March 20, 2000
3:31 AM   Subscribe

Get the petition. They need one million signatures before April 20 to get it back on the November ballot. If you're in California, print out the petition and start drumming up support today. It's not so often you get a second chance like this. Show the country that California does indeed, rock.
posted by veruca (9 comments total)
Give it up already. We just had a vote on this issue, and it is more than immature--it is infantile for voters with a minority viewpoint to stamp their feet like this when they don't get their way. Have some respect for the fact that California voters already came out against this two to one. More likely, I'll print out the petition and let everyone I know find out about how a vocal minority demonstrates their utter disregard for the rights and views of the majority of California voters.

If you can't understand that other people out there have a different view of this than you do, but you refuse to respect their decided position, it makes YOU intolerant.

If you really want to make a positive step toward improving the rights of gays in California, begin by petitioning changes to the tax code. Shoot for gaining some of the same legal benefits that married couples have and take it from there. Take your cause one step at a time, and you may eventually find that society has changed enough to accept the idea of gay marriage. This business of going back and forth one this one issue will only polarize this state even more and wreck any chance you have of changing the way people think about this issue.

Get a clue: Prop 22 was *overwhelmingly* passed in most districts. Go pick a fight you can win, not this one.
posted by CalvinTheBold at 7:08 AM on March 20, 2000

Calvin, your point about majority rules is well-taken. But when the rights of the minority are trampled upon, it is the responsibility of people of good conscience to act.

I suppose there are some things that I am personally intolerant on; this is one of those things. Gay people want to marry, settle down, buy a house, and participate in the American Dream, and the majority sees such reasonable behavior as a slap in the face. My little mind cannot wrap around such logic.

You are more on the mark with your suggestion to take it one step at a time, but it may be time to stop futzing with half measures. The extreme anti-gay lobby (no offense intended, I don't mean you) will not stop at half measures like Prop 22.

The petition is a bit of tilting at windmills, admittedly. But I wish them all the luck. You know, I've never actually regretted not living in California before.
posted by mrmorgan at 7:31 AM on March 20, 2000

Calvin ... in response to your comment. Change takes time. 15 years ago there wasn't anywhere near the amount of people that there are supporting GLBT rights.
And it's not even about winning. (though it would be nice) It's about awareness. At least something like this will get discussions going and people will be thinking about it. And i don't care if someone has to put a petition out every year for the next 10 years. It's very rare that there's a cause that some people feel very stongly about.
posted by E-Boogie at 8:30 AM on March 20, 2000

This business of going back and forth one this one issue will only polarize this state even more and wreck any chance you have of changing the way people think about this issue
As much as I hate to say it, that's a good point, and I doubt a new prop. would pass, given the current political climate. It may actually do more harm than good to pursue this.
posted by mathowie at 8:40 AM on March 20, 2000

I'd agree with Matt.
Folks, gay rights *will* happen - if it's done right, and right isn't getting pissy over the fact that Calif. just voted no. It's called democracy - you may not love it, but ya gotta live with it.

Let it slide for a bit, let people move on for a while - then make your return.
posted by tomcosgrave at 1:59 PM on March 20, 2000

Actually, I've changed my mind. Alan makes a great point, the fight shouldn't stop just because the current political climate.

posted by mathowie at 2:40 PM on March 21, 2000

Calvin said,

"Give it up already. We just had a vote on this issue, and it is more than immature--it is infantile for voters with a minority viewpoint to stamp their feet like this when they don't get their way."

And then Tom added,

"Let it slide for a bit, let people move on for a while - then make your return."

How exactly is it immature for a minority group to continue to press for their rights? I can name several minority groups in the past that, had they "let it slide for a bit", would still find themselves in a position where they had NO RIGHTS.

Don't be stupid.

Perhaps in a Utopic society, being silent would give others the time to perhaps rethink their stance, but this is far from such a state. In this country, being silent about what you feel you rightfully deserve is akin to giving your permission to being used as a door-mat.

African-Americans tried hard for years to be viewed as more than livestock. They failed quite often and many people would say (rightly, I feel) that equality still hasn't been reached. Does that mean that Blacks should stop? Just give it a rest? Should they have just stayed silent for a few years, then tried again?

Those women who fought so long ago so that all women could have rights beyond that of a chattel, they failed quite often as well. Should they have given it a rest? In a society where, sadly enough, you STILL have women being paid less than men for equal or better work skills, and where a raped woman could lose a court case because of "provocative dress"... Should women stop now? Give it a break?

What's basically being said is, "Stop complaining and be satisfied with what you have, even if it's grossly unfair compared to the rest of us. Perhaps in a couple of years we'll reconsider, but for now, be happy with the fact that we deem you and your kind lesser than us."

I seriously doubt Tom OR Calvin are in a minority group, or have ever experienced prejudice in any form. So it's all well and easy to make such idiotic comments. Just don't expect the rest of us to buy it, or respect it.
posted by precocious at 7:02 AM on March 22, 2000

I know what it is like to in a minority - my mother is a Catholic from Belfast - when she was growing up in the 50's and 60's, to be Catholic was roughly equivalent to being African American. They had their own versions of MLK and Malcom X too. My grandfather would have been influenced by the former. I know all about biases, and hatred, and murder based on religion / race and politics. My own family has suffered several times as a result.

Catholics in the South of Ireland (the North, including Belfast is still under British rule) took about six hundred years to gain freedom. Many ventures failed, most of them revolutions, but peaceful ventures failed also.

So don't assume, please.
Based on these experiences, is my opinion that the people in favour of gay rights should take their should all minority stuggles.

Look folks - a state just voted against gay marriage - unless it was an undemocratic vote in some way, you have to go with that (it's called democracy, no?). So obviously rethinking has to be done on how the issue will be approached in future by the pro gay side (of which I am one).

I'm not saying do nothing (I may have given that impression though, so apologies) - I'm saying - sit back....think....prepare for the next round. How can you improve the chances of the issue being sorted out favourably?

Surely this makes at least some sense?

Did the British Army try invading France after they got defeated in 1940? No - they planned and waited for the right time, which turned out to be 4 years later.

That may be a crap analogy, but I think it gets my point across.
posted by tomcosgrave at 1:35 PM on March 22, 2000

1) I didn't assume. My wording was, "I doubt..." which was very accurate.

2) Yes, very crap analogy, but I believe I can make use of it... let's say Britain and France were engaged in a war made up of several battles and skirmishes. Let's say that Britain had won most of them up until the present point, and then suddenly lost an important battle.

Why SHOULDN'T they continue to press on, perhaps send in reinforcements? Just because they lose one battle... does that mean they should just give up? What would happen if they gave up? Their opponents would have time to regroup, replenish their forces, and they would begin to lose any headway they'd made in that area.

Minorities in general enjoy more rights in this decade than ever before. Even though gays have lost this battle doesn't mean that they shouldn't regroup and give it another try (which is what they are doing.)

The fight for rights and for change is a constant one. There are no benefits from sitting idly by and hoping that people will change their minds in the future. History illustrates this perfectly.

Yes, a state voted against gay marriage. Yes, it's democracy. But that does NOT mean that democracy is always right, just or fair. The democratic system has it's fallacies, and unless people speak out about it (constantly, forcefully) their situation will remain unjust and unfair.
posted by precocious at 5:00 PM on March 22, 2000

« Older   |   Kit Williams Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments