use some of that knowledg-- Wait. What? I'm heartbroken over Prop 8, and of the similar measures in Arizona and Florida. Blights on what should be a jubilant day. Proof that there is so much more work to be done.

By: overglow

overglow — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:55:11 -0800

This makes me so angry. A few years ago, when Michigan passed a similar proposition, I felt like, "You don't want me here? Fine, fuck you, I'll just leave." (But I didn't actually leave.) But now California? Seriously? I'd really like to see the queer people of California do a one day strike in protest. "You don't think we should be allowed to participate in society fully and equally? Well, see what it's like without our participation." I'd also really like to grab-by-the-collar people who voted to destroy existing marriages and shake them and say, "What were you thinking!?" ...on second thought, I wouldn't. I really don't want to hear what they were thinking--I just don't want to deal with more homophobic bullshit right now.

By: mandymanwasregistered

mandymanwasregistered — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:55:45 -0800

It wasn't just old people in support of prop 8, I saw plenty of young UCLA students with their yes on 8 signs and stickers on campus (more than I was expecting, to be honest).

By: agatha_magatha

agatha_magatha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:56:42 -0800

I had a conversation with a friend here at work who is African-American--she definitely voted for Obama. Then I asked her about Prop 8 and she said she was voting "yes." I asked her why and she said that gay marriage just didn't "feel right" to her. I asked her about the fact that in her lifetime there were large parts of this country where people just didn't "feel right" about blacks and whites marrying or blacks voting (or sitting in the same seats, using the same restroom, etc.). To her, it wasn't the same thing. I just despair sometimes...I'm trying to enjoy the excitement of Obama's election, but this definitely adds a sour note.

By: DreamerFi

DreamerFi — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:57:12 -0800

I wish that everybody who voted for Prop 8 in California could come to Canada and see just what a complete and utter non-issue gay marriage is. Or come to the Netherlands, and not only will you see what a complete and utter non-issue gay marriage is, you'll get to see pot deregulation in action as well.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:57:22 -0800

Could a legal argument be made that, since marriage is now inherently discriminatory, the state should not recognize any marriage since the constitution guarantees equal protection, and instead, now, everyone, gay or straight can only get a civil union from the state, and if they want a marriage that's strictly a private religious affair? That's an interesting question. I'm not sure how this sort of inconsistency is handled. I'm going to send it to a few lawyers I know/am related to and see what they say.

By: dontoine

dontoine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:57:50 -0800

I think it's shameful that protecting the children became such a large part of the Yes on 8 rhetoric. Many of those children are going to be gay adults. Won't they want the right to marry their partners? Very disappointed in my fellow Californians this morning.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:57:57 -0800

"What do you think the motivation is, then?" Well, if you read what the most mainstream of them have to say, they argue, variously, that marriage should be exclusively the right of heterosexuals because: a) the "family" as they define it is fundamental to our polity and culture; b) homosexual unions are inconsistent with their religious beliefs ("marriage" being a sacrament to them); c) heterosexual marriage is simply "our" tradition, it is not obviously inconsistent with general democratic values, and it has served "us" well. Now you or I may disagree with any or all of these positions, but attributing these arguments to "hate" is both factually questionable and not a good way to change minds. IMHO, of course.

By: Horace Rumpole

Horace Rumpole — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:58:10 -0800

"intolerance and hate" We would also have accepted "fear and ignorance".

By: giraffe

giraffe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:58:21 -0800

This very obvious attempt at legislation of morality is disgusting to me. The worst part about all of this is that there's just no arguing with people who are so vehemently against same-sex marriages that they would vote Yes on 8. The complete lack of empathy here is just baffling. These people never once thought, "how would I like it if my rights were taken from me?" This is NOT a happy day for me and I will never be happy or satisfied with this country until everyone is treated equally. Hope and Change don't matter to me if not everyone can have them.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:58:23 -0800

chillmost-- the way this worked was that California previously passed a ballot initiative explicitly banning gay marriage. If the same thing passed before, why did people think it would be different this time?

By: treepour

treepour — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:58:47 -0800

Prop 8's passing is Vader's TIE Interceptor spinning away from the exploding Death Star that was Obama's victory. It will be back to cause trouble again and again before it realizes just how wrong it is and hurls itself down a power shaft. Thank you, robocop is bleeding. You just made me smile on a morning I thought I couldn't possibly smile.

By: scody

scody — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:00:35 -0800

snuffleupaugus is right: the fucked-up thing about amending the constitution in this state (which can be done by a simple majority!!!!) is that it puts it out of the hands of the CA Supreme Court. For it to be invalidated, it would have to be found unconstitutional (either as a violation of due process or equal protection) at the federal level. I do think that the high turnout from black and Latino voters may have had something to do with it; the churches in those communities are both powerful and, by and large, not good on this question. One priest who dared come out (both as a gay man and as a Prop 8 opponent) was removed from his post (LA Times). But while that's one angle, I think the bigger picture (which I've yet to really parse out, as I'm so heartsick over this) will certainly involve the distorted, vicious scare campaign of the Pro-8 side and, frankly, what I consider the Anti-8 side's fairly mediocre campaign, which relied too long on fuzzy abstractions (essentially, "equality for all") and failed to get a clearer message/slogan out aggressively (essentially, "stop discrimination") till the last 3 weeks or so. I mean, I know plenty of people -- smart, well-informed, progressive folks -- who weren't clear till a few days ago that being FOR gay marriage meant a NO vote on Prop 8.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:00:37 -0800

I'll go back in a second and read all the comments here, but what I want to say is: This is such a bittersweet day. I am over the moon about President-elect Obama (President-elect Obama!). And yet, my heart is breaking.

By: killy willy

killy willy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:00:45 -0800

$74 million was spent on Prop 8 (for and against). What else could that money have bought? How many hungry Californians would that feed for a year? How many struggling families could have paid their mortgages? What a fucking waste, just to stop people who are in love from being together in the eyes of the law. As a Californian, I am embarrassed and ashamed.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:01:08 -0800

I feel less bad than I should that a few times when reading this thread, and other coverage of this, my mind has read the word "Mormon" as "Moron".

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:02:45 -0800

Here's what I'm looking at in the California Constitution (Art. II, §8) (d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect. (e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political subdivision. There's probably a case to be made about this referendum under (e), but until I parse out exactly what (e) means, I couldn't tell you what it is. I was going to say that a brilliant, if cheeky, attorney could argue against Prop 8 on the basis of (d), saying that the need to "defend" marriage and taking rights away from gay Americans are two completely unrelated subjects, but looking at the ballot language, Prop 8 doesn't even pretend to have any positive effect. It is, flat out, only for the purpose of taking rights away from a select group at no benefit to anyone. Seriously - what the fuck, California?

By: A Terrible Llama

A Terrible Llama — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:03:41 -0800

I asked her why and she said that gay marriage just didn't "feel right" to her It would have been nice if she could have expressed this by not marrying a woman, as opposed to preventing other women from marrying other women.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:03:49 -0800

It wasn't just old people in support of prop 8, I saw plenty of young UCLA students with their yes on 8 signs and stickers on campus (more than I was expecting, to be honest). Yeah but the overall trend was very generational. Stats: 18-29 (20%) 37% YES 63% NO 30-44 (28%) 53% YES 47% NO 45-64 (36%) 53% YES 47% NO 65 and Older (16%) 59% YES 41% NO

By: Salvor Hardin

Salvor Hardin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:05:08 -0800

This just in: New scientific research shows that the main factor in protecting the sanctity of your marriage is......you! And your spouse. What an interesting result! It turns out that in earlier research which indicated that the main factor in marital success was the nearby concentration of gay marriages, a researcher forgot to convert kilograms to pounds and did not carry the 3. Gay marriage concentration, oddly enough, is not correlated with, well, anything. Alright! Glad that's cleared up. I can has revote now?

By: adoarns

adoarns — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:05:09 -0800

What gets me is this is only a semantic victory. One woman interviewed by the LA Times said, "We aren’t trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want—it doesn’t change anything that they’re allowed to do already." And certainly, gays aren't going away, nor are they going to stop living together or having families, simply because the law says they can't be married. But this seems like a policy crisis to me: anywhere from several hundred thousand to over a million people who may want to form stable families are cut off from significant benefits and protections because they can't be married. Seems like something someone might want to rectify somehow. The way I see it, the opponents of gay marriage fight ferociously for something that offers very little real harm to them if allowed, but considerable harm to others if prohibited. That aspect of it, it seems unfair and it seems majoritarian in the worst sense of the word.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:05:27 -0800

The best response to this is via the referendum process. [from Wikipedia:] California ballot proposition is a method of amending California law (either the California Constitution or California Statutes) through the initiative and referendum process. In the state of California, state laws may be proposed directly by the public, as well as the state's Constitution may be amended either by public petition or by the legislature submitting a proposed constitutional amendment to the electorate. The process of allowing the public to propose legislation or constitutional amendments is called the initiative. The process of the state legislature proposing Constitutional amendments is called a referendum. The process occurs in one of two ways. 1. First, the California Legislature may pass an act which is signed by the governor, proposing a state constitutional amendment, which is then submitted to the voters as a referendum at the next statewide election. If more than 50% of the voters approve the referendum then the constitutional amendment is approved and goes into effect. 2. Second, the general public may propose via the initiative, either amendments to the state constitution or the creation of new statute laws, which is done by writing a proposed constitutional amendment or statute as a petition, and submitting the petition to the California Attorney General ..and obtaining signatures on petitions from registered voters ...the signed petitions are then sent to Secretary of State of California for validation of signatures. With sufficient pressure on the Legislature and the Governor can get rid of this cancer in two years. The campaign starts today.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:06:09 -0800

Could prop 8 be found unconstitutional at this point?

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:06:54 -0800

Salvor Hardin, thanks for that link. This is the one thing that pisses me off, too. Not that I want unhappy couples tied together, I don't think everyone takes marriage as serious as that "eternal bond" that it used to be. There are fsking shows like Rock Of Love and Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire, but there is no public outcry about keeping marriage sacred. Ballotpedia has good background on this proposition, noting that "[i]n 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. Prop. 22 was a statutory change via the initiative process, not a constitutional change via the initiative process." Prop 8 would change the State Constitution, so would this prevent the courts from striking the proposition down as unconstitutional? Or is "separate but equal" valid for marriages / civil unions?

By: emd3737

emd3737 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:07:24 -0800

Sucks. I'm glad I'm from Massachusetts. The whole thing about gay marriage that I haven't been able to mentally grasp is that, if you aren't gay, why would care what gay people do? Christ, it's not like they're making gay marriage mandatory.

By: ChaoticIndustry

ChaoticIndustry — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:10:30 -0800

Here I am in Canada, looking to the US where I was raised, overjoyed to see Obama has won such a sound victory, and absolutely horrified and saddened to learn that Prop 8 somehow managed to slide through. I look at the mega-churches and the insanity of misplaced religious zeal and I shake my head...truly bewildering. We've had gay marriage here for a while now and nothing has happened. Nothing. The family is intact, people are still having children and life is pretty much rolling along as normal. Canada emerged from the whole gay marriage thing completely unscathed. I mean, really, let's be sensible. Marriage is such a personal, private thing. And yet, there are those who assert that they have the right to validate or veto marriage according to their own personal beliefs? Someone in an earlier post bristled at the use of the term "intolerance." But that is EXACTLY what it is. Pure and simple. Intolerance. All I hope is that we someday, somehow find a way to love and respect one another and embrace our differences. Idealistic of me, I know, but that is how I feel. Fear is a nasty thing. Peace.

By: Xere

Xere — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:13:21 -0800

I've been going through teh interwebs for the latest on Prop 8, and I keep coming across photos of Yes on 8 people celebrating, falling into prayer. And I think to myself every. fucking. time. : You bigots. I'm disgusted. I thought California knew better than to vote yes on 8. Okay, half of California. Because the rest of us voted no.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:14:44 -0800

Well, if you read what the most mainstream of them have to say What the mainstream had to say was that gays were recruiting their kids through the public school system, that laws had to be enacted to put a stop to the gays because of it, and this particular law was conveniently available to rally everyone around. Replace 'gays' with 'Jews' and that approach sounds like circa-1930s Nazi Germany-style hate and intolerance to me. What's not helpful is to sugarcoat what these bigots did.

By: A Terrible Llama

A Terrible Llama — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:15:00 -0800

"What do you think the motivation is, then?" Well, if you read what the most mainstream of them have to say, they argue, variously, that marriage should be exclusively the right of heterosexuals because: a) the "family" as they define it is fundamental to our polity and culture; b) homosexual unions are inconsistent with their religious beliefs ("marriage" being a sacrament to them); c) heterosexual marriage is simply "our" tradition, it is not obviously inconsistent with general democratic values, and it has served "us" well. Now you or I may disagree with any or all of these positions, but attributing these arguments to "hate" is both factually questionable and not a good way to change minds. IMHO, of course. I'm genuinely trying to understand this and I feel like the fact that I can't is a failure of imagination, an inability to put myself in their position. Even though I'm very pro-choice, I understand that pro-life people believe that abortion is the Killing of a Baby -- that they're not immoral assholes, they just believe some different kind of improvable thing than I do. I get it. I'll work against them and root for the failures of their political aims, but I get it. This, I just don't understand. I don't understand their idea that a male/female/baby family is the basic unit of human society. It's not science, it's not chemistry, this isn't something you look at in a lab and say, ah, there it is -- the fundamental core of what makes our species go vroom, unless you're just talking about reproduction and world-wide, I think we've got it covered. Are they saying then that infertile heterosexual couples are an exception and they too are less than? Secondly, there's all kinds of disparate religious beliefs that they do tolerate. I mean, maybe because they have to. But saying 'our marriage is the only marriage that counts'--what does that mean? Do the marriages in other religions also not count? I just don't understand.

By: Law Talkin' Guy

Law Talkin' Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:18:20 -0800

A question for the constitutional scholars out there: can a supreme court (state or federal) rule that an amendment to a constitution is unconstitutional? It seems like a contradiction in terms, but is it possible to say, "this part of the constitution directly conflicts with this part (or the whole) so it's got to go"? No, as to the California Supreme Court. The role of the courts is to interpret and apply constitutional principles, not pick and choose among them to decide which to keep and which to excise in favor of their values. You're right in pointing out a conflict between the amendment created by Prop 8 and other provisions of the CA constitution that were interpreted to protect gay marriage based on equal protection. And you're right in saying that, as the interpreter of the California Constitution, California's Supreme Court is responsible for reconciling conflicts between different provisions. However, California's Supreme Court doesn't have limitless discretion in its task of interpreting and reconciling its Constitution. The interpretations have to be rational and consistent with the clear purpose of the Constitution. Given the context for Prop 8, it's obvious that the clear purpose of the constitutional amendment it created was to redefine the guarantees of equal protection under the California Constitution as they concerned marriage. But, all is not lost. The above applies to the California State Supreme Court. Because the California state Constitution serves as the upper bound of California law, there's nothing the state Supreme Court can do. However, the federal Constitution says, in Art. VI, cl. 2 that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." In other words, federal law trumps state law, and the federal Constitution trumps state constitutions. SCOTUS may shift considerably during the Obama administration, especially if it extends to two terms. If the (new) liberal contingent on the Court becomes more active in sphere of gay rights, it's entirely possible we could see a ruling from SCOTUS interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of Art. 14 of the U.S. Constitution to protect gay marriage on a far wider scale. Such a ruling would invalidate Prop 8, and every other state ban on gay marriage, at the same time. To the skeptics out there, remember that it was as recently as 1996 that the Rehnquist courtintervened to strike down a Colorado ban on antidiscrimination laws protecting homosexuals. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). To boot, Justice Kennedy, the critical swing vote on the current Roberts court before Obama even makes any nominations, authored the majority opinion in Romer. In it he expressed deep concerns about a state constitutional provision that singled out homosexuals on a classwide basis for targeted deprivation of rights. There's definitely a parallel to be made with Prop 8. There is of course the theoretical possibility of federal legislation that similarly preempts Prop 8 and other state laws, but that seems far less likely in this political climate, particularly given all the other ideological battles that will play out in D.C. starting in 2009. The Republicans still have the filibuster in their arsenal (at least as of the time I make this post), so I don't think it's likely that Dems will take the political risks involved with pressing the gay marriage issue in a legislative forum. Nevertheless, in answer to the question posed above, the answer is yes.

By: scody

scody — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:19:00 -0800

Could prop 8 be found unconstitutional at this point? At the federal level, yes. But an amendment to the state constitution puts it out of reach of the very state supreme court that already found marriage discrimination to be unconstitutional. This really goes to how deeply, profoundly, fucked. up. the California initiative system is. (As if the fruits of Prop 13 hadn't already shown that for the past 30 years, but I digress.) OK. *deep breath* As they say: DON'T MOURN; ORGANIZE. This is going to be a long, hard fight.

By: arcticwoman

arcticwoman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:19:07 -0800

I am a Canadian married lesbian, and this morning, while I was tearing up with happiness over your election results, I was crying with despair for your gay citizens. I suppose it could have been worse (McCain and Prop 8 could have both won). I guess I don't have anything to say other than that and that I don't understand. I just don't understand.

By: majick

majick — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:19:20 -0800

"Yeah but the overall trend was very generational." I brought up the subject of race above, and it would be irresponsible not to at least put some sort of data about it out there. It looks like there was indeed a racial demographic component here, and it's pronounced. How much of that ties to the Obama get-out-the-vote effort is another matter entirely. Vote by race: White (63%) 47% YES 53% NO African-American (10%) 70% YES 30% NO Latino (19%) 51% YES 49% NO Asian (6%) 47% YES 53% NO Other (3%) 50% YES 50% NO Is This the First Year You Have Ever Voted? Yes (14%) 36% YES on 8 64% NO on 8 No (86%) 55% YES on 8 45% NO on 8

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:19:28 -0800

I think its a temporary setback. Its heartbreaking, and in light of their history its infuriating that so many blacks are so bigoted, but in the long run this is only a setback. I don't think the Mormons can do the kind of intensive and expensive campaign they did this time again. There's a very good chance we can get this obscenity removed from the California state constitution next election. I hope that my fellow liberals in California are already out gathering the necessary signatures to get Prop 8 repealed.

By: Legomancer

Legomancer — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:20:33 -0800

Women, blacks, now gays. Why do we have to keep fighting the same fights over and over, one at a time?

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:20:45 -0800

Prop 8 would change the State Constitution, so would this prevent the courts from striking the proposition down as unconstitutional? Or is "separate but equal" valid for marriages / civil unions? In theory? Maybe. In reality: Roberts. Scalia. Thomas. Alito..... and given Bowers v. Hardwick, Kennedy too. So....it's a nice thought, but probably not.

By: seanmpuckett

seanmpuckett — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:24:34 -0800

Ya know what would be awesome? If Barack and Michelle, now that he's elected, introduced a fifth family member; perhaps named something like Kevin -- a tall, white, bisexual accountant from Chicago. The girls could run up to him as he steps onto the platform and grab his hands and smile and call him "Daddytoo" and then everyone would hug and smile as a big family, turn towards the cameras and crowd and wave, arms together as one. And then there would be a stunned silence, and roughly half the country would keel over dead, and the other half would blink, shrug, smile, and start cheering. I'd like that.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:25:34 -0800

"Replace 'gays' with 'Jews' and that approach sounds like circa-1930s Nazi Germany-style hate and intolerance to me." With all due respect, that's a bit of a Godwin. The analogy, well, isn't a very good one. Moreover, I doubt very much that calling millions of well-intentioned, sincere Catholics and Protestants "Nazis" will help the cause much. If I'm not mistaken, Obama himself "personally believes" that marriage should be between a man and women. To my knowledge he is neither a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. I liked A Terrible Llama's post a lot. I too am confused. But I would say this: it is the essence of Conservatism to honor and maintain that which is old and has worked, even if it is imperfectly. Exclusively heterosexual marriage is very old and has worked very well. The context in which it worked has changed, and the institution must change as well. But it will take time, and perhaps it should.

By: teylini

teylini — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:26:01 -0800

I am so ashamed. My mormon parents donated money to that bigoted cause. I ran from the mormon church as soon as I was able, but my parents are still devote, brainwashed, followers. I think the LDS church should lose its tax-exempt status for spending so much money on Prop 8. It just isn't right to have utah push its agenda on California.

By: limnrix

limnrix — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:28:11 -0800

My fiance and I have been postponing our straight marriage in protest for years. We'd set a date and were going to marry in California next year. Now I don't know what we're doing. I am so angry.

By: SpiffyRob

SpiffyRob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:29:51 -0800

My deepest condolences to everyone affected, directly or otherwise, by this and all of the other hateful, fearful ballot measures.

By: aerotive

aerotive — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:30:29 -0800

As an Arkansan I'm profoundly disappointed that the adoption (read anti-gay) proposition passed. The polling on it was way off--it had looked like it would be defeated, and it was the only statewide proposition with a well-funded No (read pro-children) campaign. There'll be a court challenge, with perhaps a 50% chance of overturning it. Hopefully sanity and equal protection will win out.

By: A Terrible Llama

A Terrible Llama — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:31:58 -0800

My fiance and I have been postponing our straight marriage in protest for years. We'd set a date and were going to marry in California next year. Now I don't know what we're doing. I am so angry. This made me think of this poem, from Jack Gilbert: A Brief for the Defense Sorrow everywhere. Slaughter everywhere. If babies are not starving someplace, they are starving somewhere else. With flies in their nostrils. But we enjoy our lives because that's what God wants. Otherwise the mornings before summer dawn would not be made so fine. The Bengal tiger would not be fashioned so miraculously well. The poor women at the fountain are laughing together between the suffering they have known and the awfulness in their future, smiling and laughing while somebody in the village is very sick. There is laughter every day in the terrible streets of Calcutta, and the women laugh in the cages of Bombay. If we deny our happiness, resist our satisfaction, we lessen the importance of their deprivation. We must risk delight. We can do without pleasure, but not delight. Not enjoyment. We must have the stubbornness to accept our gladness in the ruthless furnace of this world. To make injustice the only measure of our attention is to praise the Devil. If the locomotive of the Lord runs us down, we should give thanks that the end had magnitude. We must admit there will be music despite everything. We stand at the prow again of a small ship anchored late at night in the tiny port looking over to the sleeping island: the waterfront is three shuttered cafés and one naked light burning. To hear the faint sound of oars in the silence as a rowboat comes slowly out and then goes back is truly worth all the years of sorrow that are to come.

By: snuffleupagus

snuffleupagus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:32:10 -0800

Reversing myself: as per Law Talkin Guy's post above, there may be reason to hope that SCOTUS might intervene. Although I still think getting a referendum to reverse this onto the 2010 ballot immediately is a good idea.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:33:19 -0800

Marshall, Godwin aside, you're being very convenient and selective with your notion of "what worked." If marriage and committed relationships are something that has worked well for society as a while, they should be available to any member of society within the usual limits. I somehow doubt that you would have been opposing Loving v. Virginia on the basis of the idea that preventing mixed-race marriages had "worked" so well for so long. I wish you luck with unraveling your confusion. You might start by putting yourself in my place and asking yourself how you would feel if a slim majority of the voters in your state, convinced by a deceptive multimillion dollar ad campaign, had just voted to strip you and your longtime partner of your marriage license because he or she was black or white.

By: cashman

cashman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:34:56 -0800

African-American (10%) 70% YES 30% NO Gah. I'm already shaking my head at the mere thought of the stupidity that will be displayed as we relieve these people of their ignorant and hypocritical views. I don't even know anybody in California, but I know word will get over there if I talk to enough people. I'm ashamed of that figure, but I'm going to stick with the ethic of making a difference I picked up during this campaign, and confront some folks. Pray for me, as I try to logically reason with people I've known for decades while resisting the urge to yell "dummies!" multiple times while they try to navigate their way through this blatant hypocrisy. I'm going to just mouth "what the fuck" like Blade fighting Deacon Frost, and keep battling.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:35:11 -0800

I doubt very much that calling millions of ~~well-intentioned, sincere Catholics and Protestants~~Good Germans "Nazis" will help the cause much. FTFY

By: Mastercheddaar

Mastercheddaar — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:35:25 -0800

I previously had mixed up religious views on gay marriage. Thanks to this site and a few good people I was set straight on the issues and saw the other side of things. I still hold my beliefs but it is wrong for religious lizard brain type to take something away from the gay/lesbian community. They are trying to force their beliefs on people. If two people that love each other get marriage and share the same rights as them, how does this effect them in anyway, shape, or form? This is wrong. I honestly feel bad.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:36:57 -0800

All entreaties about "putting government in the hands of the people" aside, it's simply not a good idea to make amending a constitution as easy as gaining a simple majority in an open election. The whole point of our form of government is to make mob rule as difficult as possible, and to protect smaller groups from the current whims of the majority. Ballot proposition systems simply degrade and cheapen the whole concept of lawmaking and rule of law, turning it more into rule of whatever group can turn-out the larger angry crowds. At least remove the ability to amend your fucking constitution via voter prop.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:37:45 -0800

Not being a lawyer, I don't know what steps gay marriage supporters should take now. But I do think as progressives, we need to both acknowledge how wrong this is, and not freak out that there is still a lot of education to do for people who may just now be joining our tent. That's the problem with growth, the demographics change, but you have to find a way to keep your principles. And just because someone belongs to an oppressed group, doesn't meant they see themselves as having much in common with another oppressed group. Those of us who are Dems are going to have to work very hard to overcome old prejudices and intolerance inside our own party. But no matter how many Republican concern trolls point to this as our eventual doom, I think we are capable of it, and that time and history are on our side.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:38:41 -0800

What's not helpful is to sugarcoat what these bigots did. QFT. There are no justifications, no rationalizations. People can say that they're doing this because of their religious beliefs or what have you, but they are lying to you and probably to themselves as well. They have decided that their religious beliefs demand that they hate gays because they already do and they want something to back it up. Everybody who voted for this, understanding what it was (and the language was very clear) is a hateful bigot. That's over half the voters in California, apparently. California Mefites - you've got work to do.

By: Big_B

Big_B — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:39:16 -0800

Did you hear any of the radio ads that FALSELY CLAIMED that allowing gay marriages to stand would mean that children would be "taught gay marriage in schools"? And tv ads, and print ads, and posters, etc.... This was the essential framing of this proposition from what I saw. My wife, a teacher, was furious everytime these came on - she knew it was completely false. Some other observations: Another thing the Yes campaign did successfully was with signage. Everywhere you went there were "Yes on 8" signs. Yesterday on my drive to work they were literally every 20 feet for a good mile where a major road crosses the American River. Across town these signs are everywhere, with never a no sign to be found. Those that did place the No signs in their yards typically had them stolen. I never did find a source for a No sign. And then there was the sheer energy displayed in the people. I live about 3 miles from this intersection in Citrus Heights that became a hotbed of protest. Most of the time I drove through there it was primarly young people, screaming and yelling and stopping traffic. It was amazing.

By: foxy_hedgehog

foxy_hedgehog — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:39:31 -0800

a) the "family" as they define it is fundamental to our polity and culture; b) homosexual unions are inconsistent with their religious beliefs ("marriage" being a sacrament to them); c) heterosexual marriage is simply "our" tradition The trouble, MarshallPoe, is that these aren't arguments. They are subterfuge. I've never heard a clear articulation of A, which is unsurprising since you can't rationally argue that heterosexuality is a fundament of American politics and culture, or the gay marriage will somehow threaten that fundament. B is irrelevant, since this proposition applies to civil marriage. If you'll pardon the analogy, C is is a good argument for maintaining slavery in the southern United States. As your comment suggests, this is why it's so hard to "reach across the aisle" on this one. Opposition to gay marriage comes down to irrational and ignorant fears and prejudices, which forecloses the possibility of meaningful political dialogue. All we can do- as in so many other cases- is reclaim the language that Prop. 8 supporters used so bizarrely and effectively- "less government," "free speech," etc.- and try to reframe the issue. I'm confident we will. I'm just very sad it's going to take longer than I hoped.

By: melissa may

melissa may — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:39:49 -0800

I am so sorry. A lot of people got to have a chance at some rare uncomplicated joy last night. It should have been the same for gay people in California. I was disappointed during the debates on this question and I'm still sadder now. About this reaching across the aisle business: I'm sticking with the idea that Biden raised even after that disappointing statement. It simply doesn't pay to make assumptions about people's motives in politics, what drives them to oppress and harm other people. I am willing to assume that they sincerely believe they're doing good in the world because I don't have time to worry otherwise. None of us do. I was happy that no one booed when Obama mentioned Palin and McCain's names last night. I want the tone to be elevated under his administration -- I want the dignity and warmth on display last night to be its hallmark -- as they kick the everloving shit out of failed policies, poor decisions, and inequality. The more that they hear from us -- the people who got them there -- that this matters to us, the better they can do that. I believe that if we keep focused, keep pressing, we can get an Obama/Biden administration to change their stance on same-sex marriage. After last night, I believe anything.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:41:52 -0800

nthing the shock that this is. It's so bizarre that the Mormons (say wha?!) have a hand in this and funding from Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, the mother of far right mercenary and Bush crony, Erik Prince, of Blackwater fame. wtf? Holland resident Elsa Prince Broekhuizen has pumped $450,000 into a Nov. 4 California ballot issue to ban gay marriage. It is one of the largest private donations to that cause. If she, a Holland resident, can pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into an American political event, who's to say the Russians, Iranians or Afghanis couldn't do that as well? How does a foreign resident fund an American law being passed? Is that legal? If $450,000 is the officially stated amount, knowing the secrecy of this Erik Heil the Prince guy, it's probably really some millions. This woman has to be a truly malignant narcissist to have Erik Prince as a son and to fund Prop 8. "You can counter her donation here. A recent surge in small donations has made No On 8 financially competitive in a big media state." His opinions re gays: He was an intern in the White House under President George H. W. Bush and subsequently criticized that administration's policies to the Grand Rapids Press, saying: "I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with—homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kinds of bills." This is one ugly, dangerous, rich family, this malignant, conniving son and malignant mother. Truly dangerous people. Apparently Blackwater is opening up another training base in California, near San Diego. Maybe this has something to do with the Prince agenda in funding Prop 8? This will be one of the many battles ahead to work on, step by step over years, undoing the grotesque corruption of the Rove, Borgian epic mess.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:45:02 -0800

I'm not calling anyone a Nazi. But this is not Godwin -- there are certainly parallels that can be made when a state decides to write an amendment redefining the status of a despised minority into the constitution. If the good Catholics and Protestants are uncomfortable with this legitimate parallel to one of history's most obscene acts of turning a segment of the population into second class citizens, perhaps they should not participate in creating the parallel. And I don't buy the whole "defense of traditional marriage" bunkum, not for one second. It rings to me of exactly the sort of nice-sounding nonsense people always through over their bigotry, whether it is arguing that Jim Crow laws are a "state's rights" issues or that they don't hate people of color, they just "love the white race." Listen, justify it with whatever pretty words you want to; it's your actions that define you. And this was the act of writing intolerance into law, and as a nation we should be ashamed of it, and infuriated, and not feel that we must mince words for fear of hurting the feelings of the very nice people, who, with the best intentions, made the word a worse place.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:46:24 -0800

If I'm not mistaken, Obama himself "personally believes" that marriage should be between a man and women. While the wording of Prop 8 was about marriage, the reasons for voting for it had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. For supporters, a Yes vote was about "keeping homosexuality from being taught in public schools", among other non-marriage-related rationalizations. Very specifically, and quoting directly from the literature and words of Prop 8 supporters and campaigners, a vote for Prop 8 has only a marginal connection with the notion of marriage. Quoting Barack Obama's position on the issue is, frankly, a non sequitor. A Yes vote was about putting the ~~Jews~~ ~~darkies~~ homos back in their place. The rhetoric of "protecting" marriage is and always was a deceitful smokescreen for a larger campaign of hate.

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:46:25 -0800

So where do I donate/volunteer to fix this stupid fucking thing?

By: giraffe

giraffe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:47:58 -0800

A lot of people got to have a chance at some rare uncomplicated joy last night. It should have been the same for gay people in California. I'm a straight person in Massachusetts and I cannot be happy about this election.

By: pomegranate

pomegranate — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:48:50 -0800

As a lesbian mom and wife, today is totally bittersweet. I feel like everyone else is SO HAPPY, eating chocolate cake for breakfast, and I got served cake with shit in the icing. All my friends and family are saying, "Yum! Chocolate cake! Too bad you got that one bad piece - Just eat around the poo, it's not that big a deal. Can't you just be happy and enjoy your cake?" Uhm, no. Can't really enjoy the cake, because someone went to a LOT of trouble to mess my piece up. Someone hates me that much. Me personally. It feels VERY personal, hostile, and beyond inconvenient and into dangerous. Plus - who wants to eat poo cake?

By: lostburner

lostburner — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:49:11 -0800

Over here, my girlfriend and I were rooting for Obama and against 8. We were also drinking and dancing around when they called it for Obama. McCain's concession speech brought forth her sympathy tears, but I was looking forward to the Obama speech. Our first look at the Prop 8 results came scrolling across the bottom of the screen as the victory speech was beginning, swallowing that speech in a wave of mourning for which I will never forgive ~~California~~ the assholes who manipulated California into passing this. On preview: yes, who can I give time or money to, to get the state back on the right track?

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:49:19 -0800

Apparently my anger takes the form of typos, as do all my other emotions.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:54:01 -0800

"Marshall, Godwin aside, you're being very convenient and selective with your notion of "what worked" [etc.]." digaman, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I think it's important to note, though, that I am not arguing the pro-prop 8 position. It's not "my" notion of what worked (and I'm sorry if I gave that impression), but rather the notion of the prop 8 supporters. My more general point is that name-calling is wrong on a number of counts. If you want to convince a reasonable person of something--and I do think most Americans are reasonable--you will not do so by calling them a bigoted hater.

By: quinoa

quinoa — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:54:12 -0800

Yesterday morning, nearby (but over 100 feet from) a polling place, I was distributing No on 8 flyers. Goal: speak with our supporters and undecideds. Don't engage the Yes on 8 folks. I influenced at least one Undecided. Here's the conversation: Me: Hi, do you have any questions about Prop 8? Please vote No, because it's unfair and wrong to take away fundamental rights. [Hands voter No on 8 flyer, which he accepts] Voter: You know, I've thought a lot about this one...[Unspoken subtext: and I think I'm reluctantly voting Yes] Me: Why? Is it the issue of schools and education? [I can tell from his visual response that I've hit on it, and this is the thing that's been on all the ads, so I keep talking.] If so, shouldn't this be a Proposition about what's taught in schools, instead of a proposition that takes away my rights? Voter: [Points at me] I think you have it. He then walks into the polling place, and comes out 10 minutes later. He says "I voted the way you wanted" and I thank him, tell him it makes a real difference for me and my life. He also tells me "it's one thing to think about it in the abstract, it's another to stand there and see the person in front of you." I think there's a lot of work to be done. I think the No on 8 supporters, myself included, didn't get the ball rolling fast enough with the fundraising and support. I think we were not sophisticated enough - the right wing was the force behind this battle, they put the initiative on the ballot and they were expecting, from the start, to raise over 25 million. No on 8 was not ready - we don't do this pushing ballot measure thing for a living, and the right wing DOES. We're used to being on the defensive and we're used to putting up with discrimination, so I think we had some shots against us from the start. But as everyone here has said, I totally agree that it's only time before things shift, as long as we stay on the same path. I hope that Obama being in office lasts for more than just 4 years, and I think that his presence and inclusiveness helps encourage the tide of change and acceptance for all types of families. And, in summary, I sorta wish the No on 8 people had used my argument in a TV ad - if you're worried about what's taught in schools, shouldn't this be a proposition about education, instead of about taking away people's rights? Maybe they did test that out, that argument, and decided against it, or decided it was too homophobic to suggest that someone should limit gay marriage being taught in schools. But I wonder if sinking to that level would have convinced more people to vote against it. And I'm kicking myself that I didn't get out and do more. I still had 10 No on 8 flyers in my pocket on the BART ride home. If only I'd walked through the train saying, "Please, don't forget to vote - go vote No on 8, because we need your support to stop this, it's unfair and wrong. Please go vote. " And I wish there'd been 100 people like me so we could get every BART train.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:55:06 -0800

In solidarity with California gays, my opposite-sex fiancee and I are going to officiate our marriage in a state that hasn't LOST ITS FUCKING SOUL this coming June - just like they'd have to. If you are straight and getting married, I highly encourage you to do the same. Make your wedding stand for something. You can still do the big white event right here and invite everyone. You'll just already be official when you walk down the aisle.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:56:16 -0800

This is just beyond terrible, a dark shadow on the otherwise good news for the nation. How ironic to have such giant strides forward for one much oppressed group only to have giant strides back for another. I can only hope we continue dismantling the influence of the fringe groups as we go forward, we made some progress yesterday but clearly not enough.

By: Caduceus

Caduceus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:56:44 -0800

Prop 8's passing is Vader's TIE Interceptor spinning away from the exploding Death Star that was Obama's victory. It will be back to cause trouble again and again before it realizes just how wrong it is and hurls itself down a power shaft. I favorited that comment so hard James Earl Jone's voice went up an octave. Thank you for lightening my mood, just a bit, in the face of this otherwise really crappy news.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:58:25 -0800

I had told myself up to this that the result wouldn't really matter. Getting officially married after 16 years was fun but seemed more a legal formality. We still live in SF, where bobtroy and I get a lot of benefits as a couple that we didn't get back in Georgia and that we wouldn't get in most other places. There's still stuff to work out: we might still be married, and there will be challenges to the amendment; I'd love nothing more than to have the Mormons and Catholics spend a whole lotta money for nothing. If the U.S. can declare war on terror without regard for borders, can gays declare war on Salt Lake and Vatican Cities? Before it happened, I hadn't expected gay marriage in my lifetime. I had reduced my opinion on marriage to one idea: ban all marriage and the affirmative action that accompanies it, and replace it with next-of-kin contracts. And looking at it overall, the change is (given our history) probably too much too fast. A lot of people want to blame Gavin Newsom in San Francisco for blowing the opportunity, but he's the one who made it possible in the first place. He took a big risk with his career for it and never stopped pushing, and no matter how cynically others want to cast it, I think the guy is a hero for it. Going to bed last night, I thought at least with Obama in office, there's a chance that the tone of governance and campaign might actually change, and that the whole gay thing would matter less in that kind of context. I feel myself changing with his election. But yeah, there's a part of it that still hurts, and it has less to do with people not considering my relationship valid--I get that there are slow-changing reasons for that--than it has to do with the fact that people are still thinking in terms that it's okay to legislate others' private lives to preserve one's own moral sensibilities. I find it more creepy in the Harper Valley PTA sense. Part of me regrets seeing the racial breakdown of the vote, though it shouldn't be unexpected. Growing up in the South in the most right-wing of areas, I grew up strongly anti-racist in a family that felt otherwise--and I think being gay might have led to that perspective. It seems wrong to feel betrayed, though; it is more complicated than the screw-you-I-got-mine thing that turns yesterday's immigrants against today's. Not that I'm not very happy also. I'm a sucker for the whole Obama vision and how we can challenge ourselves to be something more. And a McCain win would have been incredibly disheartening. But it's still heartbreaking a little bit.

By: NoRelationToLea

NoRelationToLea — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:58:30 -0800

Let's get this clear: a vote for Obama was (mostly) a vote for the best candidate - who happens to be only half black, eminently qualified, and ridiculously charismatic. As much as we'd like it to be, his appearance on the ballot IS NOT the same thing (though yes, it's pretty damn good proxy) as an explicit referendum on whether or not a person of color is allowed to serve as the president. Characterizing it as the former plays into the right's preposterous notion that he won solely "because he's black." Prop 8, in contrast, is exactly the sort of faceless litmus test that the presidential election was not. The California population, on balance, is unfortunately not yet ready for government sanctioned gay marriage. Note my use of the word "yet." The bad news is the elderly aren't changing their minds. The good news is that in the long view, they won't be around that much longer, either.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:01:02 -0800

the Clean Air Act Erik Prince is against Clean Air? I therefore demand he be fitted with a scuba tank filled with diesel exhaust and poo gas.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:01:47 -0800

Not being ready for government sanctioned gay marriage is one thing. Being ready to stand up on your hind legs and strike down the rights of fellow citizen is QUITE ANOTHER. It takes energy and initiative to vote. I am always disgusted when people actually get up out of their chairs to vote for hate.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:01:48 -0800

If you want to protect my marriage, how about passing universal healthcare, so we don't go bankrupt from getting old?

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:02:50 -0800

I am deeply embarrassed for my state today. And I am deeply embarrassed for the African Americans (and while it may not be PC, the numbers will and do bear this out), who in the process of taking the final step in their own civil rights movement, chose to stand in the schoolhouse door as another group fought for their own rights. To the 40% or so of African Americans who did vote "no," thank you. To the others, and to everyone who voted "yes" you should be deeply ashamed. Here's you. Also, if anyone knows what I can do to get more involved in gay rights in CA, L.A. specifically, please mail me.

By: Ragma

Ragma — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:02:59 -0800

It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal in every state. It *will* happen. In the mean time, same-sex couples will CONTINUE to be married in CA, continue to raise wonderful children, continue to have happy families. This is a goofy setback, not a defeat. Any state constitution that can be changed by a 50% popular vote isn't worth the paper it's written on, and everyone knows that. So gay and lesbian couples will continue to have happy families, no matter what the law says.

By: bondgirl53001

bondgirl53001 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:07:18 -0800

Politics are about spin. Supporters of Prop 8 will paint scary scenarios and lie outright ("They'll teach gay marriage in schools!") to win voters. Supporters of Obama will do the same ("Bush single-handedly caused a recession!"). No need to get militant about it. Realistically, I imagine that enough people who voted in favor of Prop 8: 1. Were confused and thought they were voting in favor of gay marriage. (Aka, are stupid.) 2. Didn't know what they were voting for. (Illiterate) 3. Didn't care either way and were in a supportive mode. Note that Prop 8 passed with a tiny margin of 20,806 voters.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:10:56 -0800

So where do I donate/volunteer to fix this stupid fucking thing? Here.

By: Quietgal

Quietgal — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:11:35 -0800

Sigh. First off, my apologies to gay friends and MeFites on behalf of all of us non-asshole straight Californians - there are a lot of us, and Prop 8 wasn't a landslide. It was a serious setback to be sure, but as people in the other election threads have said, the arc of American history bends toward justice. There are obvious parallels with the civil rights movement, and before that the Suffragettes, and before them the Abolitionists. Each struggle was long and hard but, seen in hindsight, the outcome was almost inevitable. I'm confident that the fight for gay rights will end the same way. Why? Because of what I saw working as a volunteer for No on 8. I did a lot of data entry, recording the results of phone calls to voters. The database had the age of each voter, and overwhelmingly the younger voters were against 8. (See the real numbers upthread, too.) Also, what I saw on the streets on the morning of Election Day - I'll just link to my comment on the other thread, rather than repeating it here. So I believe time is running out for the opposition to gay rights - their support base is getting old and not being renewed by many young voters. Which is not to say that we should just sit back and wait for the assholes to die off, but time is on our side, friends. Meanwhile, there's work to be done and we have to grab that arc and give it another nudge. I'm in. Who's with me?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:11:55 -0800

I just have never understood if we have seperation of church and state, what business it is of the state which sacrements I partake of and which I don't. Why is marriage up to the state in the first place for couples, trios, breeders, genderqueers, bestiophiles or necrophiliacs, what business is it of theirs? Why can't they just register legal partnerships of any stripe for business, companionship, pleasure, or whatever and be done with it? How is it remotely constitutional that I have to have a state licenced minister oversee my union's state licensure? Sorry, for the seeming derail, but these issues bother me. Personally I'm all for anyone getting to marry the person they love if they so choose, but what does their participation in a religious rite have to do with the government in the first place regardless of what they like to do with their naughty bits?

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:16:48 -0800

Note that Prop 8 passed with a tiny margin of 20,806 voters. This is important. Prop 22 (the old gay marriage ban) passed by over 20% in 2000. Now, eight years later, Prop 8 barely squeaks by. This is a very hopeful trend! We may very well see same sex marriage legalized by popular vote in California within the next few years. We just need to work a little harder on voter education; the demographics are on our side.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:22:17 -0800

...the Suffragettes, and before them the Abolitionists. Each struggle was long and hard but, seen in hindsight, the outcome was almost inevitable. I'm confident that the fight for gay rights will end the same way. I would hope that you're right. What bugs me is that this happened even with the benefit of those historical lessons behind it. By the "long arc" logic, we should be way past this by now.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:23:06 -0800

I think Florida passed a constitutional amendment banning state recognition of gay marriage *and* civil unions, which seems much much worse.

By: Wolfdog

Wolfdog — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:25:17 -0800

Speaking as someone who is generally considered not even a second-class citizen, keep fighting hard for what you deserve but don't forget to say thanks and count your blessings from time to time for the progress that has been made.

By: fiercecupcake

fiercecupcake — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:25:32 -0800

limnrix: Whenever I hear straight couples saying this, I try to appreciate the sentiment of them standing in solidarity with those of us who can't get married. However: You can get married. You can secure those rights for yourself and your family. Please do it -- take advantage of your opportunity. Then help us work for our right to do the same.

By: crapmatic

crapmatic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:27:26 -0800

How did this happen in California? Is the state full of hillbillies? Or is this the Hispanic vote voicing the Catholic disapproval of gay marriage?

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:28:42 -0800

I must say one of the strangest moments in this very strange election cycle happened, for me, when I learned that the Mormons, of all people, were lecturing others about what is a normal marriage, and what isn't. Adding together the single parent issue, the gay marriage issue, and the mormon spin, and you get one hell of a weird conversation. "Hey you, with the 'protect marriage' sign. What's that all about?" "I believe that our children need to be raised in a traditional marriage." "Well, what about single parents?" "No good. You need a man there." "Two men, or a single father?" "Of course not. Children need a mother." "Well what about two wives and a husband? Or just two wives? That's 100% more mother." "No! One man and one woman. That's the right amount. Anything else is too much of a good thing."

By: rodgerd

rodgerd — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:29:36 -0800

Superficially it makes sense, but I'm hesitant to pin the blame for enshrining discrimination with the force of the law on black and Latino citizens who seem like they should know better. What makes you think that? Seriously. Talk to some black feminists about dissapointments of the Civil Rights movements. Consider Israeli 'settlers' moving onto Palestinian land and using violence to seize it. Think about ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel attacking women who dress 'immodestly'. Hell, 200-odd years ago my family were the sort of poor Scots who were brutalised by the Highland Clearances, and 150-odd years ago they helped colonize New Zealand. Suffering from bigotry doesn't somehow magically make you a wonderful, socially aware person, or even necessarily capable of the basic empathy required to go, "How would I like it if...?"

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:32:19 -0800

Astro Zombie: I'd say its entirely fair, and I don't reach across the aisles to try and bargain with intolerance. There's "bargaining" and there's education. I don't think responding to anyone who voted for Prop 8 with "YOU VOTED FOR HATE!" is a step in the right direction. I agree that voting for Obama and for Prop 8 is all kinds of odd. So is voting for Obama and swearing off everything he believes in.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:35:36 -0800

Note that Prop 8 passed with a tiny margin of 20,806 voters. I think I'm going to throw up. I read somewhere in the last 18 hours that voter turnout in San Francisco was barely 50%, much lower than expected. If San Francisco voters stayed home out of complacency, I have a lot of punching to do when I get home today.

By: fairytale of los angeles

fairytale of los angeles — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:36:32 -0800

My entire end of this devolved into an argument with a friend who seems to think that calling all the legal end of marriage "civil unions" and reserving "marriage" to refer to religious ceremony only is the One True and Only Way. I told him I wasn't willing to have my marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise, legally redefined as something else so that religious persons could keep their special magic word to themselves. Resolving semantic panic by pandering to the lowest common denominator does no one any favors.

By: majick

majick — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:37:55 -0800

"What makes you think that? Seriously." Because if I keep thinking of humans as big angry monkeys who cheerfully sling crap on each other no matter who their neighbor is, rather than actual sentient beings, I'll depress myself into slitting my wrists? Because if I don't think charitably about people different from myself, I'm lowering myself to the level of the bigot? Because I have, I dunno, HOPE?

By: mr.grum

mr.grum — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:43:34 -0800

What the hell does they'll teach gay marriage in schools mean anyway? Are people really opposed to the idea of kids being taught that all people share the same group of rights? Or do they imagine the teachers forcing little Billy to dress in drag and skip down an aisle holding hands with his best friend Jake while regaling them both with explicit stories of man/boy love? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people? And I really, really dislike the ballot initiative method of governance.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:43:50 -0800

Each struggle was long and hard but, seen in hindsight, the outcome was almost inevitable. I wonder if there were other ones that no one remembers. Like you could say the same thing about Prohibition.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:44:24 -0800

There's "bargaining" and there's education. I don't think responding to anyone who voted for Prop 8 with "YOU VOTED FOR HATE!" is a step in the right direction. You keep trying education. I'm sure it will do good. I'm going to try some good old-fashioned shaming, because, believe it or not, that actually works too. I'm tired of people telling me it does no good to call a bigot a bigot. Yes it does. It brings the truth out in the open, when it can be addressed honestly, and it uses appropriately disapproving language when addressing people whose behavior should be disapproved of. You don't want to be called a bigot? Then fucking treat people like equals. Otherwise, get ready to hear a decidely uncheerful little earful from yours truly.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:45:44 -0800

I'm saddened and dismayed by this, but I will not give up hope. If I can take away only one thing from last night, it is the conviction that hope will overcome fear. Eight years of a national nightmare are at an end, and now it's time to redouble our efforts in fighting fear and bigotry. Hope will overcome!

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:46:52 -0800

"it's one thing to think about it in the abstract, it's another to stand there and see the person in front of you." Did you hear any of the radio ads that FALSELY CLAIMED that allowing gay marriages to stand would mean that children would be "taught gay marriage in schools"? I think this is the root of the issue right here - visibility. I read a decent number of op-ed pieces supporting the No on 8 position - and pretty much all of them were apologetic and reassuring to the point of nausea. STOP APOLOGIZING FOR BEING GAY! Stop it! It should be taught in school, it should be normal - it is normal and all of this dancing around is not helping anyone. It's time to bring the whole issue out of the damn closet.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:48:04 -0800

I'm going to try some good old-fashioned shaming, because, believe it or not, that actually works too. I wouldn't want to be the first pair of Mormon missionaries I encounter on the streets of SF.

By: QIbHom

QIbHom — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:48:39 -0800

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but getting 30% of the black electorate to vote for gay marriage is pretty damned good. Shows a huge change in attitude. Some black ministers and preachers are just starting to get that discrimination against gays is not all that different from racial or class discrimination, at least not so different as to matter. Give them some time to work. White upper-middle class kids lecturing them on history sure isn't going to work.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:50:10 -0800

What the hell does they'll teach gay marriage in schools mean anyway? Oh, you know: Like kids get special lessons in black marriages and Asian marriages and old-people marriages and Jewish marriages. The fact that this bullshit was even an issue in this campaign -- in fact, the main issue talked about by both sides -- indicates the idiocy behind Prop. 8, which proved to be a winning strategy.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:51:48 -0800

What the hell does they'll teach gay marriage in schools mean anyway? Are people really opposed to the idea of kids being taught that all people share the same group of rights? I guarantee it's some form of "we don't want it being depicted as 'normal'". (in the non-statistical sense; aka: a valid or morally neutral way to live)

By: Salvor Hardin

Salvor Hardin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:52:24 -0800

Even more important than the fact that being gay is normal, is the fact that being not normal is OK. At least that's what I was taught in elementary school.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:52:25 -0800

You keep trying education. I'm sure it will do good. I'm going to try some good old-fashioned shaming, because, believe it or not, that actually works too. It's a deal.

By: fairytale of los angeles

fairytale of los angeles — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:52:57 -0800

Astro Zombie, I wish I could favorite this like 9000 times. Yes, yes, yes.

By: ob

ob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:53:32 -0800

I'm devastated that Prop 8 has passed. A triumph for bigotry on a day that is so full of hope. The title of this post says it all really.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:53:40 -0800

I am now waving my finger of shame.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:53:50 -0800

"You don't want to be called a bigot? Then fucking treat people like equals. Otherwise, get ready to hear a decidely uncheerful little earful from yours truly." By this standard, we are all "bigots" because we treat people unequally as a matter of course. The law recognizes classes of people, and thus different classes of people are treated differently. The question, of course, is not whether the law should or shouldn't recognize classes (unless you are a libertarian...), but whether the classes it recognizes accord with various "values" we hold. These values are many and complex. Few of them can be boiled down to "hate."

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:56:18 -0800

When I refer to "hate," Mr. Poe, I am referring to hateful behavior. And when I refer to equal treatment, I am referring to equal treatment under the law.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:57:08 -0800

This morning when I woke up (here in NC) one of the first things I did was check on Prop 8 and was horrified by the LA Times map which shows that even LA and San Diego counties voted yes. I would have expected that of Orange county. I posted this in the other thread before I saw Prop 8 had its own thread:

I called my 71 year old mother in California last night to see how the election was going. She told me she voted against Prop 8-- which surprised me because we have not always seen eye-to-eye on gay marriage. She told me that the pastor in her church, Los Altos United Methodist Church, presided over a same-sex marriage. Some members left the congregation over that, but my mom had a chance to talk to the couple. She asked them how long they had been together, they told her 17 years. My mom's marriage lasted 14 years. She decided then that if two people wanted to get married and a church was willing to marry them, why should the government be allowed to step in and deny them? Where is the freedom? Where is the equality? Where is the right to pursuit happiness? I am outraged and so is she. Fuck you, California, for doing the WRONG thing.

Sorry for the blanket "FU" I guess I was really, really disappointed in my birth state, the state that I will always call home, no matter where I live.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:57:51 -0800

Further, I don't really care what people's motivations are for engaging in hateful behavior. There's a million ways to justify a wrong. I don't care if someone's heart is really, really loving if they vote to discriminate. I can't see their heart; all is see is how their hand moves when it votes to make a class of people unequal.

By: gyc

gyc — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:59:32 -0800

Note that Prop 8 passed with a tiny margin of 20,806 voters. Sorry, but I think you've got the wrong numbers. Prop. 8 passed with an over 400,000 vote margin. I believe you were only looking at the LA County results.

By: MrVisible

MrVisible — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:59:43 -0800

I want so badly to be happy today. And yet, my state ratified an amendment to its constitution that singles me and some of the people I care most about for discrimination. In the eyes of the people of my state, we are unworthy of the same rights as everyone else. And so I'm avoiding the celebratory conversations today, the 'election is over' cake, the cheerful impromptu gatherings at work, because people should be happy; what we've done in this country is amazing. And I don't really want to bring them down. So much damage to undo. So much hatred and bigotry to unravel. And all to get people to understand that not everyone loves like they do, but that love is a good thing. Love is a good thing. Seems like it should be pretty obvious.

By: ewkpates

ewkpates — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:59:58 -0800

Must I keep repeating himself? "This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were." If 8 years in Bushzarro world taught us nothing else it should have taught us to wait for it... wait for it... plan for it... wait for it... The backlash. Ahhhh. Real Tasty.

By: heathkit

heathkit — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:00:23 -0800

You know what? I'm glad this passed. Voters in California just decided to annul thousands of marriages. The next two years are going to be nothing but elderly gay and lesbian couples looking into the camera, asking "Why should the government tell us who to love?" Then maybe all this civil unions crap will go away, and it'll be politically safe to call for full and equal gay marriage. And then we'll all get puppies. and cake...

By: heathkit

heathkit — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:01:47 -0800

Also, I'm in love with Astro Zombie, but now I can't marry him :(

By: doctorschlock

doctorschlock — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:03:50 -0800

I love my best friend but she's a woman.

By: prefpara

prefpara — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:05:15 -0800

I feel deeply ashamed of myself. I didn't lift a finger to try to stop Prop. 8 from passing. I have friends and family in California, I'm an American citizen, and my bank balance is in the black, but I did nothing. Someone out there was "working on it" and that was good enough for me. I want to apologize to everyone, and especially to my gay friends, who were slapped in the face and denied equal rights by the passing of this ugliness. I love America, and I believe in the dream of liberty and justice for all, and in equal protection under the law, and that we ought to judge people by the content of their character and not by any superficial measure. I should have fought for that dream. I can't bring myself to apologize to my friends, and it's probably not a good idea anyway. But I do apologize to anyone who reads this. I won't make this mistake again.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:05:36 -0800

The day you stop governing by ballot, AZ, is the day I'll join your strategy. I mean, it's a hell of a lot more satisfying -- frankly easy -- to tell people off than bang your head against the wall of their ignorant opinions over and over and over again. But you didn't win a general election yesterday because you treated everyone who voted for Bush in 2004 as a hateful warmonger. Yeah, sucks to have to treat people as people. It's a strange parallel, actually. I see intolerant people learning when they find out that their discriminatory attitudes apply to someone they already care about. Likewise, I see the bigotry patrol softening just a little when it turns out that their favourite uncle or grandmother (etc) not only harbours an intolerant perspective but doesn't do it out of HATE HATE HATE. I pity those in either camp who don't have someone like that in their lives, or all they're left with is the black and white.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:07:13 -0800

But you didn't win a general election yesterday because you treated everyone who voted for Bush in 2004 as a hateful warmonger. I most certainly did treat people that way. And you'd be amazed at how many people are genuinely ashamed to have supported the war.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:07:42 -0800

It's true; just check my posting history.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:10:23 -0800

Astro Zombie, serious question: How do you judge which behaviors are hateful and which one's aren't without reference to someone's motivation?

By: WinnipegDragon

WinnipegDragon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:11:14 -0800

Guys, I'm about to get into trouble with the Canadian authorities for this, and I can hear the sled dogs barking outside my door, but the truth needs to be known... They are FORCING us into GAY MARRIAGE with GAYS up here! My wife was dragged away to a relesbinization camp just last week, and then Jacques moved in! OMG, they are melting the lock with Tim Horton's coffee! I gotta be quick! You have to fight this! It's all pink petticoats on the men, and studded leather on the ladies. It's a madhouse of GAY GAYNESS! They are coming...

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:12:11 -0800

If she, a Holland resident, can pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into an American political event, who's to say the Russians, Iranians or Afghanis couldn't do that as well? The article you're quoting from says she lives in Holland, Michigan. I don't understand the connection to Russia, Iran, or Afghanistan.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:12:51 -0800

How do you judge which behaviors are hateful and which one's aren't without reference to someone's motivation? Because the act of making one class of people, and a historically despised class, into second-class citizens, is inherently hateful, just as Jim Crow laws are inherently hateful. Motiviations are beside the point. I will never actually know what someone's motivations are. Maybe they burned a cross because they thought it looked pretty. But the act itself is hateful regardless.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:16:07 -0800

I have a million things I want to write about this, but in the interest of avoiding a tl;dr situation, I'll just write instead that now is not the time to despair, but to agitate, educate and organize. Some major setbacks occurred yesterday, but this battle is not over yet. It won't be over until all men and women are able to legally marry the person that they love.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:16:50 -0800

prefpara: Don't apologize--no such thing as 'straight guilt' for people on the generous side of the issue. I'm gay, and I was complacent; I put more money into Obama than fighting this. I have lots of straight friends who have never been anything but supportive; I'm grateful for every one of them, and not one has a right to apologize for what others do or say.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:17:35 -0800

So, by "hateful," you mean "not to my liking." If so, that's fine and very clear.

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:18:09 -0800

A Modest Proposal: Since this specification for "a man and a woman" is now carved into the stone of the California Constitution, it should be rigorously enforced. And how? By requiring every marriage license applied for in California from now on to be accompanied by incontrovertible proof that the parties are indeed one man (signified groom) and one woman (signified bride). That would include not just certified results of a DNA test on both parties, but since there are a lot of surgically-altered transsexuals out there, notarized photographic evidence that each party has the requisite gender-specific genatalia. (Or the photos could be taken at the state office where the license is applied for) Imagine. Every marriage license required to have attached pictures of the bride and groom's junk. At the very least, whatever documentation is required for transsexuals to legally change their gender should be required by both parties to have a legal marriage. (If that requirement is fairly lax, I would then suggest that one member of a same-sex couple could be 're-defined' to become legal) And if this is so important to 51% of the California population, maybe the documentation requirement should be made retroactive for every couple who files a state tax return under "married" status. Humiliating? Yes, but Constitutionally Required! And what a way to show our children the True Meaning of Marriage (as defined by 51% of Californians)! Sound crazy? Hell, yeah. But it would be the single best way to teach some of that 51% a few lessons in personal freedom, privacy and putting 'moral' clauses into law. I can imagine a Special Election to repeal might be scheduled in record time. And don't tell me there's nothing in the initiative requiring such handling. It's all there in six words: "between a man and a woman". SHOW WHAT YOU'RE MADE OF, CALIFORNIA! ENFORCE PROPOSITION 8!

By: Brak

Brak — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:19:06 -0800

I'm just sick about this. I'm glad (really) that some of you were able to revel in the Obama victory last night, and got to delay the Prop 8 shock until this morning. I couldn't help watching this unfold from the earliest returns until late into the night last night, and much as I tried to be happy about the Obama victory (and I most certainly am), I just couldn't shake this loss. I'm not sure why, as a straight man, this has impacted me as hard as it has. But there it is; I'm beside myself with frustration and anger. I think the crux of my feelings is focused on the nature of the vote. I've long ago come to accept, albeit with resignation, the inherent apathy of the electorate. So if Prop 8 was a measure to grant some sweeping rights to our GLBT brothers and sisters that they didn't already specifically have, I've learned to cope with the idea that a majority of people are maybe not going to to out on that limb, can't be bothered to throw their weight behind such a thing. But that's not what happened here. People went out and actively voted to strip rights away from a group of people who already had them. People had to make a conscious decision to say no, you don't deserve the rights that other people have. I am voting to take your rights away. Naive as it may be, I thought we in California were above that kind of bigotry, and it's supremely demoralizing to realize my misjudgment. Fine. We can play that way. My vote is no longer enough. I'll be going forward to find out how I can best be more actively involved on this issue. And damnit, we're going to knock this shit down. I would encourage all of my fellow Californians to do the same.

By: billypilgrim

billypilgrim — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:19:27 -0800

Come to Massachusetts, we're still awesome. And hey, we just decriminalized weed too!

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:19:56 -0800

My more general point is that name-calling is wrong on a number of counts. If you want to convince a reasonable person of something--and I do think most Americans are reasonable--you will not do so by calling them a bigoted hater. Well, MarshallPoe, so far, pointing out to them that allowing same sex marriage doesn't do a DAMN thing to their own marriage or life hasn't seemed to work so well...can you blame us for being angry? I also find it outright hilarious that the "less government interference" side of the political spectrum is always ready, willing and able to interfere with everyone's lives when it suits their own purposes. I am incredibly sad and sorry for all of you who will be affected by this legislation and am hoping very, very hard that something will happen to overturn it either on the state or national level. DOMA's got to go, too. And ideally, we'd separate out the civil and religious marriage-related events, as they do in other more civilized parts of the world. We're not there yet but I pray we will be soon.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:20:57 -0800

So, by "hateful," you mean "not to my liking." If so, that's fine and very clear. That's sort of weird moral territory. No, I don't like Jim Crow laws or corss burnings or homophobia, but it is not the fact that I don't like them that makes them hateful. Not everything is a matter of opinion. I dislike the new version of Knight Rider, but I wouldn't say it is a hteful thing.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:21:45 -0800

How do you judge which behaviors are hateful and which one's aren't without reference to someone's motivation? A willingness to deny a group an intrinsic right enjoyed by the majority or dominant culture is a hateful action, regardless of how it is expressed. Telling a fellow human being that they are not a human being is hateful, even if it is articulated without apparent rancor or loathing.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:24:19 -0800

I am Californian, born and bred, and I am confused by this. Confused. How can this wonderful state, the creative center of the country, a state rich with progressive thought academic excellence and technological innovation and sunshine and redwoods and happiness and zen be so fucking stupid and douchey? And angry?!! Their anger turned into my anger, and THAT MAKES ME ANGRIER. And prone to say rash things about religion and the people who have it. Like that they're goddamned ruiners who ruin and they are ruining my life, too. Get your fucking religion out of my fucking government. Grow the fuck up. Stop worrying over who fucks whom in the where with the lead pipe. To quote one of the GREAT Californian movies, it doesn't matter to Jesus! Life is too short for this bullshit. I am so proud to stand with digaman and rtha and all the other gay married Californians right now, and am filled with admiration for their fortitude. But please, get marriage out of government. Altogether. Our right to be free from religion is as important as our right to equal treatment. In fact, they might always be bound up together as they are now. I am in a hetero partnership and we don't have the right to a domestic partnership, and that too is wrong. The whole system of "marriage" is BORKEN. NEED FIX. I can't stomach the idea of unecessarily, voluntarily involving myself in it until it's not a fucking joke. And that's my anger talking, but it's also true. The letter of the law undermines its spirit, and I find that anything but inspiringly sacrosanct.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:29:40 -0800

"Well, MarshallPoe, so far, pointing out to them that allowing same sex marriage doesn't do a DAMN thing to their own marriage or life hasn't seemed to work so well..." I would say that we would be better off politely discussing it with them than angrily "pointing it out" to them, as the latter sounds a bit patronizing, doesn't it? Generally speaking, treating people with different opinions respectfully will probably change more minds that just "pointing X out" to them. Not always, but I think in this instance rancor will only lead to further polarization.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:31:47 -0800

My wife was dragged away to a relesbinization camp... Oh, can I get her autograph? I loved her in that movie.

By: glycolized

glycolized — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:36:57 -0800

If she, a Holland resident, can pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into an American political event, who's to say the Russians, Iranians or Afghanis couldn't do that as well? This is referring to the city of Holland, Michigan, not the country.

By: mikepop

mikepop — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:37:11 -0800

I don't think responding to anyone who voted for Prop 8 with "YOU VOTED FOR HATE!" is a step in the right direction. [COMMERCIAL OPENS ON BLANK WHITE SCREEN. BLACK TEXT FADES IN READING: "DID YOU VOTE YES ON PROP 8?"] [FADE TEXT OUT] [FADE IN THAT ELDERLY LESBIAN COUPLE THAT WAS FIRST TO MARRY IN SF] Woman 1: Then you voted for hate. [WOMEN REPLACED BY MARRIED MEN WITH THEIR KID(S), WHO LOOK VERY SAD] Man 1: Then you voted for hate. [REPEAT WITH OTHER CALIFORNIA COUPLES AND FAMILIES OF VARIED CLASS AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND, INTERSPERSED WITH ACTORS, MUSICIANS AND CALIFORNIA SPORTS HEROES. INCREASE THE SPEED OF THE CUTS TO BUILD INTENSITY] [FADE BACK TO WHITE AND SWITCH TO GOV ARNOLD] GOV: Proposition 8 was a hateful amendment that stripped away the rights of thousands of Californians. Please join us in voting for Proposition [x], which will restore equal treatment for all under the law. [TEXT: VOTE YES ON [x] / SAY NO TO HATE / WEBSITE / PHONE NUMBER] I don't know, that seems like a step in the right direction to me

By: cmgonzalez

cmgonzalez — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:40:50 -0800

I can't really add anything that really hasn't already been said. I'm very happy about Obama's victory, but my heart hurts for those affected by the bigotry that led to these measures passing in CA, FL,AZ, and AR. I know they're only setbacks, and equality will come in time. But I can't help but feel these measures weigh upon and tarnish an otherwise hopeful result.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:42:08 -0800

Generally speaking, treating people with different opinions respectfully will probably change more minds that just "pointing X out" to them. You know, I used to be antiabortion. I mean, not really, really antiabortion. I would never have voted to make it illegal. I just felt it was a terrible thing. Still do. Still think education and access to birth control to prevent unwanted pregancies is a preferable choice. But I definately thought women shouldn't have an abortion if the father of the child didn't want it. I was quite young at the time, and it just felt like, were I the father, I would not want my decisions about the future of a potential life that I created taken from me. And I argued the case with my female friends, and it was all very civil, but I stuck by my viewpoint. And, one night, a female I knew exploded. HOW DARE YOU, she said. You spend a half hour fucking a girl and suddenly you think you can decide what happens to her body for the NEXT EIGHT MONTHS? You don't even have a job, and you want to determine if she can or cannot have a child that she WILL FINANCIAL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE? You produce a little sperm and you think you can make a decision that MIGHT PUT A WOMAN'S LIFE IN JEAPORDY? HONESTLY, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? And my face flushed, and I felt very angry and defensive. I did not like being belittled, or disregarded, or spoken to angrily. But I also knew that she was right. Totally right. Her anger had put a fine point on an issue that had been mostly academic for me. I just didn't think something was fair, but it had never come up in my own life, and I hadn't really realized that I wasn't just being a bit dense about the subject, I was actually being a bit of a prick. I can think of many instances in my life where I had to rethink poorly considered ideas because, in part, of the scorn I experienced when I articulated them. I'm not going to dance around this because people think it's somehow impolitic. The people who voted for Prop 8 cast a vote for hate.

By: jimmythefish

jimmythefish — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:44:01 -0800

It's time to make something new. One part of me (I'm married, hetero) really understands the desire to be married and be part of a civil union. Everyone should have this right. However, when it becomes linked to religion then I also wonder why we'd want to buy into this club that doesn't really want us who are tolerant, who are atheists, or gay, or whatever. It's similar to understanding why someone would want to be a member of clergy and also be gay. It's about ending discrimination. At the same time, though, if their fucked up club doesn't want us, then it's time to forget it and make something new.

By: Hugh2d2

Hugh2d2 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:45:42 -0800

New rule: If you enter a gay marriage and it lasts longer than ANY of Brittney Spears' marriages, you get to keep being married.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:51:34 -0800

Astro Zombie, though I don't agree, I must confess that was very nicely said. Hat's off. Favorited.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:51:50 -0800

Jimmy, why should black kids want to go to NO COLORED schools and drink at WHITES ONLY water fountains anyway? They should just drill their own wells and launch their own school system.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:52:47 -0800

I also wonder why we'd want to buy into this club that doesn't really want us who are tolerant, who are atheists, or gay, or whatever Is the answer that you're ethically compromised by capitalism and addicted to narrativizing your lives?

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:52:58 -0800

Thank you. But I'm also all for those who want to educate. I argue for a comprehensive program of shaming and educating, like they offer at parochial schools.

By: gingerbeer

gingerbeer — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:55:11 -0800

I'm too sad and depressed to really participate in this thread. Also, angry that the loss of prop 8 has so interfered with my ability to feel joy about Obama's election. I will, however, provide one option for those of you who have asked about what to do to support the movement. I encourage you to support the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Despite their name they work on a wide range of LGBT issues. They were key to winning the CA Supreme Court decision earlier this year. I give money to them, and think that they are a solid, well-run organization that makes very good use of their resources. There are other good options out there, like Lambda Legal, but this is where I will be putting my money and time. Thank you for all of the condolences and sympathy.

By: cmgonzalez

cmgonzalez — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:55:29 -0800

However, when it becomes linked to religion then I also wonder why we'd want to buy into this club that doesn't really want us who are tolerant, who are atheists, or gay, or whatever. It isn't linked to religion. I can go down to the courthouse and get married if I want to. Marriage was originally secular, and thus handing it over to the religious, and throwing in the towel isn't an option. Equality is something we fight for. I'm an atheist. I want to be married. Nothing to do with religion. I'm not going to settle for a second-class term like "civil union" and neither should gays or other atheists.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:57:20 -0800

Jimmy, why should black kids want to go to NO COLORED schools and drink at WHITES ONLY water fountains anyway? They should just drill their own wells and launch their own school system. Racial discrimination was not tied to the free practice and protection from establishment of religion. They didn't have whites only fountains because blacks were considered infidels. No marriage, a religious rite, should be sanctioned or licenced by the state. They don't tie proving your age to get a drivers licence to first having been confirmed or having a bar/bat mitzvah or other similar religious coming-of-age ceremony do they?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:58:41 -0800

Marriage was originally secular No actually, it predates the state.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:01:50 -0800

oh for the love of... If it isn't "linked to religion" then why can't any two adults have it? That should be a no-brainer. Yes, it IS linked to religion. It is INVENTED by religion. I really think it's s sullying of the concept of freedom from religion. I mean, you can tell yourself it only means what we choose it to mean, that we can disavow most people's opinion of it and history's, but that doesn't make it so. And there are plenty of atheists like myself who wouldn't touch it with a twelve foot pole. Because I don't have to compromise my beliefs to obtain rights, because I live in America, right?

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:03:02 -0800

No marriage, a religious rite, should be sanctioned or licenced by the state. Pollomacho, are you married? If you are, did you protest against the state's intrusion into your religious rite by requiring a license at the time? Just askin'.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:03:03 -0800

The elephant in the room is barely mentioned.

By: krautland

krautland — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:05:06 -0800

wow, I am so surprised to see californians vote this way. I mean, you're almost europeans.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:05:08 -0800

Thanks for the link, gingerbeer. I've gotten mail from them in the past but it was along with a bunch of other groups, and I picked HRC to join at the time. I'm getting irritated with them though, so I'm going to look into other organizations involved in this fight.

By: cjets

cjets — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:11:13 -0800

No marriage, a religious rite, should be sanctioned or licenced by the state. But Marriage provides many key rights under the law. that's why a marriage license is required even if there is a religious ceremony. And it's these rights under the law that are so important to gay couples that want to be married. I'm another California resident and ashamed that the state passed this proposition. It's no different than banning African Americans, Jews or (pick your ethnicity) from getting married. On the other hand, California was one of the few states that legalized Gay marriage, which led to this proposition, so let's ease up on California a bit. Most states would have approved of a proposition like this as well. The Yes on eight forces used every Roveian dirty trick to win this, while the no on 8 forces seemed content to rely on the fact that they were (and are) on the side of the angels. I hope that the no on 8 forces will take a lesson from the Obama campaign and get its ground game in order and spend the next two years making sure this bigoted travesty of a law is overturned. I look forward to helping.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:17:44 -0800

In Massachusetts no entity is required to perform a religious same-sex marriage. Separation of Church and State. The state, however, is required to acknowledge a civil marriage for Massachusetts couples, and now out-of-state same sex couples.

By: jsonic

jsonic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:19:20 -0800

Of the rights granted to married couples, which of them cannot be effectively achieved by gay couples today using contracts or legal agreements? I'm guessing the hospital visitation one, potentially. What others?

By: scody

scody — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:19:22 -0800

Yes, thanks from me too, gingerbeer. Like Tehanu, I've been irritated with HRC's approach lately (their finger-shaking email last week saying "do you want to wake up on November 5 and feel bad that you didn't do enough to stop Prop 8?" kind of did it for me) and am looking for the organization that I think has the best approach and strategy. This is not a question of "morality" or "tradition" or any other bullshit the apologists want to trot out. This is a question of civil rights -- as far as I'm concerned, it is the defining civil rights struggle of America in the 21st century. The fact that I am treated differently under the law because I happen to be straight is repellant, and I will not fucking have it.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:21:48 -0800

We can all have a long discussion about how "marriage is a religious rite" when a ballot initiative passes forbidding atheists from getting married, and requiring a test of scriptural knowledge -- hey, Bible, Q'uran, whatevah! -- before you can marry the partner of your choice. But back on Earth in 2008, marriage is both a religious and secular site in which the state has a compelling interest, because the stability of loving relationships boosts the stability of the state as a whole. In other words, I have no problem with religious marriages. I have a problem when flaming nutballs who call themselves Christian make action movies starring themselves to foment ignorance and hatred and successfully swing elections while mouthing bullshit about God's love.

By: puddinghead

puddinghead — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:21:48 -0800

As a California resident, I'm ashamed and astonished by this.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:22:19 -0800

Civil marriage, not religious marriage. What's at stake? Equal rights. Some of the benefits that accrue to married couples and not to unmarried ones.

"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. Receiving public assistance benefits. Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies. Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. Making burial or other final arrangements. Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. Applying for joint foster care rights. Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.' Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."*

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:25:40 -0800

Lawsuit to be filed to stop Prop 8 hate amendment in California .

By: jsonic

jsonic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:27:10 -0800

Thanks, ericb. - Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.' WTF is that about? Is this a private property home-owners association kinda thing. Or is that an official city zoning thing?

By: ferdydurke

ferdydurke — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:27:11 -0800

Looking forward: 1) There are some 18,000 same-sex married couples in the California. The first order of business is to ensure that Prop 8 is not applied retroactively to those marriages. That's a battle for lawyers. 2) We have to target people who are persuadable on the other side. It's a mistake to believe that most who voted for proposition 8 have some deep commitment on this issue. I suspect that many of them are like folks I know from where I used to live. They are in favor of equal rights, but they are at the same time vaguely squicked-out about "the gay." When they get in the voting booth, they decide it's best to not change things, which to them means keeping marriage away from same-sex couples. Note that's not an agenda or ideology, that's a vague feeling of unease. So, who besides Christian fundamentalists voted for this proposition? This is a factual question. Once we know that, we know who we need to talk to. 3) We need outreach that extends more than thirty miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. It's rather easy to overwhelm vague, squicky feelings. They are based on (and I mean no offense) disgust reactions, and those quickly subside with just a bit of exposure. But that exposure to everyday same-sex married folk is limited in more suburban and rural locations. It's there, but it isn't strong enough for many people to say "hey, that's my neighbor you are talking about!" 4) Finally, we need to be able to say why civil unions that offer the same legal rights as marriage are nonetheless inferior to marriage itself. Us liberals used to be able to talk convincingly about human dignity. Its time to recapture those words. So, we can change this in probably a decade or less if we are smart and committed. On the other hand, if we rush in all disorganized and fighty, expect this amendment to stay in the Cal. Constitution until most of us are dead.

By: mikepop

mikepop — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:28:24 -0800

3 million ballots still to be counted in CA

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:31:41 -0800

I must say, though, there have been some really heartening things about the way this has gone down. I'm not gay, and became politicized about gay issues when I was in my early 20s thanks in part to being housed in a homeless shelter run by the Gay/Lesbian Community Center of Los Angeles. In part, it was because I got to be friends with a number of the teenagers in the shelter, in part because it became unavoidavly obvious that this can be a hard world for gay people, and in part because the Community Center saved my life, and I owed them, and the LA gay community, and the gay community in general, a lifelone debt for taking me in when I was down and helping me get back up on my feet again. I am straight, but, from that point on, in part because of my support and concern for gay issues, people just sort of assumed I was gay. And I realized that was part of the effectiveness of homophobia. Because of the closet, and because anybody could be gay, if you supported the rights of gays and lesbians, you were going to run the risk of being seen as gay or lesbian youself. Now, this was the nineties, and the risks were less than they once were -- as far as I knew, nobody was de-queering bars with baseball bats just as a matter of course anymore, although homophobic violence was still very real. And that was part of the insidiousness of homophobia. You took a risk opposing it that you might not be taking when addressing other concerns, and that risk was that you might be seen as gay. But a lot of straight people support gay rights now, and do so with considerable less fear that they might be seen as gay themselves, or with no concern about it at all. There were a lot of these people on hand, very visibly fighting prop 8. That's really encouraging. There is room for hope yet.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:33:36 -0800

I'm going to let you know that I'm straight again, because repeating it twice in the preceding comment doesn't seem enough. Straight straight straightety straight.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:36:36 -0800

I'm going to let you know that I'm straight again, because repeating it twice in the preceding comment doesn't seem enough. Really? I. Um. Oh. Just ...just ignore the flowers then.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:39:20 -0800

Straight straight straightety straight. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I keed. I keed.

By: MrVisible

MrVisible — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:39:50 -0800

I'm going to let you know that I'm straight again, because repeating it twice in the preceding comment doesn't seem enough. Straight straight straightety straight. posted by Astro Zombie at 7:33 PM on November 5 [+] [!] The sound you hear is hearts breaking all over Metafilter. Sigh.

By: ewkpates

ewkpates — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:44:25 -0800

WHAT ELSE SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT DEFINE FOR US? Religion? Parenting? Free Speach?

By: greekphilosophy

greekphilosophy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:46:57 -0800

As monumental as this election has been in terms of making history, I feel as though it has also showed me a part of America that I wanted to believe existed only in dramatic fiction, or in small backwoods enclaves that still swore allegiance to the Confederacy. Hate is alive and well and living in America. I vacillate between wanting to cry, throw up and punch people in the face.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:50:51 -0800

Pollomacho, are you married? If you are, did you protest against the state's intrusion into your religious rite by requiring a license at the time? I am married. Did not have a religious rite, though I did have to have a licenced minister perform a ceremony, but I don't live in a state anyway. Did I protest? I can't afford the legal cost of protesting, but even if I did, I have the option of civil union where live anyway, so it would be considered (wrongly) moot. I don't think that I should be "legally married" i think I should possibly have to licence my union and therefore secure partnership rights, but marriage should not be part of the equasion as far as the government is concerned. The choice to marry should be up to the church alone. Don't get me wrong, I'm equally opposed to straight government sanctioned marriage, this is not a what-you-do-with-your-special-parts issue, it's strictly a freedom of/from religion issue.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:52:06 -0800

Oh, and don't let me derail from the criticism of the bigoted hatemongers of California either. Their vote was most certainly a what-you-do-with-your-special-parts issue.

By: Quietgal

Quietgal — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:53:00 -0800

Scarabic, unfortunately our lizard brains just don't work that way. Every battle has to be fought and won anew. Eternal vigilance and all that. Human nature also contains a regrettable amount of "I got mine, now fuck off" ... complacency? Is that the right word? Anyway, once your personal battle is won, you tend to forget what it was like in the bad old days, especially if you don't particularly identify with the group in question. Jimmythefish, I sort of wonder if at some level this isn't about words, as silly as that seems. Words like "marriage", "husband", and "wife" have a great deal of emotional and religious resonance but English just doesn't have any good alternatives. Maybe we need to make something new just so we can give it a name that doesn't have millennia of baggage attached. Personally, I've never though of marriage as a sentimental thing - it's all about legal and financial rights and benefits. I've been married for 15 years, and the fact that Hubby and I love each other is great but entirely separate from our legal status. (You can have love without marriage and vice versa - they are quite distinct.) As atheists, we got married at City Hall and religion never even came into it. So I'd be satisfied to let religious people have marriages, husbands and wives as long as Hubby and I have the same rights and benefits because we're ... civilly-united partners? Domestic stakeholders? Crap, we need better words. I don't see it as "Separate But Equal" hypocrisy, because rights and benefits come from the state, not the church. Anybody who got married by the church/temple/mosque still has to fill out the secular paperwork to get their benefits. This is already the way it works, so giving the process another name doesn't seem like such a big deal.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:54:02 -0800

krautland - Wow, I am so surprised to see californians vote this way. I mean, you're almost europeans. I live in a county in California that generally sides Republican. Though there's a college here, there are also a lot of farmers and "country folk." I'm not saying farmers can't be gay, it's just that they're often less .. European .. than California city folk. And there are many Counties like this one. Sad story, which was mildly amusing prior to the election - my wife was at a hair salon run by a nice gay couple. They've been together for a good long while (a few decades, I'd guess). While they don't fly a rainbow flag in front of their shop, I'd think it's fairly clear they are two men, and they are a couple. On her way in, she noticed a BMW with a license plate bracket about trading in the station wagon or something, and a Vote Yes on Prop 8 sticker. Not quite as awkward as being a bar tender who was going to vote yes on 8 yet works at a gay bar, but a similar sort of mind-bender. Are you considering the people you support and spend time with when you vote this way? Or are you just stuck on that whole "definition of marriage" thing, like O.S.Card? From what I've seen, the celebrities were against Prop 8, but they tend to be the more "European" of Californians.

By: Law Talkin' Guy

Law Talkin' Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:54:57 -0800

I'm tired of people telling me it does no good to call a bigot a bigot. Yes it does. It brings the truth out in the open, when it can be addressed honestly, and it uses appropriately disapproving language when addressing people whose behavior should be disapproved of. You don't want to be called a bigot? Then fucking treat people like equals. Otherwise, get ready to hear a decidely uncheerful little earful from yours truly. It sounds to me more like you just prefer to use derogatory epithets and name-calling as a bludgeon to harangue people with opposing viewpoints into submission instead of engaging them on a civilized level. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I claimed I supported Prop 8 because I saw no principled reason why, if gay marriage was allowed in the name of allowing people to marry whoever they wanted, we weren't logically obligated to recognize polygamy, bestiality, or pedophilia in the context of marriage. Now, before I get branded with the Scarlet "B" or "H," I want you to know that this is not what I actually think. If I were a citizen of CA, I wouldn't have voted in favor of Prop 8. But at one time it was more or less how I saw the issue. I wasn't firm in that belief, but in college I saw it as a strong position. When I discussed my ideas with fellow students in the wake of Goodridge v. Mass. DPH (the Mass. decision allowing gay marriage), I was subjected to a flood of attacks like the ones you support making on opponents of gay marriage. I was told to "shut the fuck up," I was called a homophobe, I was labeled a bigot, and I was threatened with physical harm. All for suggesting a position contrary to popular opinion on the issue of gay marriage. I can't speak for the people who did it, but I can only assume their motives were similar to yours. Because I held a position contrary to theirs, I was no longer worth listening to and it became their responsibility to shout me down in the name of their cause. As it happened, that didn't work. First of all, I actually became more convinced of the merits of my side. After all, if the responses I got from other students were a fair representation of the intellectual rigor behind gay marriage, I didn't see much reason to take it seriously. Second, I responded in kind and got very angry at the people who lashed out at me, in the name of "tolerance," no less. Who were they to tell me I wasn't allowed to question their ideas? What right did they have to try to silence opposing viewpoints, while out of the other side of their mouths bemoaning the government's efforts to silence leftist protesters? That anger wound up generalizing to the issue that sparked the conflict, and I became more emotionally invested in the gay marriage debate than I originally had been. All that changed one night when I was watching a segment on the news that dealt with gay marriage. The program showed a same-sex couple hugging one another and I found myself getting upset. I thought, "Yeah, that's right. Go on and keep rubbing it in everyone's face. Your shrill self-interested advocacy group got you what you want. Piss off." And then I caught myself. This couple on TV hadn't done anything to me. They weren't responsible for the vitriol spewed at me for daring to disagree with popular ideas. This couple was just two people trying to live their lives, who got caught up in this bitter installment in the culture war. What was being done to them wasn't fair, and me projecting my anger onto them wasn't fair either. They hadn't joined the battle and probably wanted no part in it. That day I changed my position on the issue. Later, I found that people invoked the same "slippery slope" argument in the face of interracial marriage in the wake of Loving v. Virginia some decades earlier. But of course, the fabric of society didn't unravel then, and there was no sign it was going to after gay marriage. So now at last, let me come to the point: The angry attacks on me by proponents of gay marriage did not help me reach this realization; in fact, they probably ensured I came to it later than I otherwise would have. There was never a time when I hated gay people or set out to deprive them of equal access to marriage for the sake of depriving them of equal access to marriage. Shouting at me that I was doing that did not win me over. It didn't even get me to stop talking about it. If you're really serious about converting people on this point, then please take it from the story of a convert himself. Accusing people of being hateful, and treating them hatefully, is not going win anyone over.

By: Stunt

Stunt — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:02:43 -0800

I was at work until near 10pm yesterday, and was completely cut off from any news about how the election was going. At one point a friend of mine sent me a text message informing me that Obama was up to 297 electoral votes. GLEE! That felt good. SO, SO GOOD. Part of me hadn't wanted to get truly excited that it could happen, because if it hadn't gone that way then it would have been even more crushing. I cruised through the rest of work smiling and elated. Then I got home. Then I saw how my state was voting on prop 8. Then I felt that joy and excitement drain away as I found out that over five million people in my goddamned state voted to strip away rights from other ordinary residents of my state. Five million people who think that my best friend is somehow inferior to them, and WRONG, and shouldn't be allowed to have a relationship like they can. Five million people who lead the charge with Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida to make sure that these people that are scary and different from them couldn't enjoy the same rights and benefits as they themselves could. Are any of them going to look back on that vote in 30 years and be ashamed of it? Realize that on the same day some of them voted to put the first african american into the white house they were sadly ensuring that another group of people stayed second class citizens for awhile longer. It's bullshit, and it makes me angry. Mostly though I'm just sad, knowing how small and backward people still are, even in a supposedly forward state. Yesterday may have been a great step out of the shadows for our country, but unfortunately a lot of our citizens still aren't quite ready to come into the light.

By: flyinghamster

flyinghamster — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:02:44 -0800

Obama winning the presidency means nothing comparatively to this disaster. Proposition 8 passing is a death-knell for civil liberty in this country. Hope has been extinguished, both locally and exotericly. Gone are the illusions that the way of life that I want to live can be appended to the common social order. Lost are the beliefs that held me together as a productive member of society. Instead, a system is being put in place that will drive all my efforts in the future. I really see my true purpose here on this earth now as a destructive force to society. I am not a woman or a man, and in so being, my rights are constantly being eroded. I am not heterosexual, I do not believe in the nuclear family or in traditional family structure, I am not homosexual, I do not believe in indoctrinating children one way or another, I am not bisexual, and I am not a overly sexual person whose lust has blinded them to the joys of a Godly life. Perhaps I hold these views because for the most part I was raised outside of indoctrinating institutions, but I still believe that there is some inherent humanity left in us after all, in spite and underneath of all the labels we cling to like the rural Pennsylvanians are supposed to be clinging to their Bibles and their Guns. I am a person, a priori, and my awareness precedes any devious propagandists with their suits and ties, their uniforms, or their religious garb. I never had to envy free-thinkers, I have been one as long as I can remember. And free-thinkers like me have in the grand scheme of history preceded all dogmatic, controlling, and fascist powers; we are the doubters, the skeptics, and the creators. The only thing that precedes us is the void itself in which we will all be thrown. Despite faith in a higher power and conversely despite any life-extension technology, the grand unifier of death will not sort us based on our ethos and certainly not our self-applied labels. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is akin to defining a pineapple as being between a coconut and a grapefruit, and such a distinction has no place in any constitution. Where are those who still believe in the constitution we have in place in America? It does touch on separation of church and state, does it not? It is the greatest of all misfortunes that the equality guaranteed inevitably by demise is not more accurately reflected in our temporal existence. Perhaps our inclinations psychologically and socially towards wars, homicides, suicides, and terrorist acts are not themselves a cause of disorder but instead the natural conclusion of a system out of balance, forced against its will to use the only tool it has left: the iteration of death.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:07:28 -0800

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:09:54 -0800

Be careful with the "We dont talk to ~~terrorists~~ bigots" talk.

By: Law Talkin' Guy

Law Talkin' Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:25:14 -0800

It sounds to me more like you just prefer to use derogatory epithets and name-calling as a bludgeon to harangue people with opposing viewpoints into submission instead of engaging them on a civilized level. Nope. Oh, ok. I guess I was confused there in light of your screed against people who disagree with you along with your explicitly stated intention to not engage them on a civilized level. But thanks for clearing that up.

By: cjets

cjets — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:25:14 -0800

Obama winning the presidency means nothing comparatively to this disaster. Proposition 8 passing is a death-knell for civil liberty in this country. Wow. I couldn't disagree more. The prop 8 vote is a major setback. But the Civil rights movement and the Woman's rights movement have both had major setbacks as well. Prop 8 is nothing that can't be fixed in two or four years. In some ways, it could be considered a wake up call for the Lesbian and Gay rights movement. There was tremendous progress made with the right to marry in California and Massachusetts. But there's a lot of work yet to be done, even in California. But this is a country that went from Slavery to an African American president in 145 years, that went from the Civil Rights act to President Obama in 44 years. Which leads me to my second point. The election of President Obama may be the most important election in my entire life. Not only is it the election of the best candidate, despite the color of his skin, it's the complete repudiation of 8 years of Bush/Cheney, their illegal war, the complete disregard for the constituion and the rule of law. The American people (52% of them anyway) finally said enough. The country can survive the vote on prop 8 and learn from its mistakes. Could we have survived a McCain/Palin presidency? I'm glad we don't have to find out.

By: yellowbinder

yellowbinder — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:25:14 -0800

I just want to grouse here for a little, because I feel like such a downer to my friends right now. I posted a facebook status (amongst virtually everyone I know's jubilation) about how sad I am for my gay brethren in the States. I got comments along the lines of "so you think they'd be better off with McCain/Palin?" Obviously not, but this is depressing. I feel like such a buzzkill. I want to be so happy for this transcendant historical event, and yet... I just can't. Now, I'm not expecting gay marriage to be an easy slog. I expected most of these propositions to turn out the wrongheaded way, but California is a shock. I feel like voters did the right thing in voting Obama, but missed the whole point. It's hard for me to explain why separate but mostly equal isn't ok with me. It is for my boyfriend, and we live in Canada where same sex marriage has been legal for years and you never hear a peep about it these days. People who go about trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage are indeed in my mind bigoted. Granting full marriage rights to same sex couples has no effect on their lives. None. No one would force any church to perform a marriage they are opposed to. No one is claiming that marriage between atheists, or muslims, or arranged marriages voids the sanctity of marriage. What these people are saying with their votes is you are different, and we'll deal with that, but it is fundamentally not ok. It's disgusting to me. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... America did a great thing yesterday towards making these words finally ring true. But these votes only show that we've got a long way to go. Sorry for length, and repeating points that others have made. But this is really bumming me out, and I don't want to ruin all my friend's joy on this momentous occasion, so I need to express it somewhere.

By: IndpMed

IndpMed — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:26:49 -0800

As mentioned earlier, the legal fight has begun.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:29:03 -0800

Oh, ok. I guess I was confused there in light of your screed against people who disagree with you along with your explicitly stated intention to not engage them on a civilized level. But thanks for clearing that up. No, you're just wrong. Go back and reread what I wrote. I trust you're able to distinguish between what I said -- which is that I will be calling hateful action for what it is -- and what you mischaracterized it as. There are no epithets being thrown around. And you can be perfectly civil and still forthright that you think someone is engaging in hateful behavior.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:29:30 -0800

Make Prop 8 a Phyrric Victory—Bankrupt the Mormons

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:31:47 -0800

Law Talkin' Guy, at one point I felt about homosexuality as you did when you were in college. I changed my mind, but I have to admit that the only way for me to change my mind was to realize that I was being prejudiced and intolerant. I'll admit that that process would have taken a lot longer (or never happened) if people had been screaming abuse into my face and I'd gotten all defensive about it, but it doesn't change the fact that those labels were accurate. I guess what I'm saying is that calling people bigoted and intolerant who actually are bigoted and intolerant is certainly morally defensible, but tactically inept. As others have pointed out, the big breakdown in gay rights is on age lines. The culture war was won in Hollywood a long time ago, and the constantly broadcast news of the victory is slowly sinking into thick skulls across the land. As the population changes, tolerance and rights will inevitably increase. Unless substantial waves of immigration somehow change the dynamic (VDARE + gays = strange bedfellows?). In some dark portion of the xenophobe brain, homosexuality == paederasty == recruit our children for gay sex orgies. These people are very motivated. Meanwhile there is a large contingent of people in CA who are just apathetic or who think RDP is sufficient.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:32:00 -0800

I would say that we would be better off politely discussing it with them than angrily "pointing it out" to them, as the latter sounds a bit patronizing, doesn't it? Generally speaking, treating people with different opinions respectfully will probably change more minds that just "pointing X out" to them. Not always, but I think in this instance rancor will only lead to further polarization. Parse the word choice all you want, but somehow the other side has managed to equate "Someone else's marriage and life choices have no effect on your own marriage and life choices." with "YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ALL OF OUR KIDS LEARN ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE IN SCHOOL AND BECOME GAY AND TURN THIS INTO TERRORIST HOMO-STAN!" Which, call me crazy, seems to be slightly angrier than what I am saying. The first statement is fairly neutral, is it not? It might as well be "My wearing green doesn't affect your decision to wear blue." So, it seems to me that polite discussion doesn't seem to be working very well, as not everyone seems to be capable of coming to the sort of realizations Law Talkin' Guy and Astro Zombie did in relation to their own formerly-held opinions. And instead of just leaving it alone, they instead actively work to deny rights to those who don't share their values. Is it any wonder those on the defensive get angry? Those of us on this side of the aisle don't attack your ability to get married, or adopt kids, or visit your partner in the hospital. It is just so frustrating. "Pointing out" is the most neutral term I can think of for bringing up something that the other side doesn't want to discuss. "Reminding" might also work, except that implies they already knew that -- say -- same sex marriage wouldn't actually affect their hetero one. I'm sorry that Law Talkin' Guy was attacked for his opinions on Goodridge. Having lived in Mass. during that case (while working for -- I kid you not -- an all-lesbian law firm), I heard an awful lot of opinion on both sides and I could imagine how it got nasty fast.

By: jasbet07

jasbet07 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:36:43 -0800

People keep asking on this thread how anyone could vote for both Obama and Proposition 8. Given Obama's stance on gay marriage, I don't really think it's hard to figure out. Don't get me wrong, I was elated last night - along with a local lesbian bar full of others - upon hearing of Obama's victory. This morning, however, I turned on the television while holding my breath. We now have a president and vice-president elect who both believe, and have actively professed, that marriage should be between a man and a woman - but that gays should be allowed to have "the same thing" but we'll call it something different. One would think a black man would be a bit more sensitive to the inherent inequality of separate but equal but no such luck. People who voted for 8 and for Obama were listening to his message about gays - they heard loud and clear from Obama/Biden that gays should not have the privilege of marriage so those in California voted to make sure we wouldn't.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:39:20 -0800

I certainly don't mean to sound like I am supporting attacks of the sort you experiences, Law Talking Guy. I am not a fan of personal attacks, nor of making assumptions regarding the reasoning behind why people believe things, as I thought I had made clear. I am only interested in discussing behavior. And, in this instance, the behavior is hateful and bigoted, and as I have said I think there is value in describing it as such.

By: yellowbinder

yellowbinder — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:42:31 -0800

If you really want to get angry/depressed check out these pictures. I just broke down sobbing, then almost punched my monitor. Disgusting.

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:44:25 -0800

But you didn't win a general election yesterday because you treated everyone who voted for Bush in 2004 as a hateful warmonger. No, but Yes on 8 won a ballot proposition yesterday by treating my marriage like a depraved cancer on society.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:45:11 -0800

Doc Brown? Why must you take us back to the future?

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:46:32 -0800

And you know? I say that as someone who did exactly what Law-Talkin' Guy wanted. I and my spouse were in a No on 8 video where we told the completely innocuous and highly cute story of our relationship. Didn't do a damn thing.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:49:10 -0800

California Mefites - you've got work to do. posted by Navelgazer at 12:38 PM on November 5 [+] [!] Careful Navelgazer, that kind of talk isn't greeted very well around here.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:51:06 -0800

"Someone else's marriage and life choices have no effect on your own marriage and life choices." I take it, then, that you support polygamy. If so, that's fine and your position is entirely consistent.

By: greekphilosophy

greekphilosophy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:51:40 -0800

Law Talkin' Guy - I have to admit that as a gay man, I find it very hard to have civil discourse on this subject, because we in the queer community are already so much on the defensive (ie our rights are not recognized and are under attack every day) that it is a very emotional issue. When I was in law school, a overheard someone talking about the gay marriage debate (pre-Goodridge), and they essentially said the same thing you mentioned, but in a very tactless way. "Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to marry their dogs." How degrading it feels to be lumped in with pedophilia and bestiality and polygamy - which, when I'm feeling clearheaded and impassioned on the subject, I am able to mention are fundamentally different, as they all hinge on issues of consent. But in the moment, when I heard him say that, with a sneer on his face... I... just wanted to punch him. My friend Jocelyn overheard it too, and fearing that I might do something that would get me kicked out of school, prevented from sitting for the bar, or more likely (as I'm kind of a wimpy guy) beaten up, she quickly steered me out of the room, where I was permitted to seethe with rage in a safe space with someone I knew cared deeply about me. The truth is that it is too emotional an issue for most of us not to respond in that way. Often, our best advocates are straight allies who can keep their cool in situations like these. A distinguished Family Law Professor, and former lead counsel for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sally Goldfarb, did just that when she debated a fellow from a conservative Christian legal organization. She was able to give the solemn, impassioned, logical explanation for why marriage equality is so important. And I was grateful for that. Because I could not have done so.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:53:23 -0800

If you're really serious about converting people on this point, then please take it from the story of a convert himself. Accusing people of being hateful, and treating them hatefully, is not going win anyone over. I mostly agree with you. And I have no intention of being hateful to anyone (to their face, at least). But a hateful action is a hateful action. Intent is irrelevant in this situation. The fact that a bunch of my fellow citizens don't think there's anything wrong with stripping me of a right they themselves enjoy is profoundly corrosive, anti-democratic, and yes, hateful. It is certainly not loving, or respectful; it does not show me that they think I am an equal, or deserving of equal rights. I do not care that some/many/all who voted yes on 8 did so because they Really Love Marriage! or did so for some other reason that they justify as "protecting" marriage rather than "gay people are icky." The effect is what counts here. The effect is: Gay people are icky; gay people do not deserve to be treated as equal; gay people are not good enough to get or be married; gay people are not as human as we straight people. From this gay-married lesbian's perspective, that's pretty fucking hateful, and I'll call it like I see it. I've got a co-worker who I'm 99.9% sure voted yes on 8. I never liked her much to begin with (for completely work-related reasons), and I've been running scenarios through my head all day - like, what would I say to her if we were to talk about this? I imagine talking to her gently and reasonably about who I am, and what my relationship with my partner is like, and the importance of equal treatment, etc. And of course I want to seem as human, as "real", as possible to her, to try to make that connection. Because I do believe that, in an ideal world, that is the best way to break down barriers. But then I get stuck, kind of. Why should I expose my neck to her this way? No one ever, ever asked her to explain that she's a human being and should be allowed to get married to her husband. She's never had to go before a group of people who are predisposed to fear her and tell lies about her "lifestyle" and ask for recognition and tolerance. So although I do truly believe in education, and we've come light years regarding how the glbt community is seen and treated, I can't help but resent the fucking fuck out of having to explain so gently and kindly again and again and again that I'm a person, a citizen, deserving of full rights and responsibilities. It feels like begging. It feels like rolling over on my back and saying "See? See how cute and harmless I am? Please don't kick me! Please give me some rights!" It's humiliating. It's degrading. It's completely and utterly enraging. Which is why I stay out of direct conversation with bigots, generally speaking, and give money to organizations who do the education work. I'm glad, and grateful, that there are people who can do this kind of thing, because I'm not one of them anymore. Not about this.

By: SpiffyRob

SpiffyRob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:53:31 -0800

We now have a president and vice-president elect who both believe, and have actively professed, that marriage should be between a man and a woman - but that gays should be allowed to have "the same thing" but we'll call it something different. We'll see what being elected does to this position. I've always suspected that trying to hold onto moderate voters was a big reason why this was stated as such. I may well be wrong, but I'm holding out hope.

By: Danf

Danf — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:53:42 -0800

. We now have a president and vice-president elect who both believe, and have actively professed, that marriage should be between a man and a woman - but that gays should be allowed to have "the same thing" but we'll call it something different. One would think a black man would be a bit more sensitive to the inherent inequality of separate but equal but no such luck. Who knows what Obama and Biden really think? I would assert that if Obama had come out in favor or full marriage rights for everyone, then the McCain campaign would have ridden that to the White House. It looks like 52% of California voters are bigoted in this realm (very few people get up in the morning and say "I'm going to be a bigot today" but you are also judged by the *ahem* fruits of your labor.) If 52% of Ca voters voted FOR Prop. 8, then I would think that it may have made a 4% difference in the vote for President, and, hey, forget Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and, arguably, Ohio. I choose to believe that their stance was the lesser evil of losing the election and that the selling out of gay people (I have a lesbian daughter in CA) will be made up for in some way (other than a special place in heaven).

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:54:41 -0800

I take it, then, that you support polygamy. In my case, as I have no plans to get married, I merely support freaky three-ways.

By: greekphilosophy

greekphilosophy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:58:53 -0800

Marshallpoe, stop being a troll. But if you want to know why polygamy is not the same as gay marriage, then please let's discuss the history of subjugation of women in polygamous relationships, the history of child abuse, underage marriage, problems with legal inheritance rules, and the historical issue of coverture - the now-defunct legal doctrine that a woman's legal identity is subsumed by her husband's upon marriage. The fact is that marriage is now a contractual obligation between consenting parties. When the bargaining of that contractual arrangement becomes too complex to regulate or clearly understand, it is reasonable to restrict that sort of arrangement. The rights and responsibilities of marriage as it is currently understood today are easily and rightly applicable to same-sex relationships. They are not as easily ascribed to multi-party relationships, and are not even easily amended to make sense for those relationships. If you want further examples of why these are different issues, and why supporting a hands-off approach to same-sex relationships does not necessitate supporting polygamy, I'd be happy to provide them. Otherwise, stop trolling.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:01:23 -0800

I take it, then, that you support polygamy. If so, that's fine and your position is entirely consistent. In fact, I have friends who are poly, and their relationships have had - wait, let me check - yeah, zero effect one way or another on my relationship. My marriage. What was your point, now?

By: Big_B

Big_B — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:09:26 -0800

Bankrupt the Mormons Haha. Good one!

By: Danf

Danf — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:11:18 -0800

Marshallpoe, to lift a quote from this LJ entry, Fuck your arguments about the "slippery slope" it would create, in either marriage or democracy. Give society some fucking credit for having a modicum of common sense. A sudden wave of marrying dogs and widespread polygamy won't happen, and you know it.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:11:54 -0800

Trolling. More name-calling. Surely we can do better. I believe that are many women in radical Mormon communities--not to mention millions of Muslim women all over the world--who do not think that polygamy is "oppressive." Are we to deny those people the same rights that we enjoy? If so, we need to explain why their kind of marriage is so harmful that we must ban it. This is, after all, the question that we in the pro-gay marriage camp (of which I am one) want anti-gay marriage types to answer.

By: QIbHom

QIbHom — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:15:38 -0800

Many of us from the eastern side of Michigan do think Holland, MI is a foreign country. I mean, they even close the McDonald's on Sunday there.

By: wowbobwow

wowbobwow — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:25:07 -0800

I'm really disappointed by this. I have a feeling though, that this issue will one day resolved for the better. Loving vs. Virginia was not so long ago. I hope I will see a gay-rights equivalent within my lifetime.

By: needs more cowbell

needs more cowbell — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:25:19 -0800

Regarding Mormons and polygamy: supposedly, one of the reasons the Mormons are so invested in promoting "Marriage = one man and one woman" is to distance themselves from polygamy. Because apparently it's better to be known as hateful bigots who take away rights than sometime-polygamists.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:25:43 -0800

Sorry. I'm really tired. I don't think I know anyone who is polygamous. Polyamorous, yes, but not polygamous. My point still stands. And I still don't get what polygamy has to do with the kind of one-person-to-one-person marriage we are discussing here. The kind that's just been outlawed for me and mine. Not some hypothetical "but what if eighteen people could get married to each other?!" kind. Why'd you bring it up? Because if we're going to sue to get gay marriage legalized then we have to go and sue to get polygamy legalized too, right now? Because otherwise we're morally bankrupt or hypocritical?

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:26:35 -0800

Marshall, while some of us are mourning the potential demise of our actual marriages here please take your "concerns" about polygamy back to the Troll Factory. If you think you're still being serious and sincere, start your own FPP about polygamy. I'm sure there are plenty of relevant links.

By: heathkit

heathkit — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:28:58 -0800

Polygamy is a real red herring here. The question if more than two people can enter into a marriage has structural problems because of the added complexity. How do you handle divorce? How do you prevent entire communities from marrying fraudulently just for tax benefits? Do you scale benefits to the number of people in the marriage? Legally, a marriage of more than 2 people is a very different thing than a marriage of 2 people, because under the law 2 people is very different from three or more people. However, homosexual marriage is directly analogous to heterosexual law - since everyone is supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law, all 2 person marriages should be equivalent, regardless of the race or gender of the individuals.

By: heathkit

heathkit — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:30:28 -0800

And we can phrase this whole issue as another way. Why should I, as an individual, not be allowed to marry any other single individual I choose? Why can the government arbitrarily limit my choices to half the population?

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:32:24 -0800

MarshallPoe I'm going to side with Astro Zombie here. There is value in shaming, and people who voted for Prop 8 deserve to be shamed. They did vote for hate, there's simply no way around that. They can justify it all they want, they can come up with an endless stream of excuses (and I'm sure they will and have), but that doesn't change the fact that they voted for hate. People can't say "I am going to deny you basic human rights and dignity" without hate. They can lie to themselves and claim it isn't about hate, but that's nonsense and we all know it. I don't plan on screaming that in anyone's face, but neither do I think its valuable to pretend that the hate is something other than what it is. People must be held accountable for their actions, for their beliefs, for their votes. And every single person in California who voted for Proposition 8 voted for hate. By shaming them, by asking them (politely even) to justify their hate, to own up to their hate, things can get better. Obviously that isn't the only thing that should be done, the problem requires a large array of approaches. But shaming the supporters of hate, forcing them to realize their hate, is necessary but not sufficient to success. But we can't win this battle without the vital component of shame. Some people who voted for Prop 8 yesterday can be made to vote for its repeal in 2010 by the judicious application of shame. Hopefully that won't be necessary. There are still three million votes to be counted, and its estimated that a large proportion of the absentee ballots were cast by non-bigots.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:34:26 -0800

I am very serious and very sincere about making sure that gay people have a right to be married in the United States. It's with that in mind that I participated in this discussion. If you want to change people's minds, you have to meet their objections and at least try to be consistent yourself. Calling people (to repeat some of the things said in this thread) "Nazis," "hate mongers," "idiots," "morons," or what ever epithet you like just won't do the trick. Neither will dismissing their counter-arguments as stupid move anything forward. If we are reasonable people--which we are--we must use reasoned, consistent arguments.

By: QIbHom

QIbHom — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:37:20 -0800

Maybe it is because I have no interest in marrying my partner, or because I'm old, or because I live nowhere near CA, but when the fuck did you people start thinking that the straights thought we were equal? Don't you know your history? Haven't you talked to a gay person over 25 years old? Over 40 years old? Over 60? Sheesh. Sounds like you CA gays thought that a little common sense and reason would defeat Prop 8, no need to do much. It'll be different than 2000, 2004, hate and lies and fear won't mean a thing. Nothing changed between yesterday and today, except that some folks were forced off their rainbow-coloured, cotton candy cloud. They still hate us. So, get out there, and just be human. Be gay and human. Refuse to be treated like a second class non-citizen. Don't whine, don't blame other people. Just. Be. Human.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:39:54 -0800

POSITIVE: Jared Schutz Polis made history on Tuesday by being the first openly gay non-incumbent male elected to the United States Congress.

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:43:45 -0800

I think that the nicer approach is necessary. But I don't think it'll work by itself. The burning shame of being called out as a hate filled bigot will convince some. Others may be convinced by more academic arguments. But there's no such thing as a panacea here, each one of the hate filled bigots who voted for Prop 8 will require a different approach to convert. But I also think that your "oh, please be nice to the hate filled bigots" talk is pretty far out of line. It isn't nice, polite, or civilized, to tell an entire group of people that they're subhuman slime who must be denied basic human rights and dignity. I'll treat the hate filled bigots with *EXACTLY* the same degree of civility, respect, and politeness that they treated my gay cousins.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:44:02 -0800

Calling people (to repeat some of the things said in this thread) "Nazis," "hate mongers," "idiots," "morons," or what ever epithet you like just won't do the trick. Hatemongers was used in this thread, once. None of the others were, although "nazis" was used as a point of comparison, not as an epithet.

By: dogwalker

dogwalker — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:45:28 -0800

My least favorite part of this election is Prop 8 passing. But when combined with CA Prop 2 passing, it taught me a well-deserved lesson. We've got an electorate who will vote to take rights away from other people and give more rights to chickens. So ridiculous.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:49:09 -0800

The angry attacks on me by proponents of gay marriage did not help me reach this realization; in fact, they probably ensured I came to it later than I otherwise would have. This is what happens when you care more about how people think of you than what is right. Don't blame it on someone else.

By: threeturtles

threeturtles — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:54:54 -0800

Durn Bronzefist: Likewise, I see the bigotry patrol softening just a little when it turns out that their favourite uncle or grandmother (etc) not only harbours an intolerant perspective but doesn't do it out of HATE HATE HATE. You know, no matter how many times my in-laws claim they really don't hate black people, even though my father-in-law voted for Obama, I still mind when they launch into rants about "more niggers moving into the neighborhood." And I still get up and walk out of their house.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:56:08 -0800

Calling people (to repeat some of the things said in this thread) "Nazis," "hate mongers," "idiots," "morons," No one in this thread has used any of those words except you, in that comment, and one earlier in which Nazi Germany was invoked as a comparison. No one has used them as descriptives or epithets. What thread are you reading?

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:56:52 -0800

Gah. Preview. Hi, Astro Zombie!

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:09:31 -0800

I take it, then, that you support polygamy. If so, that's fine and your position is entirely consistent. What's wrong with polygamy? I not only support polygamy but I still have an open offer out to Doris Kearns Goodwin and Ariana Huffington that we are still open to some sister-wives here at the TK compound. Doris, baby, I will rock your world.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:11:12 -0800

I'm always intrigued that people tend to assume polygamy is the same as polygyny. When the bargaining of that contractual arrangement becomes too complex to regulate or clearly understand, it is reasonable to restrict that sort of arrangement. That's the only clear argument I've seen on the subject of polygamy that makes sense and doesn't rely merely on the difficult to articulate historical baggage associated with the term.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:14:10 -0800

You know, no matter how many times my in-laws claim they really don't hate black people, even though my father-in-law voted for Obama, I still mind when they launch into rants about "more niggers moving into the neighborhood." And I still get up and walk out of their house. In-laws and the N word? You can do better. How about your grandma isn't so sure that civil unions aren't the right answer. Or your brother thinks that Islam preaches hate. You don't sit down and discuss it with these people? Way to try to run off with the easy example, dude. Anwyay, I agreed with AZ way up there -- both approaches have value, and I'm glad there are those out there shaming as others have The Conversation. And sometimes I'm just not up to it, frankly, and then I'm happy to launch into a screed of my own and let someone else have the rational talk. I still think it's the easy way out, but I do think it's more effective if the ignorant are exposed to both rather than one or the other.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:15:03 -0800

Marshall, I'll say it again. You seem profoundly concerned about polygamy. That's fine. I have friends who are profoundly concerned about Star Trek, and whether or not the new movie will honor or dishonor the franchise. You could even say that Star Trek and gay issues are related -- after all, there's all that Kirk/Spock fanfiction out there, the holographic doctor on that tedious later show was obviously a queen, and there was that brouhaha about Shatner being invited to Takei's gay wedding. But that doesn't mean that the concerns of a Trekkie who has endless things to say about his favorite show is relevant to a discussion about Proposition 8. Again, I invite you to focus your feelings about polygamy into a coherent post rather than demanding all this airtime here. While you may firmly believe that polygamy is somehow related to any intelligent discussion of gay marriage, I submit to you that that's because you have absorbed the message of the opponents of gay marriage so thoroughly that you are not thinking clearly. Thank you.

By: jb

jb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:15:41 -0800

I agree that voting for Obama and for Prop 8 is all kinds of odd. So is voting for Obama and swearing off everything he believes in. posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:32 PM on November 5 [1 favorite +] [!] But Obama does not believe in gay marriage. Sure, he said he would have voted against proposition 8 and believes it was "unnecessary", but immediately went on to say that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman [only]. No hestation, no questioning. He sounded a lot surer than Biden did answering the same question, and Biden was in his debate-say everything three times-mode. I think it's important to recognise this, and to recognize that just because someone is progressive on one (or several) issues, doesn't mean they are progressive on all. As for the whole issue of marriage and religion: Marriage is both a civil and a religious issue. Some people want same-sex marriage for the civil benefits, but many others want same-sex marriage for the religious benefits. The first gay marriages in Ontario - the marriages which opened the court case in which they were legally recognized - were performed by a Christian minister under the traditional Christian practice of calling the banns. Gay marriage is a freedom of religion issue, as well as an equality issue -- People are demanding the freedom for their church to marry two consenting adults whom their church believes should be allowed to marry. Preventing them from marrying these people is the true attack on the freedom of religion. As for the slipery slope arguments: no other cases proposed can be compared, because they do not include consenting adults. Marriage to underage people? Not old enough to consent. Bestiality, necrophilia or arbophilia? Simply can never consent. Many cases of polygamy? Very difficult to establish that all involved fully consent. (I'm actually in favour of recognizing polygamy for truly consenting adults, but I realize that consent is complex with more than 2-3 people, and it would involve some problems for certain entitlements, private or public.)

By: namespan

namespan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:15:54 -0800

I didn't vote for Prop 8 last night, but every time I read a metafilter thread about this issue, I suspect I'm going to wish I had. People can't say "I am going to deny you basic human rights and dignity" without hate. They can lie to themselves and claim it isn't about hate, but that's nonsense and we all know it. In otherwords, you have willfully determined that you will never, ever try to legitimately engage other members of the nation you live in on the issue, but instead, you will make up stories about them. And even if you ever do engage them, you will repeat the words "hate" and "rights" and "dignity" without thinking about their perspectives or arguments. Welcome to the culture warrior club. But it's OK. You're on the right side, no question. Look how full of hate those people are.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:16:05 -0800

(both fictional examples, incidentally)

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:19:53 -0800

Don't get so focussed on the 52% that you ignore how amazing the 48% is. Think about what that number would mean in the 1950s and 60s. Progress is being made. Don't throw your hands up in the air and assume we are on a one way ticket to reactionary dystopia.

By: yellowbinder

yellowbinder — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:24:05 -0800

Of course Obama says he's against gay marriage. Let's face it, at this point you're unelectable if you say you're for it, at least in the presidential race. I think he probably personally has no issue with the concept, but I don't think he'll take any action on it once in office. Just leave it to the states to decide. That's the best they can do, for now. Really, it shouldn't be a political issue at all, but a judicial one. Issues like this shouldn't be political, we're dealing with rights after all. Of course, the American legal system is so wrapped up in politics. I cringe when see election ads for judges. And don't get me started on that "We only need one more conservative judge and we'll get Roe v. Wade repealed" stuff. Anyway, it's a long slog. We will get there, I have no doubt. But there are miles to go.

By: MikeKD

MikeKD — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:24:41 -0800

I didn't vote for Prop 8 last night, but every time I read a metafilter thread about this issue, I suspect I'm going to wish I had. Metafilter reminds you that you're a spiteful person?

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:25:30 -0800

I told myself that I was going to stay out of this thread. I hope I won't regret not sticking to that position. MarshallPoe: I take it, then, that you support polygamy. If so, that's fine and your position is entirely consistent. ... we in the pro-gay marriage camp (of which I am one) ... Are you sure you're in the right camp? Because you're doing an awfully good job of parroting the talking points of the other camp. Not just the anti-gay-marriage camp; but the entire anti-gay camp. The ones who are against gay people being allowed to teach, or socialize openly, or fuck in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The ones who routinely trot out the "If we accept this, we'll have to accept bestiality and child molesting!!11eleventyone" stuff. If the pro-gay-marriage camp is forced to be 'consistent' in such a way, it is playing into the hands of the anti-gay-marriage camp. They will be able to act all vexed, squeal "See?! SEE?! Polygamy! Bestiality! Child molesting! CATS AND DOGS SLEEPING TOGETHER!" and further encourage people to vote out of panic and fear.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:25:43 -0800

In otherwords, you have willfully determined that you will never, ever try to legitimately engage other members of the nation you live in on the issue, but instead, you will make up stories about them. Um, did you miss the part where lots of people in this thread talk about different ways to engage? Did you miss the part where lots of people here talk about talking, educating, donating money, bowing out instead of throwing punches when it all gets to be too much? I didn't vote for Prop 8 last night, but every time I read a metafilter thread about this issue, I suspect I'm going to wish I had. Hyperbolic snarky bullshit. And you're accusing other people of not engaging in good faith? Or should I come back at you and accuse you of being a bigot who wants to forcibly annul my gay marriage? Good grief.

By: bowline

bowline — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:26:48 -0800

In America, hope won over fear. In California, hate won over love.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:34:23 -0800

In California, hate won over love. See, this is simplistic bullshit, and it only bothers me because you are on the right side of this issue. If you weren't, frankly, I wouldn't care, because we're used to bullshit of all stripes from the other side. There are plenty of ignorant people out there who don't actually hate anybody. They've been conditioned to fear -- fear Muslims, fear gays, fear their government, fear change. You can try to sling the fear = hate line if you like, but all that proves is that the dictionary (and common sense) is your enemy. You want to declare war on the hateful, go ahead. You want to declare war on the ignorant, you're kidding yourself. Unless you plan to go live on a mountaintop.

By: Morrigan

Morrigan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:35:42 -0800

After the elation of last night, today's result on Proposition 8 was a terrible blow that will impact the lives of myself and my loved ones in very concrete ways. I am trying to keep in mind the last presidential election, however, when the issue of "values" (Oh, how I resent the moral superiority imbued in that political term....) was used successfully to run roughshod over Democratic candidates. I awoke four years ago feeling as if an entire nation had intentionally voted to scorn me and mine personally, even at the expense of their own best interests generally. This time, I am *trying* to keep the long view, to remember that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice" and that we are of necessity a strong people and every day are joined in our difficult quest for equality by more and more thoughtful, strong and determined straight brothers and sisters. I will choose to believe that our new President and members of Congress will resist further efforts to take away our rights as human beings and that we can summon the effort to make this country better for those that come after us.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:36:11 -0800

I still don't get what polygamy has to do with the kind of one-person-to-one-person marriage we are discussing here ... Polygamy is a real red herring here. But should it be? What's wrong with polygamy in theory? I opposed Prop 8. Very strongly. I am very much in favor of equal government treatment of homo- and heterosexual relationships. I'll vote for any new constitutional amendment that restores the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, *even* if it makes explicit restrictions that limit the rights of polygamous couples (I think California law already specifically prohibits polygamy) But I won't like it, and I think anti-polygamy laws should be considered unconstitutional as well. And what Durn Bronzefist just said.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:38:27 -0800

I didn't vote for Prop 8 last night, but every time I read a metafilter thread about this issue, I suspect I'm going to wish I had. Had I known what people were going to write in this thread, last night I would have voted for The Black Goat with a Thousand Young to wake from its cosmic prison and spread its seed across the infected visage of this corrupt planet. You call me mad? YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS MAD! IT IS MADNESS TO ACCUSE THE INSANE OF LUNACY!

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:41:58 -0800

Geez, I'm at home now feeding my 1 year-old son (it's his birthday!) a hotdog and I'm still on MeFi. It really is like crack. CKmtl, yes, I'm sure I'm in the right camp. I support gay marriage and have for a long time. I do have friends and family members who feel differently. I try to use reason and respect to convince them to reconsider their position. I've had some success, and sometimes come up empty. But I will persist, as I'm sure you will, giving good reasons why we all should--must--embrace gay marriage. I find these discussions--that is, the one we've had in this thread--help me clarify what I need to say to say to them. And for that I thank every one on MeFi, sincerely. Digaman, Astro Zombie, bitter-girl and everyone.

By: fairytale of los angeles

fairytale of los angeles — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:56:05 -0800

Yeah, I'm still having the depressing "but of course only RELIGIOUS marriage should be called marriage!" argument on my end. I finally boiled my bacon down to three paragraphs, and then I'll shut up: If the word "marriage" has the kind of power that leads people to go on TV squawking in terror about the children, the kind of power that empties Howard Ahmanson, Jr.'s pockets of $900K in an attempt to protect it, it's even more important that that power be fully protected by the state and given freely to any consenting folks who so choose, and not sequestered away as a sacramental thing-- for surely, there are atheists and agnostics, and those who choose not to have their committment sanctified, who wish to have that power for their own as well. Anything else is trying to wave the thesaurus over the genie to shove it back in the bottle. "Civil union" has its own connotations, too-- connotations of second-class citizenship, of hate, of legalized discrimination. I'm not willing to cede civil marriage in favor of a term that unabashedly reeks of the homophobia it's been used to support. I think you *should* be able to choose your own preference here, though. What I object to is the idea that we can equalize things/ fix the gay marriage issue/ what have you by taking a word of immense power away from *everyone at once* and limiting it to those who seek religious community, instead of by broadening the options available to everyone.

By: lysistrata

lysistrata — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:00:52 -0800

Calling people (to repeat some of the things said in this thread) "Nazis," "hate mongers," "idiots," "morons," or what ever epithet you like just won't do the trick. Neither will dismissing their counter-arguments as stupid move anything forward. If we are reasonable people--which we are--we must use reasoned, consistent arguments. You're right. But how about you just let people be angry for a little while? There are people in CA (some right here in this very thread) who woke up this morning facing the dissolution of their marriages. People who just got told that they don't deserve equality under the law. How about you let them vent for a little bit before you start wagging your finger and telling them to be nice?

By: zippy

zippy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:03:33 -0800

I live in California. Two of my closest friends, family really, are a married same-sex couple. One of my former co-workers is in a same-sex marriage. I wanted to understand the Yes on 8 side, so I looked at their web site. I won't link to it. The site seems to be aimed at two categories: true believers, who don't need any convincing, and persuadables, who might be uncomfortable about homosexuality or any change in traditional ways. I also think that the true believers are a minority of those who voted for Prop. 8. The key points on the Yes on 8 site are: - the government will teach gay marriage to our kindergartners and turn them gay! - don't let the government mess with tradition - if gays can marry, it does, uh, something bad to heterosexual marriage These points play towards people who are uncomfortable about homosexuality, possibly ignorant of real-life homosexuals in their community, and also those who fear change in long-standing norms. I think that time is on the side of the legalization of same-sex marriage, and that even if the proponents of same-sex marriage, of which I am one, do nothing more than they did this round, that the same-sex marriage will become legal in five to ten years. In order to shorten that time, one of the best approaches is to reach out to those groups that might be persuaded and educate them so that they no longer vote out of a fear of the unknown. With perseverance and money to get the word out, I believe Prop. 8 can be reversed in perhaps two years. In the meantime, my heart goes out to everyone whose rights were just stripped from them by an ignorant and fearful majority. But I am also optimistic that this fight will be much easier to win in a few years.

By: Law Talkin' Guy

Law Talkin' Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:03:38 -0800

See, this is simplistic bullshit, and it only bothers me because you are on the right side of this issue. If you weren't, frankly, I wouldn't care, because we're used to bullshit of all stripes from the other side. There are plenty of ignorant people out there who don't actually hate anybody. They've been conditioned to fear -- fear Muslims, fear gays, fear their government, fear change. You can try to sling the fear = hate line if you like, but all that proves is that the dictionary (and common sense) is your enemy. Yes. Thank you. QFT. And some other letters in there, too. The whole "gay marriage leads to polygamy, etc." line of thinking is based on faulty reasoning and is contradicted by historical evidence, but it's not hateful. It's a pretty strange concept of "hate" indeed that brands every position that tends to disadvantage this or that minority group as per se hateful regardless of their underlying reasoning, and everyone who espouses such a position as a hater of that group. Are there people who hate gays? Matthew Shepard's family probably thinks so, and for good reason. Are there people who oppose gay marriage in California? Apparently there's more than I would have thought. Are those two groups the same? To quote AstroZombie, "Nope."

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:05:54 -0800

“But Marriage provides many key rights under the law...” Yeah. That’s where I draw that line. Should gays be married? Fuck no! Should they have the same rights under the law as married people if they have a civil union? Fuck yes! You can’t tell churches what to do. But you can’t have (some) churches holding an exclusive monopoly on secular rights in these matters. In part - it discriminates against churches that allow gay marriages. Additionally - the state cannot extend rights for certain types of unions without disenfranchising others or allowing people to game the system. Therefore a man can’t form a union with a dog or several other people. “In fact, I have friends who are poly, and their relationships have had - wait, let me check - yeah, zero effect one way or another on my relationship.” It is not the sexuality that is relevent. There are still some blue laws, but there should be no law prohibiting non-union polygamy. You or your wife like having other partners in bed. Swell. No one’s business but your own. Where it affects me is where that extra person, or two, or three, gets the same treatment as my union. Therefore the more partners you have the more tax breaks you get, the more ways you can gift, the more medicare, social security, etc you can recieve. Essentially - the collective nature of polygamy affects my secular (that is social and economic) rights in a way homosexual marriage does not. You can marry 500 people and form an exclusive sort of corporation, f’rnstnce. I should not be discriminated against simply because I’m monogamous and someone else isn’t. (I’m naturally that way - but even if I weren’t, my wife has her own firearms and I trained her myself - I don’t want to broach that subject). So we could then simply revoke those economic incentives, but that makes doing family business a bit harder. Meh. I wouldn’t mind really. You’d just have a ‘designatee’ or some such. ‘Marry’ as many people as you like - only one of them gets to decide to pull the plug, visit you in jail, etc. I’ve actually lived in a polyhomo(nonsexual) relationship. Before I got married my death benefits would have gone to a buddy of mine I was serving with. Another buddy would have had the power of attorney and the will executor thing, etc. etc. Pretty much put all of ourselves (with the exception of genitalia) into each other’s hands. But I think that’s why all this gets so heated. People like their bits and want to argue in favor of (or against) whatever gets them off. Really, it’s got nothing to do with the way public business is conducted. Or shouldn’t have.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:09:50 -0800

Are there people who hate gays? Matthew Shepard's family probably thinks so, and for good reason. Are there people who oppose gay marriage in California? Apparently there's more than I would have thought. Are those two groups the same? To quote AstroZombie, "Nope." False distinction. Both have engaged in actions that are hateful, and both have engaged in actions that support privileges for straights while denying them to gays. Whether the people in California are frothing homophobes who might kill Matthew Shepard isn't the isuue. The isuue is power. And this vote was a demonstration of straights expressing power over gays, just as the murder of Matthew Shepard was. I know you really, really want to distinguish, so, fair enough. Murdering a gay man is more heinous and abominable than making him a second-class citizen. But both are hateful acts, and exist on the continuum of privilege and power. I'm sorry if you don't like it, and don't like that one group gets lumped in with the other, but that's the way hateful acts work. Sure, the guy who simply won't let his daughter marry a black man was once upon a time incrementally better than they guy who lynched a black man, but they were supporting the same system of intolerance.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:10:50 -0800

How did I manage to repeatedly misspell issue?

By: Xere

Xere — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:20:35 -0800

Someday soon, I truly believe that gay marriage will be a social norm. Just like other social norms that hardly anyone bats an eye at these days: women voters, co-ed schools, multiracial schools, interracial marriage, short sleeves, forks. (Yes, really. Forks. I know!) And when that day comes, I know that I will be able to look everyone in the eye and say that I have always supported gay marriage. And if they want to check my voter record on that, they're very welcome to.

By: quinoa

quinoa — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:23:11 -0800

For all those who have asked how they can help...donate to Equality California. Your contribution isn't tax deductible, since it involves political lobbying, but that's the whole point, isn't it? There also are ways get involved, but you can donate. It just occured to me, they don't have a way for folks to sign up for ongoing monthly donations. I'm going to suggest that to them... so the momentum can be maintained!

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:25:10 -0800

I'm just curious what you people think the "hard work" Obama refers to is. You'll talk to Iran but not your homophobic uncle. I don't presume to have the definitive guide on what your new C.I.C. believes in, but it seems to me that declaring your neighbour the enemy is something that the man has worked very hard to put an end to. Apparently reaching out to your opponent is only a valid tactic when you know you're winning. Anyway, lysistrata is probably right. People are angry, and have a right to be. But I hope they change their minds and don't squander the hard work already begun on having a dialogue about these things. You think Obama referred to gay and lesbian Americans by accident? He is fighting the smart fight. You all are bloodying your fists agains the brick wall. Hope it makes you feel better, because that wall isn't going anywhere that way. on preview: absolutely, Xere. I mean, ok, you guys have sure held out on the metric system, but keep your country free of theocratic reign and it won't be long on this.

By: CitizenD

CitizenD — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:26:14 -0800

SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE hetero- or homo-, there is NO REASON for the US GOVERNMENT to be handing out benefits to people because they're married. there are over 1,000 legal/social/cultural benefits ascribed to married individuals, which i (single-by-choice) simply do not qualify for. and i think that's absolutely fucking ludicrous. let churches decide who they do and do not want to consecrate in the sacred blah blah of maawige. keep government out of it. or, if that's simply not possible, make governmental protections and rights completely non-dependent on sexual preference. it's just that simple.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:28:35 -0800

Damn, I didn't think this vote would affect me so much today, and it's totally ruining my Obama high. As for the fear argument: I'm not buying it. To say it is due to fear (particularly 'conditioned') is to take responsibility from those who would vote against gay marriage. If people have reasons for doing it, they should own them. I've heard the big justifications for it, and they don't hold for me, but I'm very well too biased to see it rationally anyway. But I do think the reasoning is far more petty: there are some who enjoy the power of denying something to people they don't like. The racism I grew up with seemed to have this flavor, and much of the online commentary I've seen in favor of Prop 8 over the past few months (though that group is not necessarily representative) seems to revel in the withholding of something, just for spite. It's a weird day, questioning my reactions and my motives. On the one hand, I'm getting a very tiny taste of the kind of resentment African-Americans have had to deal with for years (not to start up the old debate about whether anti-gay stuff is or is not like racism). On the other, part of me wonders whether the high-percentage black vote to ban gay marriage is a form of turnabout, an expression of that resentment. (Which thought I dread is itself racist.) So I don't know; it's the first day. Maybe tomorrow I won't feel like hunting down Prop 8 supporters and corrupting their manfolk (might as well live up to that reputation of destroying heterosexual marriage), or setting flame to mormon temples.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:29:18 -0800

Don't get so focussed on the 52% that you ignore how amazing the 48% is. I was thinking about that earlier today. In the early 90's, Clinton got into immense trouble for trying to suggest that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military. Which we still haven't fixed, but still. And here we are fifteen years later, and same-sex marriage (or the othernamed equivalent) is legal in several states, and Massachussetts has even voted to keep it through the democratic process instead of through court action. I don't think you could convince 1993-me that this was remotely possible. And beyond that, we have 48% of California voting to keep gay marriage, and 44% of Arizona not to ban it, and 38% of FLORIDA for God's sake voting not to ban it. Florida, home of the whopper of dumbfuckery. If you told me fifteen years ago that by now almost 40% of Florida would vote that gay marriage was even potentially okay, I'd have thought you were raving bonkers insane.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:30:23 -0800

This is the civil rights issue of our times. This is far from over. The only way to win is to organize, build a coalition with other groups, and to do so at a scale we do not currently see. I know people have been fighting hard for this, but it has not been a concerted effort at the scale that needs to occur. I think the approach has been rather top-down and fragmented, both by geography and by subcultures. If we learn anything from the Obama campaign, it should be how powerful a bottom-up model really is, how potent peer-to-peer contact is when building trust and energy, and how us-vs-them is the weaker strategy in the long term.

By: bowline

bowline — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:30:38 -0800

See, this is simplistic bullshit, and it only bothers me because you are on the right side of this issue. If you weren't, frankly, I wouldn't care, because we're used to bullshit of all stripes from the other side. Thanks for the note, DB, and I have no real quarrel with you. Haters never think they are hating. And you can call them ignorant rather than hateful if you want, but I can't. See, there are two little girls in this world because I helped their two moms out with a certain key biological ingredient they were missing. One is four, one is five. Their moms love them and each other, and I was present at their wedding in Vancouver, BC. If someone told me that their moms were not allowed to be married, and that the little girls should never be told that having two moms was OK, then I would take it as nothing short of an attack on a family I care very much about. Call it what you want, but it sure feels like hate from here.

By: dr_dank

dr_dank — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:34:57 -0800

I just got off the phone with my broker who told me that the value of my marriage just doubled! Thanks, prop 8!

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:39:21 -0800

“Had I known what people were going to write in this thread, last night I would have voted for The Black Goat with a Thousand Young to wake from its cosmic prison and spread its seed across the infected visage of this corrupt planet.” (for AZ) Oh ho oh hoooooo! Oh ho oh hoooo! Iä! Everybody was Cthulhu F'tagn *Iä!* Those mi-go were fast as lightning *Iä!* In fact it was a little bit frightning *Iä!* That they summoned with expert timing They were funky men from Leng from funky Dunwichtown They were gobbling them up and they were gobbling them down It's an ancient R'lyeh art and everybody knew their part From a slip into A-byss and Unsprechen Kult-en Everybody was Cthulhu F'tagn *weird pipes* Those lloigor were fast as lightning In fact it was a little bit frightning But they spawned with expert timing There was funky Howard P. and little Bobby Bloch He said: here comes the Old Ones! lets get it on We took a book from Abdul Alhazred, and started swaying with our hands. The sudden dream made my mind skip, now we're into a star cosmic trip Everybody was Cthulhu F'tagn *weird pipes* Those dholes were fast as lightning In fact it was a little bit frightning But they wriggled with expert timing (repeat)..make sure you have expert timing Cthulhu F'tagn, had to be fast as lightning

By: honeydew

honeydew — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:42:01 -0800

I like to make a fuss about how gay marriage isn't the most important thing in the world. I'd rather have the Matthew Sheppard Act passed, or have my state outlaw employer discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. But when I heard this new today, I actually started sobbing. Man, this hurts.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:46:33 -0800

Thanks for the note, DB, and I have no real quarrel with you. Haters never think they are hating. And you can call them ignorant rather than hateful if you want, but I can't. Likewise, Bowline, and please believe that I'm with you on the issue 100%. But I refuse to continue assisting in the mutilation of the language. Hate is an emotion. Are some of these people hateful? Absolutely. Others just have this incredible inability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Lumping the second group in with the first means there's no more discussion. If you can afford to lose that many people, well, I don't think so. Anyway. I'm done, but I wish you all success in this however you choose to go about it.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:52:43 -0800

No, wait. One more thing, because I made it sound like I think the hate/fear thing is just semantics. It isn't. The impulse to call every instance of discrimination the result of hate has behind it the message: This is bad and you're a bad person for feeling that way. Sorry, but that's a selfish impulse and does not serve the cause. Some of you may have been shamed into smartening up on one or two issues, but that's not usually the way it works. You're settling for self-satisfaction and a bunker mentality instead of progress. Difficult, frustrating, bull-by-the-horns, day by day progress. And that's not cool.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:54:34 -0800

JESUS. Floridians ALSO voted down the amendment which bans Asians from owning property in the state.

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:59:02 -0800

If anyone invokes a "slippery slope" argument about Same-Sex Marriage leading to marrying animals, please note that California also passed (by a wide margin) Proposition 2, which prohibits inhumane confinement of farm animals. Yep, marriage is definitely out.

By: Robert Angelo

Robert Angelo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:13:58 -0800

Whispering quietly in little bitty letters here in the corner: As a gay man I wish we in the movement and our supporters could learn and follow the lessons of Dr. King. Yes, identify hate. Yes, confront hate. Yes, speak the truth to hate. Yes, speak loudly and firmly, with love, and in love, demanding and expecting justice. But do not speak hatefulness to hate, or hate will only grow.

By: Quietgal

Quietgal — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:23:20 -0800

Hear hear, Robert Angelo.

By: Morrigan

Morrigan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:29:18 -0800

"'No on Prop 8" Rally in West Hollywood Tonight Wish I could be there.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:36:29 -0800

I didn't vote for Prop 8 last night, but every time I read a metafilter thread about this issue, I suspect I'm going to wish I had. In my ideal world, Barack Obama is President and people like you don't exist.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:37:56 -0800

This isn't about hate or discrimination. It's easy to just think that and not try to understand both sides of an issue. One of the best articles I read about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed was written by a gay man who discussed the role in society of marriage. Mostly, it is so that when men get women pregnant, they stick around to help raise the children. That helps keep the sexes united and gives children the benefit of a mom and a dad. Gay people aren't being discriminated against, they can marry a member of the opposite sex exactly the way any one else can. Gay marriage is being discriminated against because it doesn't fulfill the purposes of marriage. Just because gays want something different from marriage (a same-sex relationship) doesn't mean they are being discriminated against. And in case some of you don't know, in California gay couples already have all of the financial and legal benefits of marriage through civil unions. What gay marriage is about is making it so when schools talk about marriage, they have to talk to children about gay couples being the same as heterosexual couples, and not allowing churches to teach their beliefs about sex. It is about changing the moral norms of society through the schools and the courts.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:40:15 -0800

Wow, thanks rbecca. Now tell us how women don't need rights because family works better when men hold all the power.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:42:58 -0800

Gay people aren't being discriminated against, they can marry a member of the opposite sex exactly the way any one else can. But they can't marry the person they're wired to be attracted to.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:44:23 -0800

Mostly, it is so that when men get women pregnant, they stick around to help raise the children. That helps keep the sexes united and gives children the benefit of a mom and a dad. Gay people aren't being discriminated against, they can marry a member of the opposite sex exactly the way any one else can. You paid $5 today just to post this? Unbelievable.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:45:02 -0800

rbecca - Best first comment EVER, by the way. Look, I had to listen to Bush over my breakfast. Can't you people stop trying to sink my Cheerios today?

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:45:59 -0800

Troybob, you think kids are better off with single moms than with a mom and a dad? Or do you think gender doesn't make any difference to children, that there is no difference between a mom and a dad?

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:47:42 -0800

I think they're better off with LOVING parents. Gay or straight.

By: Doublewhiskeycokenoice

Doublewhiskeycokenoice — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:49:05 -0800

Voting in favor of Prop. 8 is a hateful act. We all agree on this. Blaming these hatemongers for our loss, however, is not what is going to win this. We have no one but ourselves to blame for this one. Politics is war by other means, and we failed to properly prepare ourselves or assess our opponents. We can't go crying to Sun Tzu now because we don't like how it turned out. So we lost. If we were big babies, we would cry about our defeat and wish those big meanyheads would just go away. This is not what I intend to do. If they want a fight, they just bought themselves one. I'm collecting signatures to put a proposition on the ballot that extends the right to marry to all citizens of our state. If it fails, I'll just do it again. We'll do it every two years until the U.S. Supreme Court does what we all know it's going to do. If the Republicans can do this with parental notification then we're gonna do it with gay marriage. And we're not gonnna make the same mistake we did this time. Hell, 20,000 people who voted yes this year will be dead in 2010. That fact alone works in our favor. It sucks. We lost the battle. Get back up on the horse and win the war.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:51:39 -0800

gman- Not being able to be married to the person they are attracted to isn't discrimination. (Are pedophiles discriminated against?) I wish I could vote in CA where I was raised, but I can't. My husband doesn't want to vote in CA, he only wants to vote here in Texas, where he was raised. Is it discrimination that he gets to vote where he want to vote, but I can't vote where I want to vote, where I'm wired to want to vote?

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:52:01 -0800

Troybob, you think kids are better off with single moms than with a mom and a dad? Um, well considering my dad was a violent christian drunk who physically and psychologically devastated our family, my answer might be a bit slanted.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:53:16 -0800

Troybob, you think kids are better off with single moms than with a mom and a dad? Or do you think gender doesn't make any difference to children, that there is no difference between a mom and a dad? Sure, baby trolls are cute when they are first born, but don't forget that they grow up to be giant, culvert dwelling, goat eaters. Best to leave them in their nest and let nature take it's course.

By: Law Talkin' Guy

Law Talkin' Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:53:31 -0800

False distinction. Both have engaged in actions that are hateful, and both have engaged in actions that support privileges for straights while denying them to gays. Whether the people in California are frothing homophobes who might kill Matthew Shepard isn't the isuue. The isuue is power. And this vote was a demonstration of straights expressing power over gays, just as the murder of Matthew Shepard was. I know you really, really want to distinguish, so, fair enough. Murdering a gay man is more heinous and abominable than making him a second-class citizen. But both are hateful acts, and exist on the continuum of privilege and power. I'm sorry if you don't like it, and don't like that one group gets lumped in with the other, but that's the way hateful acts work. Sure, the guy who simply won't let his daughter marry a black man was once upon a time incrementally better than they guy who lynched a black man, but they were supporting the same system of intolerance. False comparison. I sincerely now want to know what your definition of "hatred" is, and how a passing reference to "the continuum of privilege and power" makes opposition to gay marriage a hateful act. From the structure of your argument, you seem to believe that espousing an attitude that disadvantages a minority group is necessarily hateful, and to me that makes no sense. hate /heɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [heyt] Show IPA Pronunciation verb, hat⋅ed, hat⋅ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry. 2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it. –verb (used without object) 3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility. –noun 4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility. 5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility. In the example above, I used to think that it was simply intellectually disingenuous to say that same-sex couples could marry because everyone should have the right to marry the partner of their choice, and not extend that line of thinking to allow polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. That line of argument is flawed for the reasons I outlined above, but I see nothing to indicate that it is in any way hateful. As I said above, I have never at any point in my life disliked homosexual people intensely or passionately, nor have I felt an extreme version for or hostility towards them. My former position on gay marriage was not born of those sentiments, but of a misconceived notion of logical inconsistency. How then is it hateful? Just for emphasis, I want to sincerely ask-- what is your definition of the word "hate," and how is the position above that I described hateful, assuming (for the sake of argument, at least) that I am being truthful in saying I harbored no ill will towards gay people?

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:53:42 -0800

ack...its course...

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:54:01 -0800

Yeah, stupid me took the bait...

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:55:00 -0800

A loving dad isn't the same as a loving mom. Just like for you to spend your life with a loving woman wouldn't be the same as being with a loving man. Women and men are different, moms and dads are different, and no offense, but kids need both.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:55:14 -0800

Did you just compare a child being taken advantage of to the marriage of two consenting adults? This discussion is over. What's your mailing address? I'll send you $5.

By: Doublewhiskeycokenoice

Doublewhiskeycokenoice — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:56:45 -0800

Oh yes! I didn't think anyone would actually have the chutzpah to come right out and make this argument! The function of marriage is procreation? Really? Well, it's a good thing we don't allow people who are sterile to get married, then. And it's a good thing we have that law annulling marriages that don't produce children within five years. Giving children a two-parent heterosexual home to live in is the most important thing we can do for them? It's a good thing we make the children of widows and widowers wards of the state until suitable homes can be found for them. We can't change our moral norms through the courts? It's a good thing the supreme court never got a hair up it's ass about the fact that we still had race-based legal codes in the 20th goddamn century. It's also a good thing that they never decided to say that separate institutions are, for purposes of the fourteenth amendment, inherently unequal. Because if they had done that then setting up a separate system for gay couples to affirm their love for each other would certainly be problematic. You know what? Keep it up. You're going to get tired of this looooooooong before I do.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:56:49 -0800

troybob- Sincerely sorry to hear that. You deserved better.

By: Law Talkin' Guy

Law Talkin' Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:59:48 -0800

By the way, I guess the ACLU is taking a different approach than my suggestion above concerning a challenge to Prop 8 under the California state Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:01:21 -0800

Speaking generally, though: With the kinds of justifications being given about the nature of family and which kind is best, it seems the next logical step in this debate is to start limiting certain kinds of heterosexual marriage as well. If this is considered a successful attempt to protect the ideal version of family, I'd be surprised if it didn't evolve into a fight for a stricter definition.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:01:23 -0800

To the gay peeps in general and rtha in particular, I'm truly sorry you've have to deal with crap, especially in the shadow of Obama becoming president. This is a terrible, nasty thing that goes against not the American dream but basic human rights and dignity.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:02:20 -0800

I used to think that it was simply intellectually disingenuous to say that same-sex couples could marry because everyone should have the right to marry the partner of their choice, and not extend that line of thinking to allow polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. That line of argument is flawed for the reasons I outlined above, but I see nothing to indicate that it is in any way hateful. ... My former position on gay marriage was not born of those sentiments, but of a misconceived notion of logical inconsistency. How then is it hateful? Umm, you equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality and you don't get why it's considered hateful? Fail.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:03:43 -0800

This isn't about hate or discrimination. Yes, it most certainly is. It's easy to just think that and not try to understand both sides of an issue. I understand your side of the issue. I understand that you and people like you want to take rights away from people who do not affect you, by force of law. Your behavior in supporting this discriminatory law is hateful. This makes you a homophobe and a bigot. I also understand that you do not understand your own point of view, and the implications for your own rights as an American: That helps keep the sexes united and gives children the benefit of a mom and a dad. As divorce is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, the day you argue that divorce should be punishable by death is the day I will take you and your ilk seriously, because that would suggest you might actually understand the implications of what you are saying. Gay marriage is being discriminated against because it doesn't fulfill the purposes of marriage. If the purposes of marriage are entirely religious, then the state should either play no role in regulating marriage in the first place. Or it should make marriage by non-Christians punishable by death. If the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then the state should provide the death penalty for sterile couples. Or at least make marriage by sterile couples illegal under threat of serious punishment. If you fight for making marriage illegal for sterile couples and non-Christian couples, then I will take your viewpoint seriously, because it would suggest that you actually understand the implications of the hateful words coming out of you. What gay marriage is about is making it so when schools talk about marriage, they have to talk to children about gay couples being the same as heterosexual couples, and not allowing churches to teach their beliefs about sex. Churches were allowed to teach their beliefs about sex at the same time that gays and lesbians were legally allowed to get married, and well before you helped make gays and lesbians into second-class citizens. That gays and lesbians are now married has not changed how churches conduct their behavior. When you acknowledge that churches were never affected by gay marriage, and never will be, I will take you seriously, because that acknowledgment would suggest you understand the full implications of what you are saying. It is hilarious that you suggest that I somehow don't understand your point of view, when you don't even understand the bigotry out of your own mouth. *sigh* Let us pray: Oh Lord, oh sweet merciful Lord. It will be a beautiful, beautiful day when your bigots are no longer allowed to redefine words and ideas without getting called on it.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:03:47 -0800

I didn't say that relationships between adults are the same as a child being taken advantage of. Please read what I wrote again if that is how it came across. If you are going to use the idea of "attraction" alone, obviously there are lots of counter-examples where attraction isn't enough.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:07:16 -0800

Sincerely sorry to hear that. You deserved better. Actually, it was dumb to bring that into the debate. Better to say simply that the idealized versions of family you are promoting fall apart in the face of reality. Personally, I think the best thing for kids would be to have people pass a basic licensing exam before they are allowed to have children.

By: RakDaddy

RakDaddy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:07:32 -0800

Not being able to be married to the person they are attracted to isn't discrimination. (Are pedophiles discriminated against?) There is a hell of a big gap between a consensual relationship between two adults and the non-consensual abuse of a child. Your own words equate gay marriage with sexual child abuse. Sweet cupping cakes, I'll send you your $5, too.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0800

Well, I'm of two minds on this. I'm very disappointed, I won't go as far as upset, but very disappointed, in the Prop 8 outcome. And deep in my lizard brain, I don't want to "reach across the aisle" to the people who voted for it, except to keep them from squirming too much while I stick the knife in. My spouse and I were even planning to go to CA to get married there, even though we don't live there and got a civil union years ago in Vermont. And I sure as hell don't like being a second-class citizen. But the fact that this discussion is even happening at all, is just an amazing thing to me. I've been in a same-sex relationship for 20 years as of last month, about half my life, and for most of that time I had no expectation that gay marriage would exist in my lifetime. If you'd asked me about its likelihood ten or fifteen years ago, when my partner and I were in all of the couples' groups we could find, neither of us saw it coming. I remember interviewing the first guy in DC who brought suit for a marriage license, and it just seemed so unlikely that things would ever change. And at the time, many people in the gay community, ever careful not to offend, thought that "the community" should focus its efforts on other causes, causes that might be winnable - gays in the military, ENDA, repeal of sodomy laws. And of course all those things are important, but things change because people who care passionately about specific things work for change, not because "the community" decides they should. So, yes, it's a defeat, and it's depressing if you focus on it to the exclusion of everything else, but holy crap! the fact that things have changed so much, so fast, makes me more hopeful than anything else. Our opponents are on the losing side of history, and they're getting there much faster than might be expected. We live in amazing times!

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:08:23 -0800

The previous lawsuit mentioned was a different one, & no one's linked the ACLU post yet:

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

By: fairytale of los angeles

fairytale of los angeles — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:32:46 -0800

Kudos to your mom if she did a great job. If you think about it, maybe if she had help from a good man it would have been easier for her. Maybe she could have even done a better job. If you can't realize what a grave case of shoving your entire foot in your mouth this is? This probably isn't the site for you.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:33:16 -0800

rbecca, you sure fit a lot of shit on that shovel, didn't you? If the role of marriage is just about child-rearing, why allow childless marriages? Why don't marriages end after the children leave home? You say that what gay people want isn't marriage, because a same-sex relationship is not a marriage. Since a civil marriage is a contract, governed by the state, isn't it whatever the state says it is? What if two people of the opposite sex get married, and one has a sex change. Are they no longer married? Same-sex couples in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, and even California right now, are married. Do you deny this, based on your personal definition of marriage? If same-sex relationships were recognized by the early Christian church, wouldn't that indicate a historical basis for a broader definition of marriage than you allow? You say gay people aren't being discriminated against, because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Imagine, if you will, that you have travelled to Gayistan, where only homosexual marriages are allowed. Would it be a valid argument to make, to say that your rights aren't being discriminated against because you can marry someone of the same sex, even if you're not gay? Civil unions provide the same rights as civil marriage? Not quite. And why do schools have to talk about marriage at all? I don't remember being taught about marriage in school, and I went to a Catholic school. I do remember being taught about respect for others, and recognition of their inherent dignity as children of God, for what that's worth. And finally, if you're concerned about the deleterious effect of gay marriage on straight marriages, could you please explain how my marriage could possibly affect yours? Is yours worth less or something? Would you feel the need to divorce, or have a fling, or something like that?

By: M Edward

M Edward — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:33:45 -0800

I was in Brentwood, Ca last Saturday and there was a busy intersection with 4 grey-haired guys with "yes on 8" signs on each corner. Next to them were 2-3 teenagers(on each corner) holding signs that said "no on 8: protect equality" and "honk if you think the guy next to me is stupid". It really sort of summed up the whole prop8 debate. Old vs. Young. I will admit that my generation and the one behind me uses "that's gay" way too much in everyday speech but the idea of not allowing gay marriage has never crossed my mind and as far as I can tell it was a non-issue with the people I know until those horrible ads promoting 8 came out. Then it was a general consensus to vote against it. I think the real killer of no on 8 was that damn sound clip from Gavin Newsome. I can totally relate to the fear that kicked up in the people by hearing him say "whether they like it or not..." over and over. Stupid stupid sound byte. My real prop 8 story belongs to my mother though. She is a single white woman who lives alone on a road that has been a jumble of Obama and yes on 8 signs for the last few months. Yesterday a small latino woman, my mother guessed she was probably in her 40s, knocked on her door. The woman asked, in very broken English, if my mother had voted. "No" Then the woman asked her if she intended on voting, "Yes" and if she was going to vote yes on 8. "No I am not going to vote yes on 8 and if you had any notion of what it was really about you'd vote no on it too because when they start that kind of thing you're going to be next!" The small latino woman backed slowly away from the door and my mother promptly called me to vent about the whole incident. I love my mom.

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:34:43 -0800

Maybe she could have even done a better job. ... That's not an insult to you or her No, it actually is. You can keep telling yourself that it's not, but it is.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:35:11 -0800

troybob- How would you stop them from having children?

By: Doublewhiskeycokenoice

Doublewhiskeycokenoice — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:35:17 -0800

Ok, what the hell does single motherhood have to do with this? Aren't gay couples just about the least likely group to produce single parents? There is a leap here that I am not getting. Are you saying that two women are two men are the functional equivalent of just one of the same? This does not make sense. What am I missing?

By: alms

alms — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:36:00 -0800

This is so depressing. It has taken all the joy out of Obama's victory for me. That our country could do this is so, so disappointing. It will turn back some time, in two years or five or ten. But for now it is still terribly sad.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:37:26 -0800

CKmtl- I would be a better mom if I had more money. If I had more money, I'd pay someone else to do the laundry and cleaning, and I'd have more time to play games with my kids and work on their homework with them and do other quality-time type things. Is that an insult to myself and my children?

By: loquacious

loquacious — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:37:50 -0800

Troybob, you think kids are better off with single moms than with a mom and a dad? Or do you think gender doesn't make any difference to children, that there is no difference between a mom and a dad? rbecca, your grasp of the history of the human family and anthropology in general is severely lacking. Children have been successfully raised by single men, single women, gay couples, single grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and more. Not just recently in the so-called breakdown of the "nuclear family" - but since the dawn of humankind. There is absolutely no historical nor scientific basis to your belief that children need to have both a man and a woman in a monogamous relationship for "best" or "successful" child rearing and raising. In fact the historical documents of thousands of years of co-habitation and tribal living in indigenous populations all over the world disagree with your assumptions very strongly. Even in Western, Christian families childrearing has (until recently) been defined most obviously by the inclusion of extended family and friends - not a single hetereo couple doing 100% of the childrearing. And here in Western, Christian culture we've had more men more directly involved in childrearing for what, 30, 40 years at the most? Until Women's Lib in the 60s, nearly all of that childrearing work fell exclusively to women. Men were often distantly involved, at best. The "best" thing for a child is a loving, nurturing home that has the patience and resources to raise them into the best young adults they can. Nothing more and nothing less. To assume that straight married couples have a lock on perfect parenting skills is a ridiculous notion. It's preposterous. That's a really polite way of saying "That's a bunch of fucking bullshit." (Especially since all of the non-straight or otherwise adoptive parents I know take parenting very seriously as a full time job that they fought for the rights to get, a job they want very badly - and I personally know so many straight Christian families that are so disgustingly abusive, unwanted and unloving that their kids are all kinds of screwed up.)

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:41:47 -0800

rbecca, I can see why this is a big deal to you. We've all been devastated by the tragic number of children from broken gay homes.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:41:53 -0800

When you start getting into more-than-two situations, then it *is* inherently unequal to other couples of whatever gender unless you eliminate the additional gifting, tax breaks and other privileges. Maybe because I'm tired, or maybe I'm just particularly dense, but I'm not grokking this. Can someone explain to me in fairly small words how someone who's, say, married to two people gets more gifting etc. than someone who's married to one person? Is it not the case that a married, heterosexual couple with...four kids gets more gifting, tax breaks, etc. than a couple with two kids? And yet that seems to be an accepted thing. If it is a thing. Apologies for the incoherence.

By: adipocere

adipocere — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:42:13 -0800

rbecca, I first heard that wide-eyed-with-faux-innocence "golly, nobody is saying they can't get married" argument from non other than Orson Scott Card, who has a tendency to regurgitate various stances going about. (He's a Mormon, by the way, and we know how they feel about Proposition 8). I very much doubt that the guy who claimed to write the article had so much as kissed a man other than his dad. This is part and parcel of the set of talking points which get circulated about by the small-minded. Saying that nobody is restricting homosexuals and bisexuals from marriage is a bit like saying that, pre-Virginia v. Loving, nobody was saying that black people couldn't get married. Black people could get married ... just not to the people they wanted to be married to. And vice versa, of course. The production of children? I think we've got "be fruitful and multiply" covered at this point, as we close in on nearly seven billion people. And marriage as the basic unit of society? I have yet to see other gay-friendly countries in Europe crumble, and, frankly, if the spectre of two men in pink and powder-blue tuxedos signing a piece of paper in San Francisco can somehow cause society itself to crumble, then society wasn't in that great of a shape to begin with. More than half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce hasn't somehow created riots in the streets, I very much doubt that the nice couple down the block to me getting hitched will do anything. If you feel that marriage needs defense, please, start with Las Vegas weddings and celebrity stunt weddings that cheapen everything for which marriage stands. Meanwhile, I feel like apologizing on behalf of the rest of the state every time I run into the couple down the block. Finally, you talk of "changing moral norms," which would imply that you find gay marriage to be immoral. Please, do tell us about that. I think Charles Manson said it best: Look at your game, girl.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:45:01 -0800

CKmtl- Well, that was an interesting odd bit of history. Everywhere that people have lived throughout history- as in EVERYWHERE, as in for ALL TIME, societies have noticed that men and women pair up to have babies and have tried to keep the men and women together to raise them. AS IN EVERYWHERE AS IN FOR ALL TIME!? REALLY? SINCE THE VERY DAWN OF HISTORY? Citations, please. I'm going to have to have a citation from you to back this up. From reputable anthropological publications, campuses of higher education, etc. Be prepared to be absolutely buried in counter-references and documentation. The world view of which you have convinced yourself of happy little individual nuclear families pair-bonding for a lifetime of childrearing going back to the stone age doesn't exist at all, except in your own fantasies.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:45:34 -0800

rbecca has convinced me. Now that I know that gay people out there are married, I'm going to go on a drinking binge, snort some serious lines of coke, and go have a nasty affair with some silicone-enhanced porn queens. After all, if gays are married, my own marriage must be worthless, even if I have a loving, gorgeous wife and two of the most beautiful kids in the world.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:47:51 -0800

"Barack Obama's walking a fine, gay line"

I've stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them.

New York Times: Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage:

Mr. Obama opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory. Mr. McCain, however, has been active in such efforts: On the most expensive and heated battle to ban same-sex marriage this year, a proposed constitutional amendment in California known as Proposition 8, he has endorsed the measure and sharply criticized a State Supreme Court ruling that granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

He became increasingly radical toward the end of his life, actually. Which you would know if you wer actually a student of history. His niece is not the Reverend incarnate. As he said in 1967, Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word." You are no student of his politics, nor of history; and yes, it is still about hate and discrimination.

By: Ira_

Ira_ — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:24:38 -0800

Could anyone tell me if Proposition 2 in Florida can be reversed? I have a good friend who lives in Florida, and she seems to be under the impression that it is not easily changed, once added to the Florida Constitution. Are there lawsuits/campaigns under way in Florida to reverse it?

By: hydropsyche

hydropsyche — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:25:57 -0800

Proposition 8: Issue is rights, not schools Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools "There is nothing about Prop. 8 that is connected to public education in any way," Mitchell said. "There is nothing in California state law that would require the teaching of marriage in any of its forms."

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:26:34 -0800

By: CitizenD

CitizenD — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:26:51 -0800

rbecca, you are wrong. simply put: wrong. you are quickly making a mockery of yourself. but what's worse -- what you should be concerned for, since you seem to hold your opinion with a great deal of passion -- you're making a mockery of your position on this issue. you don't win an argument with "everywhere, everytime people have ... blah blah blah" you go to reputable sources; peer-reviewed journals; etc. you collect up substantiation for the assertions you're making, and you let the experts speak for you. you take yourself out of the argument -- this isn't about you, is it? -- and humbly present the facts as presented by well-respected and knowledgable sources. as someone upthread mentioned, we're all ready to overhwhelm and bury you with decades worth of research which shows you that your historical assertions are crap; your anthropological suggestions are ludicrous; your sociological ideas are positively laughable. you.are.simply.wrong. period. you're only sinking yourself further when you try to bring in other factors in the "culture wars" -- single motherhood, religion in public schools, etc. you're in over your head. so, let's start slowly. can you come up with, i don't know, say 3 reputable resources which support your assertion that "everywhere, everytime, people have realized....that the babies where the dads are also contributing her welfare on the average do better"? if you're unclear about what a reputable source is, i'd be happy to send you a copy of the handout i give my undergraduate students.

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:30:28 -0800

Maybe you have heard of the Bishop who spoke in support of McCain, so he is being investigated to see if his diocese will lose it's tax-exempt status? Why, yes, but he was not, as you claimed in your response to this comment, held responsible for hate speech propagated by others, nor for having an opinion. He is being investigated for endorsing from the pulpit, which is different, and which you can read about here. The pledge card episode you are referring to is this one, yes? There is nothing about marriage there. The teacher asked students not to use anti-gay slurs. You think gay students and teachers will go away now? That slurs in schools are okay? I don't. Nor is your reworking of these stories in any way accurate.

By: Ira_

Ira_ — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:30:42 -0800

I'd like to see MarshallPoe reason with rbecca.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:30:44 -0800

So I guess that's the crux of it, that we have different values and both of us want society promoting the values that we hold. Not such a terrible thing, really. Not entirely true. What I want is for society to teach my kids a whole range of values, and to teach them how to choose for themselves, and also for my kids to know that whatever they choose, it's really okay.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:30:53 -0800

hydropsyche- California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." 96% of schools offer sex ed, and obviously if they are teaching about "marriage", and gay marriage is legal, they will be teaching about it. In MA, they are integrating it into all of the subjects (math problems in math talking about two dads and so on) and parents aren't allowed to opt out. I'm not talking about what would be required, I'm talking about what would happen. And I expect everyone here would think it was a good thing.

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:33:29 -0800

liketitanic- Thanks for educating me, I checked and you are right that it was a surprise for the teacher, I didnt' know that. You say that I want kids to learn my morals and values, yes I do, and I think you want the same thing. So I guess that's the crux of it, that we have different values and both of us want society promoting the values that we hold. Not such a terrible thing, really.. No, I want to promote those values for my children. I want society to provide a platform for families to make these decisions for themselves. It's fine to have different values, and I have no problem with you educating your children how you wish, but you ought not be able to prevent me from getting married, to impose your values in my own household, and I hope you do not educate your children to shun difference.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:33:38 -0800

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:35:16 -0800

illiad- No matter what values they choose, it would be okay? What if they decided to be racist? I mean, aren't there a whole lot of really destructive and bad things they could choose and that you would object to? There sure are. Let's not teach the ones we agree on--the ones on which there's a pretty common social consensus--and leave the rest aside.

By: Ira_

Ira_ — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:35:40 -0800

rbecca: Say your kids get taught about gay marriage in school. That it is a way some people love each other. What are you afraid would happen to your kids?

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:36:06 -0800

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:36:21 -0800

...about the pledge card in California about supporting gays in Kindergarten, about a teacher taking the first grade to her lesbian wedding. The pledge card brouhaha was the action of one teacher and not endorsed or manadated by the school, city or state. The first grade teacher didn't take the kids to her wedding. A parent (yes, a parent, heaven forfend!) came up with the idea, contacted the school, got permission and contacted the other parents. The parents had to sign permission slips to allow the kids to surprise their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, as they came out of their civil ceremony (images and video of the giggling, excited children enjoying the celebration on the steps of S.F. City Hall).

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:37:00 -0800

No matter what values they choose, it would be okay? What if they decided to be racist? Of course that wouldn't be acceptable. You must know what I meant, but if not then the fault is mine in that I should've been more explicit: Values that society understands aren't harmful. Now I'm going to wait to see if you somehow equate the harm of being racist with simply being born gay. Because that would be a real trick.

By: Ira_

Ira_ — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:38:29 -0800

rbecca: illiad- No matter what values they choose, it would be okay? What if they decided to be racist? I mean, aren't there a whole lot of really destructive and bad things they could choose and that you would object to? Is gay marriage a destructive and bad thing to you?

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:39:45 -0800

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:43:20 -0800

California Education Code permits school districts to offer comprehensive sex education, but if they do, they have to "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." 96% of schools offer sex ed, and obviously if they are teaching about "marriage", and gay marriage is legal, they will be teaching about it. In MA, they are integrating it into all of the subjects (math problems in math talking about two dads and so on) and parents aren't allowed to opt out. I'm not talking about what would be required, I'm talking about what would happen. And I expect everyone here would think it was a good thing. Citations, please.

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:43:46 -0800

liketitanic- Well, of course you can get married. You can marry a member of the opposite sex. No one is preventing that. Or you can have some kind of ceremony and make whatever commitments you want with whomever you want and live together in whatever fashion you want. No one is preventing that either. Or you can get a civil union and get the legal and financial benefits that come with. The only thing I am objecting to, as far as I can see, is legally labling it "marriage" so that schools will teach about it and churches can't teach against it. Then yours shouldn't be called a marriage by the state either. The benefits of civil unions are not the same. Because my marriage is not federally recognized, there are thousands of rights I do not get. NO ONE IS STOPPING CHURCHES FROM TEACHING ANYTHING. THEY ARE STOPPING CHURCHES FROM ENDORSING POLITICAL CANDIDATES. If you're saying you want the state out of the marriage business altogether, and religious instruction out of schools, I agree. (Show me those gay math problems. Nothing you've described has been as you say, so forgive me for thinking that more ridiculous hyperbole.) End the tax cuts and the privileges for ALL couples. If you want marriage to be solely religious, say so--but I don't think that's what you really mean, and if that IS what you want nor do I think a ban on gay marriage achieves it.

By: agress

agress — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:44:14 -0800

rbecca, is there any way you could possibly attempt to do more than cherrypick who you reply to? There are lots of people here who have asked very valid questions who you seem to have completely ignored. You have the spotlight here, as I'm sure you intended, so why not actually make an effort here?

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:44:34 -0800

Everywhere that people have lived throughout history- as in EVERYWHERE, as in for ALL TIME, societies have noticed that men and women pair up to have babies and have tried to keep the men and women together to raise them. You're pretty much wrong there, as far as medieval stuff is concerned. To wit: Marriage, which had to be either arranged or approved by the noble to whom you owed fealty, was largely not about love or child-rearing. It was largely about politics, property and land. When a woman's husband died—which was understandably common, given poor medicine, poor diet, war, crusades—a new marriage would be arranged for her. This wasn't out of concern for her now-fatherless children's welfare, but more often than not as a favour to a man that was in the lord's (in the case of a serf woman) or king's (in the case of a noblewoman) favour. See, when a man died, his widow would get a third of his property. She could pass this on to her children. However, if the wife dies before her husband, it's all his to do with as he pleases. Also, if I remember correctly, any deals or contracts that the widow would be voided upon her re-marriage—because it's her new husband's land/property to do with as he pleases. Often "as he pleases" involves disinheriting his step-children; no self-respecting man would want another guy's spawn to inherit his things. This is where you get Estate A eventually being swallowed up by Estate B. Then there's also the work aspect. Serfs pay for their taxes by working the land. An unmarried widow means there's one less strong back out in the fields, producing wealth for their lord. The welfare of the fatherless serflets isn't as important to him as the potential loss of tax income.

By: liketitanic

liketitanic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:45:28 -0800

Look, I gotta go into my gay gay kitchen and make some gay gay dinner for my gay gay wife who is sitting on our gay gay bed. We are still married and I am gonna gay gay enjoy it. Good luck, rbecca. My greatest wish for you is a wider view of the world, and that you come to it by learning how much more love can mean, even and especially according to the words of your God.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:46:43 -0800

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:51:11 -0800

rtha -- to your question -- assuming no children in any of the relationships on either side, someone with more than one legal spouse (and again, we're pushing the Assumption Train to its limits here) would presumably have greater abilities to gift, take advantage of tax breaks, etc than the person who has chosen to marry only one person. But again, we're way out there in Hypotheticalville. And I still don't get what polygamy has to do with the kind of one-person-to-one-person marriage we are discussing here. The kind that's just been outlawed for me and mine. Not some hypothetical "but what if eighteen people could get married to each other?!" kind. Agreed. It doesn't. Shouldn't have even gone down the paths to hypothetical-town on this above, especially since real, non-hypothetical relationships such as yours are under attack. Something which, I'm sure you know, makes me incredibly angry. I'm so sorry, rtha, and everyone else who will suffer under this.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:55:01 -0800

ira: What would I be afraid would happen to my kids? Okay, I'm out of debate mode. I came here because I have a really clear idea of the logic against gay marriage, and I was wondering how people for it thought. If they just didn't think things through, or what point it was they were working from where we would just have to agree to disagree. I won't be coming back, I don't have time for this. I have six children. I guess mostly I would be afraid that they wouldn't grow with the values that would help them to keep sex for marriage. And I would be afraid that in having sex outside of marriage they would get diseases, or pregnant, and then either an abortion or be a single mom or get married under less than ideal circumstances. Or, that in not saving sex for marriage, they would have a harder time either being faithful to their spouses or staying married. Is gay marriage destructive? I think it devalues the contributions of a mother and a father, it says that neither one of them is really important for kids, that they are interchangable. I think that could make parent feel like they are less necessary to their children, and maybe less willing to work through a difficult marriage for the sake of the children. I think if a father knows he is priceless to his children, he would be more willing to be there for them. I think lesbian parents undermine that knowledge in a man.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:55:03 -0800

False comparison. I sincerely now want to know what your definition of "hatred" is, and how a passing reference to "the continuum of privilege and power" makes opposition to gay marriage a hateful act. From the structure of your argument, you seem to believe that espousing an attitude that disadvantages a minority group is necessarily hateful, and to me that makes no sense. Belatedly, you seem to be getting hung up on my use of the word "hateful." That's fine. I see it as a hateful act, but if your point is that if we cannot know that the person hates, we cannot know that the act is truly hateful. Fair enough. I'll throw out some other words, and let me know which ones you are comfortable with so we can move this conversation forward: Passing a constitutional amendment disadvantaging a despised minority is a (an) ___________ act. a. odious b. reprehensible c. shameful d. unconscionable e. abominable If you don't like any of those, I can come up with others.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:56:57 -0800

ericb- It take me a while to write my replies. I also had to get an eraser out of my 2-year-old's nose. Then I just start looking for a reply someone has given me, I'm not avoiding any questions. Feel free to repeat them if I miss them.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:57:22 -0800

I think if a father knows he is priceless to his children, he would be more willing to be there for them. I think lesbian parents undermine that knowledge in a man. I know that I am priceless to my kids. What does knowing that there are married lesbians out there have to do with it?

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:59:06 -0800

The only thing I am objecting to, as far as I can see, is legally labling it "marriage" so that schools will teach about it and churches can't teach against it. Wrong and wrong. Churches can teach against it all they want. The government cannot interefere -- as per separation of church and state and First Amendment rights. Here in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal there are a number of churches which openly teach against it and have hosted rallies against gay marriage even after such marriages went into effect. In California:

Hilary McLean, a spokeswoman for state Superintendent Jack O’Connell, said the decision to teach gay marriage lies with local communities and school boards. “Schools are not required to talk about marriage at all,” McLean said. “It’s up to local school districts to decide.” The state Education Code will be unaffected by passage or failure of Prop. 8. The code only instructs schools to “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” as part of health and sex education curriculum. The code allows districts to decide against teaching health and sex education, and allows parents to pull their children from those classes or others dealing with sensitive subject matters.

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:00:23 -0800

Although I am curious, rbecca. Are you actually making the case that your religious beliefs should be law? How is that fair to people who are not Catholic? You know, Orthodox Jews won't eat pork. How would you feel if we agitated to make that illegal for everyone?

By: pearlybob

pearlybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:00:25 -0800

I've been reading this thread in bed on my cell phone and after the natural statement, I just had to come post. Rbecca, I'm a conservative, christian, who has been happily married for over 15 years. I voted for McCain and don't agree with alot of the stuff posted on MeFi but I rarely chime in, I too busy but I have to speak on this. My children are the most beautiful things on this earth and they were conceived with the miracle of modern medicine. Now according to you, they should not exist, I shouldn't have the wonderful, happy marriage that I do and millions of Americans should not be allowed to marry the one that they love. Come to Ga and meet my children, see how solid my marriage is, have dinner with my many gay friends who have been together for years and are welcome and loved in my CHRISTIAN home, then you can form an opinion about me.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:02:47 -0800

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:04:10 -0800

I just don't want the schools to be undermining Christian beliefs, and I want churches to be able to uphold Christian beliefs. And what does that have to do with Prop 8?

By: desuetude

desuetude — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:04:44 -0800

I guess mostly I would be afraid that they wouldn't grow with the values that would help them to keep sex for marriage. And I would be afraid that in having sex outside of marriage they would get diseases, or pregnant, and then either an abortion or be a single mom or get married under less than ideal circumstances. Or, that in not saving sex for marriage, they would have a harder time either being faithful to their spouses or staying married. Is gay marriage destructive? I think it devalues the contributions of a mother and a father, it says that neither one of them is really important for kids, that they are interchangable. I think that could make parent feel like they are less necessary to their children, and maybe less willing to work through a difficult marriage for the sake of the children. I think if a father knows he is priceless to his children, he would be more willing to be there for them. I think lesbian parents undermine that knowledge in a man. So you equate homosexuality with promiscuity. Fair enough, based on popular culture. But how many gay people do you know? (Celebrities don't count.) As many gays as straights? How much do you know about their sex lives? Do you know straight folks who had sex before marriage or cheated on their spouses? You probably know more quietly gay folks than you think, and probably know more straight people who did not save sex for marriage than you think. Don't you think that's possible? Plenty of people think their sex lives are private. The problem with the devaluing argument is that it's often so selectively applied. Parents who abuse their spouses or their children devalue marriage -- they devalue the protection and support that a family is supposed to provide. Divorce devalues marriage -- demonstrates that vows are disposable. But no-one is outlawing straight marriage because half of them end in divorce and really, you straight folks, stereotyped as a big group, aren't doing so hot with valuing marriage anyway. Do you want to be lumped in with every straight single parent who abuses their kids and lets them starve? Well, at least their parents aren't gay, so YOU PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME. Well, that's not fair, right? The thing that makes a lot of us hopping up and down frustrated is that the actions of your neighbors do not undermine anything about your own relationship. Teach your kids the value of hard work and commitment, take care of them, show them your values, raise them in your church. No-one wants to stop this or undermine it. They just want to be permitted to do the same. (By the way, the same is a lot like your same.) Consider it freedom of religion. Eastern Orthodox who follow the Julian calendar don't necessarily celebrate Christmas the same day as most Christian churches. Are they undermining the celebration of the birth of Christ, ruining it for everyone else? Lesbians aren't lesbians because they're man-haters. No more than straight men who marry blondes are obviously brunette-haters or musicians who marry other musicians are tone-deaf-people haters and athletes are musician-haters or English majors are math-major haters. There's a lot of variation in personality and talent and temperament and in what little niche we define ourselves, and it isn't to the exclusion of other people. You pick who you want to marry because you feel it, regardless of who or what else is out there.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:05:28 -0800

The whole structure of Christian marriage cannot be reconciled with gay marriage. As per your form of Christianity. There are Christian denominations, like mine -- the United Church of Christ -- which fully embraces same-sex marriage. BTW -- this is not a "Christian Nation." There are dozens of other religions practised in the U.S. It is illegal to impose one core set of beliefs in the U.S. Hence, the recognition that discrimination against gays/lesbians is a legal and state issue, not one of religion. You can keep your religious marriage, but civil marriage should be available to all couples -- straight and gay -- so that the numerous rights, privileges and benefits (i.e. as listed above) that married couples enjoy can be enjoyed by all.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:08:30 -0800

astrozombie: no, I'm not saying my beliefs should be law! Proposition 8 wasn't about restricting benefits- those are granted in civil unions. It wasn't about gays being in committed relationships- you are, right? It is about having the public schools indoctrinate the children contrary to my faith, and restricting what churches can teach. You say it isn't, but it is happening in Britain, it is happening in MA (Catholic charities had to close down) and a prominent marriage activist in Canada herself said that the marriage debate would come down to gay rights vs. religious rights.

By: immlass

immlass — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:11:36 -0800

rbecca: I am surgically sterile, so I cannot accidentally become pregnant. I chose this for many reasons, some of which are medical and others of which have nothing to do with health. I am also, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, probably married to my former husband, whom I married in a church although I am not, myself, religious (never baptized, do not believe in Jesus, etc.). My second marriage was civil, performed by a federal judge. I'm glad I can get legally married even though your church probably doesn't accept my marriage. When you use the justifications you use against gay marriage, you speak against many straight marriages like mine. Even if I didn't believe it was ethically right, and in fact, morally imperative that the same rights under the law accrue to straights and gays--the right to marry the consenting, adult partner of their choice--I would feel obliged to support them because when you threaten their marriages, you implicitly threaten mine. My marriage is a perfectly good marriage--not a civil union!--and so are those of the many gay people in California and elsewhere who have chosen to unite before the law, and in some cases, before their God. Legal marriage is bigger than your Church's doctrine, or than the doctrine of any single church. I support your church's right not to perform marriages of homosexual couples; I hope you will come to understand that gay marriages are no threat to yours and support the right of gay people to marry under the law.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:12:22 -0800

Been fun, good night, won't be back. Blessings to all of you, apologies for any bad feelings I caused.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:13:07 -0800

Fun?

By: agress

agress — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:13:12 -0800

Rbecca, thank you for answering my questions honestly. On that note however, I'm sure you know that I do not share your views, at all (not about the murdering babies thing, but gay marriage.) I'm sure that you mean well for your part, but you've chosen the wrong site for this. The vast majority here do not share your views either, and you have effectively 0% chance of convincing anyone. I don't mean this as any insult, but a statement of fact. I've been reading in this place for 7 years, and this really is a sysyphean task that you've embarked upon here. I think the best you can realistically hope for is to congenially agree to disagree. Don't take this as saying "go away," but rather as an FYI. Obviously, if you wish to continue, you are free to do so, but I do hope you understand you are effectively banging your head against a wall here.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:13:41 -0800

t is about having the public schools indoctrinate the children contrary to my faith, and restricting what churches can teach. There is nothing in Prop 8 that does that. It denies one group of people the right to marry. Schools can still teach whatever they teach, and churches will always be able to teach whatever the hell they want to. You should actually read the proposition before claiming it does something it doesn't. I am in a committed relationship, but am not gay. I simply have no stomach for bigotry, and, no matter how much you might try to dress it in church doctrine, that is what it is -- it is an intolerance for someone's differences so intense that you must make it law, and all the hand-waving about protecting your children, which Prop 8 DOES NOT DO, is just nonsense to cover up an expression of contempt for something you personally do not like. I'm sure there are many fine values you are passing on to your children, but I won't mince words about this. Bigotry is not one of them.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:14:30 -0800

I just don't want the schools to be undermining Christian beliefs, and I want churches to be able to uphold Christian beliefs. You can't have it both ways, rbecca. Public schools should be secular, unless you live in a theocracy. You can teach religion at home and at church. At school the kids need to learn how to be rational human beings, which means, once they're 18, they have the choice of keeping or rejecting what religion you've taught them.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:15:01 -0800

It is about having the public schools indoctrinate the children contrary to my faith, and restricting what churches can teach. Once again ... you are completely wrong -- as stated and pointed out above. You say it isn't, but it is happening in Britain. Citation again. And ... BTW ... if you can back up your point, this is the U.S., not the U.K.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:15:55 -0800

immlass: one last one- In schools when the 96% of them that teach about marriage say that you married a man, it won't undermine what I have taught my children about marriage- that God unites a man and a woman as one by making them male and female. Good night!

By: zarah

zarah — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:15:58 -0800

Brings to mind a former MeFite, doncha know? That's what I was thinking, but she seems less intelligent. On the other hand she also has that transparent habit of creating fake stories about her "friends" to support her arguments, and Connie must be dying for the attention at this point. I'd love for one of the mods to check her IP address.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:17:24 -0800

ericb- If you care, you can find it on the ads and links at protectmarriage.com If you don't care, why should I waste my time looking up the citations? Good night.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:18:09 -0800

There are links at the "protectmarriage.com" website. Look lady, the links are linked using the link button.

By: rbecca

rbecca — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:20:06 -0800

Zarah- I had no reason to lie. Bob Frankl is my friend who died in Santa Cruz, CA of AIDS. You can research it.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:21:14 -0800

I really wonder what would have been gained there by not calling her a bigot, or discussing her viewpoint in terms of intolerance. From what I could suss out, she really does want her religious worldview to be imposed on other people by force of law, and her brain is so thick with talking points mush that she wasn't really able to respond to conversation, which is hardly surprising, as her task her seemed evangelical. Honestly, this is not the sort of thing that should be left up to a simple majority, as has been the case in California. The US government is supposed to protect us from the abuses of a wrongheaded majority, in part by recognizing certain innate human rights. When you have someone voting based on the doctrines of their semi-understood religion, and others voting based on ever crueler and nastier bigotries, you have turned over human rights to the mob, who haven't got a long history of respecting them.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:22:05 -0800

task here.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:22:21 -0800

Also, I wonder if we've not just been completely and thoroughly trolled.

By: pearlybob

pearlybob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:22:36 -0800

Can I just use this place to remind you guys that all Christians don't feel this way. I promise. My Christ said nothing about homosexuality, just to love one another and do unto others et all. People like this who give rational Christian conservatives a bad name.

By: ltracey

ltracey — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:23:03 -0800

I looked at the protectmarriage.com site. There wasn't a single citation of a peer-reviewed study regarding children of same sex parents, effects of same sex unions on children, or opposite sex unions for that matter. It was thin gruel -- some "fact sheets" and cute graphics, but no meat that would support any of your arguments. In fact much of what you've said here sounded very similar to their talking points. I do not doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, just the evidence (or lack thereof) that you have seemed to base them on.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:25:49 -0800

Phantom taint sensations will befuddle us all.

By: darth_tedious

darth_tedious — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:26:38 -0800

>Is gay marriage destructive? I think it devalues the contributions of a mother and a father, it says that neither one of them is really important for kids, that they are interchangable. I think that could make parent feel like they are less necessary to their children, and maybe less willing to work through a difficult marriage for the sake of the children. I think if a father knows he is priceless to his children, he would be more willing to be there for them. I think lesbian parents undermine that knowledge in a man. This perspective seems to fit into the larger concept of "temptation"... which seems to be common among the monotheistic, and militant, religions. "My Virtue depends on the Other; when the Other acts in such a way as to cause me to question my Virtue, I must destroy the Other." rbecca's quote is sort of interesting, in that it's such a direct, forthright expression of the sentiment. Huh.

By: Ira_

Ira_ — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:27:44 -0800

ira: Because when asked about divorce, Jesus says that you cannot divorce because God is the one who united you by creating you man and woman, and what God has united let no man separate. Do you care? I'm not trying to make laws that gays can't have whatever committed relationships they want. I just don't want the schools to be undermining Christian beliefs, and I want churches to be able to uphold Christian beliefs. But gay people who want to get married don't want to get divorced any more than you do. They want to be in love in a committed relationship that is recognised by the government, with the same rights that straight married couples have - and you're the one stopping them. Who's stopping your churches from upholding Christian beliefs? How are the schools undermining Christian beliefs? rbecca, they are not Christian schools - and they are not your schools. Just like this is not your Christian world. This is a world you share with others, some Christian, some not, some Christian but with very different interpretations of the Bible than you - and you share this world with them. So, there are no reasons why schools should teach your beliefs. That is your responsibility to do as a parent, in your own time with your kids. If you feel so strongly about the beliefs taught by the schools, you could put your kids into a Christian school. Or home-school them. Or you can vote for amendments that are actually about what is taught is school. But don't do it by robbing other loving couples of their rights. It's not as if there's too much love in the world - and you're getting in the way. And for what? My apologies rbecca, I really do have to go to bed (and on preview, you're leaving anyway) - but the impression I get from you makes me sad: to you, marriage doesn't have to be about love; fathers cannot be expected to stay with their children out of love, and could be swayed by the success of lesbian parenting; your friend died from AIDs, so instead of advocating safe sex, you advocate sex only after marriage, because that's the only way you can be sure. I wish you didn't feel so fearful. It doesn't have to be like this. But most of all, I wish you wouldn't take out your fears on others. They just want to love and be recognised for their love rbecca. It's not too much to ask in this world.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:28:10 -0800

Not to worry pearlybob. Christian != bigot. I'm pretty sure many if not most secularists understand this.

By: RakDaddy

RakDaddy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:28:39 -0800

Also, I wonder if we've not just been completely and thoroughly trolled. posted by illiad at 9:22 PM on November 5 [+] [!] Well, at least Matt made another five bucks.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:28:53 -0800

Blessings to all of you, apologies for any bad feelings I caused. And I pray for your children. More specifically the one placing the rubber object in his own orifice. You know who else does that...

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:29:30 -0800

...it is happening in MA (Catholic charities had to close down) Huh? Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Boston is alive and thriving...

"[a]s one of the largest providers of social services in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities responds to the needs of the poor and working poor, provides supportive services to children and families, and assists refugees and immigrants as they become active participants in their communities. We offer approximately 140 programs and services in 40 locations across Eastern Massachusetts, which allows us to help nearly 200,000 people each year. This work accomplishes our mission of building a just and compassionate society rooted in the dignity of all people."

In 2006 Catholic Charities decided on their own accord to halt adoptions. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples." Again, nothing was forced on them. They chose to shutter one program on idealogical and religious grounds. Their prerogative, their decision. Once again, so easy to refute your poorly informed ideas and opinions.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:30:38 -0800

We have been thoroughly trolled or at least, taken off course. rbecca was here to talk about, as she so nicely put it: Christian marriage. Prop 8 was, of course, about civil marriage, so her points are moot. We're not all talking about the same thing. Now, if only we could make people understand this little fact, we'd all be better off, and 8 and all the similar ballot measures and constitutional amendments may be sitting in the dung heap of history.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:32:08 -0800

Been fun, good night, won't be back. Riiiight.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:33:29 -0800

rbecca, you need to understand that Proposition 8 is functionally the same as the oppresive uses of Islamic Sharia Law. You know, the wearing of burquas, the stoning to death of young women for "infidelity" when they're victims of forced rape. It's law-making from a theocracy. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but this is supposedly one of the things we're supposed to be fighting in the Middle East. The anti-freedom, anti-democracy oppressive stance that legislation from theocracy brings. Or at least, so I'm told that's what we're doing over there, because they hate our freedom. To legislate morality is anti-Christian and flies in the face of the concept of Free Agency - that Jesus "died for our sins" so that we may freely choose to follow God. Or not. Because forced Faith isn't Faith at all, is it? Meanwhile the Founding Fathers of our country are spinning in their tombs, as they likely never imagined that such a powerful minority of fringe Christians would ever hold so much political power that they could actually modify the Constitution of a Republic to include this kind of discriminatory, bigoted rhetoric. The vocal Christian minority that helped get this law passed has really, deeply fucked up this time in imposing their views on the rest of us by edict of law. This fight is just getting started. In closing - how would you like it if the government came and took your kids away because the new laws said that single mothers are entirely unfit to raise children? Or perhaps you could only get married if you had blond hair, or maybe you're only allowed to have kids if you've graduated college, or test above 120 on an IQ test? Selfishly I would love such legislation. It should be much harder to have kids. I think people should have to finish a two year bootcamp before having kids. I think people that are too poor to raise kids probably shouldn't start families. You should have to get a license to do something as important and risky as having children. It's more important to society than gun control or licensing cars or business, for sure. But in reality I would NEVER, EVER work to make this happen. I wouldn't vote for it. I wouldn't speak in favor of it. I would work to defeat any such law. Because this sort of law is previously known as Eugenics. Such laws would be morally and ethically wrong and entirely unconstitutional. Just like Proposition 8 is. And we're going to defeat the hell out of that piece of crap in the courts.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:34:49 -0800

ericb- If you care, you can find it on the ads and links at protectmarriage.com If you don't care, why should I waste my time looking up the citations? Good night. It's not my job to dig up citations for all of your arguments. I have been able to refute so much of what you have been spewing in this thread that maybe you want to back-up your claims/

By: agress

agress — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:36:49 -0800

I would love nothing more than to think that this place had simply been trolled, but her (his?) comments really have hit a bit too close to home for me. Living in a conservative region of the US (I recently moved to Missouri from Kansas,) I find those types of comments seen here (the bigoted ones,) to be far too realistic to just blow off as a simple troll. That said, at least we've made progress on skin color (I hate the term "race," since it seems to imply a different species) in regards to our presidency.

By: oaf

oaf — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:37:17 -0800

But a hateful action is a hateful action. Intent is irrelevant in this situation. Whether an action is hateful or not depends wholly on the intent behind it. You cannot redefine hate to mean whatever you please. Welcome to the culture warrior club. But it's OK. You're on the right side, no question. Look how full of hate those people are. This pretty much nails it, along with Law Talkin' Guy's second comment. If your first response (especially in cases where you're responding to someone playing devil's advocate) is to call someone a hateful bigoted sonofabitch, your argument fails immediately, because you haven't actually argued against them. To increase the likelihood that your side will win, you should keep this sort of utter stupidity in your head—where it belongs—and away from my eardrums.