Prop 8 protests across the US this Saturday!

[leekohler]

http://www.jointheimpact.com

Here's a list of locations for the protests across the US on the 15th! Please try to help if you can!

[todd2000]

The link isn't working. Is it wrong, or is the server just bogged down?

They say the server is crashing, I managed to get this to load though:

http://www.jointheimpact.com/?page_id=2

[leekohler]

The link isn't working. Is it wrong, or is the server just bogged down?

It's slow. Just wait. I'm sure it's totally bogged down.

[iGary]

It's slow. Just wait. I'm sure it's totally bogged down.

I have movers coming Saturday. :(

[leekohler]

I have movers coming Saturday. :(

Go to the protest and let the movers move your stuff. :)

[abijnk]

Link isn't working for me either, Lee.

EDIT: I take that back, its working now, I think they were just having issues.

[leekohler]

Link isn't working for me either, Lee.

EDIT: I take that back, its working now, I think they were just having issues.

Yes- it's just really slow. I'm sure they're getting a lot of traffic.

[abijnk]

Yes- it's just really slow. I'm sure they're getting a lot of traffic.

Yeah, I was repeatedly getting database connection errors, but finally got through.

Looks like its LA town hall for me this weekend! Thanks for the link Lee.

[leekohler]

Yeah, I was repeatedly getting database connection errors, but finally got through.

Looks like its LA town hall for me this weekend! Thanks for the link Lee.

No problem! I'll be at City Hall on Saturday for whoever wants to show up! PoD and mkrishnan- try to make it if you can!

[Much Ado]

Good luck to all involved. Make some noise.

[CalBoy]

I think I'm going to round up a posse and to go SF City Hall.

Exciting times.

[leekohler]

I think I'm going to round up a posse and to go SF City Hall.

Exciting times.

You knew we wouldn't leave you all by yourselves out there.

[CalBoy]

You knew we wouldn't leave you all by yourselves out there.

You have no idea how important this is (coming together that is). For a long time we've been a very poorly focused and unorganized minority. Now we're galvanized and on the march.

If you'll excuse me, it's time for some Bob Dylan. ;):D

[leekohler]

You have no idea how important this is (coming together that is). For a long time we've been a very poorly focused and unorganized minority. Now we're galvanized and on the march.

If you'll excuse me, it's time for some Bob Dylan. ;):D

This happens when we get cornered. The last time we were this motivated was the AIDS pandemic. I don't think most people understand just what's about to happen.

[CalBoy]

This happens when we get cornered. The last time we were this motivated was the AIDS pandemic. I don't think most people understand just what's about to happen.

I only hope the courts understand what's about to happen; if they don't, they'll lose a lot of their reputation as guardians of liberty and rights.

[leekohler]

I only hope the courts understand what's about to happen; if they don't, they'll lose a lot of their reputation as guardians of liberty and rights.

Oh believe me, they get it. And if there was any doubt in their minds before, it's about to be erased.

[CalBoy]

Oh believe me, they get it. And if there was any doubt in their minds before, it's about to be erased.

Seriously Lee, I'm getting excited.

Just five days ago I felt horribly crushed by the passage of Prop 8, and now I'm feeling optimistic that it will be one of the last of its kind.

[leekohler]

Seriously Lee, I'm getting excited.

Just five days ago I felt horribly crushed by the passage of Prop 8, and now I'm feeling optimistic that it will be one of the last of its kind.

I told you not to freak out. It's moments in time like this when magic happens. And what seemed impossible, seems more possible than ever.

[todd2000]

Damn when I clicked that link this morning there were like 4 protests, now there are a TON, I hope people who have committed to these protests actually go through with them! We need to make our voices heard, that the only way to get things done. No one said this would be easy, but we will win, we MUST win! I think we are making progress, but this will be a long fight. We can't afford to get complacent again. I agree with Lee, they have no idea what they have started, but be sure of one thing, we will finish this, and it will end on our side!

Thought I'd add another protest scheduled for the 12th, not the 15th in NYC!



PROTEST IN NYC NOVEMBER 12TH!!

Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Time: 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location: New York Manhattan Mormon Temple
Street: 125 Columbus Ave at 65th Street
City/Town: New York, NY

Tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters are in the streets in California and Salt Lake City and around the country protesting the votes banning same-sex marriage in California.

Join them! Make your voices heard right here in New York City.

We will tell the Mormon Church how we feel about its relentless campaign to condemn and control our lives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was, by far, the biggest financer of California's heinous and hateful Proposition 8. The Mormon Church begged their members to donate money to Prop 8, pouring 20 million dollars into the campaign. And their attacks on us didn't start there and aren't about to end. They're plotting right now to bring their money and influence to bear against the LGBT community everywhere in this country, including trying to prevent marriage equality in New York.

Join us in speaking out against hate and discrimination! Stop them taking away your rights!

PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION - BRING SIGNS -- ALERT THE MEDIA

Media Contact: Corey Johnson - (646) 246-4848 cojo63@aol.com

Original link for people with a Facebook account: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=57450719688&ref=mf

EDIT: I just sent an email to every host on Sirius Radio's Gay Channle OutQ Channel 109 asking to promote the Nov. 12th protests! They have been talking about the other protests, but haven't heard them mention this yet.

[leekohler]

Damn when I clicked that link this morning there were like 4 protests, now there are a TON, I hope people who have committed to these protests actually go through with them! We need to make our voices heard, that the only way to get things done. No one said this would be easy, but we will win, we MUST win! I think we are making progress, but this will be a long fight. We can't afford to get complacent again. I agree with Lee, they have no idea what they have started, but be sure of one thing, we will finish this, and it will end on our side!

Thought I'd add another protest scheduled for the 12th, not the 15th in NYC!



PROTEST IN NYC NOVEMBER 12TH!!

Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Time: 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location: New York Manhattan Mormon Temple
Street: 125 Columbus Ave at 65th Street
City/Town: New York, NY

Tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters are in the streets in California and Salt Lake City and around the country protesting the votes banning same-sex marriage in California.

Join them! Make your voices heard right here in New York City.

We will tell the Mormon Church how we feel about its relentless campaign to condemn and control our lives. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was, by far, the biggest financer of California's heinous and hateful Proposition 8. The Mormon Church begged their members to donate money to Prop 8, pouring 20 million dollars into the campaign. And their attacks on us didn't start there and aren't about to end. They're plotting right now to bring their money and influence to bear against the LGBT community everywhere in this country, including trying to prevent marriage equality in New York.

Join us in speaking out against hate and discrimination! Stop them taking away your rights!

PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION - BRING SIGNS -- ALERT THE MEDIA

Media Contact: Corey Johnson - (646) 246-4848 cojo63@aol.com

Original link for people with a Facebook account: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=57450719688&ref=mf

EDIT: I just sent an email to every host on Sirius Radio's Gay Channle OutQ Channel 109 asking to promote the Nov. 12th protests! They have been talking about the other protests, but haven't heard them mention this yet.

Thanks man! Good job! Let's hope they pick it up.

[synth3tik]

This will be great. There has not been any serious legislation to ban gay marriage in MN, but with Pawlenty it is only a matter of time.

[JLatte]

I'm going to try to make it to one of the ones in San Diego. I'm not gay, but it's about time we get a grip on ourselves. I just hope noone gets out of hand during the protests.

[it5five]

Everything good happens while I'm at work.

I'm going to try to get off Saturday so I can go to the Phoenix protest.

[FreeState]

EVEN IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND, PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW.

THE FOLLOWING RELEASE WILL BE SENT THIS WEEK TO HUNDREDS OF NEWSPAPERS, ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS LISTED AS SUPPORTERS OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY ON HTTP://WWW.EQUALITYFORALL.COM, BEGINNING WITH THE LARGEST AND MOST RESOURCEFUL. PLEASE LET ME KNOW OF ANY OUT-OF-STATE COALITIONS THAT SHOULD BE INFORMED IN THESE BEGINNING STAGES OF ORGANIZATION.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

March on Washington for Equal Protection Under the Law NOW

—We Still Have the Dream

January 19, 2009

The entire world will be watching—

Over 45 years since Martin Luther King, Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, gays and lesbians are 'still sadly crippled by the…chains of discrimination.' The time to act is NOW.

With the passage of Proposition 8 in California, constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage in 29 states, including most recently Florida and Arizona, and a ban on gay and lesbian adoption in Arkansas, it is clear the GLBT community is under attack and being denied equal protection under the law.

In fact, the passage of Proposition 8 is breath-taking in its scope and injustice. It marks the first time in US history that a particular group's rights have been eliminated after a Supreme Court found in the group's favor. The California Supreme Court found that limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Prop. 8 reverses this important and ground-breaking ruling.

As the entire world watches the first African-American inaugurated as President of the US on January 20, gays and lesbians are still fighting for basic civil rights. This is the ideal moment for the entire GLBT community, their friends, family and other like-minded people committed to ending discrimination to stand up and register their outrage.

We invite you to attend the nation's largest march and rally ever for Equal Protection Under the Law NOW to be held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Monday, January 19, 2009 at high noon.

See you in D.C.

[leekohler]

March on Washington for Equal Protection Under the Law NOW



Wow! Thanks! That's awesome.

[FreeState]

Wow! Thanks! That's awesome.

No problem:) I missed the march in San Diego this weekend (10K marched) - but the marches are not ending any time soon... here is the most complete list of them (its updated every day several times).

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/11/listing-of-prop-8-protests-and-rallies.html

[chrmjenkins]

While I find the passage of prop 8 regrettable, I have a hard time finding a problem with the massive response it has generated for equality throughout this nation. Here's hoping the whole situation turns out to be a net positive.

[leekohler]

While I find the passage of prop 8 regrettable, I have a hard time finding a problem with the massive response it has generated for equality throughout this nation. Here's hoping the whole situation turns out to be a net positive.

In the end, this will be a good thing. However, I fear we're in for quite a rough ride til then.

[chrmjenkins]

In the end, this will be a good thing. However, I fear we're in for quite a rough ride til then.

The longer and rougher the ride, the more compelling the story in the children's history books of tomorrow. People have to learn from these issues and not let them fade into forgotten annals.

[abijnk]

The longer and rougher the ride, the more compelling the story in the children's history books of tomorrow. People have to learn from these issues and not let them fade into forgotten annals.

QFT. I think its starting to sink in from the days when black were not allowed to marry whites. Gov. S. said in an interview with John King that he thinks this will go back to the courts and will get overturned just like those laws did. We just can't be quiet and let the state of things fall into some sort of content waiting.

P.S.: Why are you on macrumors at work!!!!????

[FreeState]

In the end, this will be a good thing. However, I fear we're in for quite a rough ride til then.

I agree - what is amazing to me is that most of these marches have been grass root - no leadership from any organization - imagine what is possible if we as a community could organize a national movement with the energy and enthusiasm we are now seeing. These marches will be in the history books along side the Marches of MLK and other movements that relied on non violent civil disobedience.

Despite being extremely upset with Prop 8 I am also excited to see the movement its causing. We will overcome and prevail.

[rdowns]

I agree - what is amazing to me is that most of these marches have been grass root - no leadership from any organization - imagine what is possible if we as a community could organize a national movement with the energy and enthusiasm we are now seeing. These marches will be in the history books along side the Marches of MLK and other movements that relied on non violent civil disobedience.

Despite being extremely upset with Prop 8 I am also excited to see the movement its causing. We will overcome and prevail.

I was just about to post something similar. Protests in a bunch of cities with no national organization and plan will do little good. A national spokesperson(s) is definitely needed who can get on TV and in newspapers with a consistent message. Some hard hitting images would also help. What about 2 water fountains side by side with a sign over one saying No Gays, reminiscent of the civil rights struggles.

[noaccess]

This is... amazing! The passage of Prop 8 was a shocker for me as well, but with this kind of backlash... I'm really excited.

If the outcome will be what I think it will be, all the people who voted yes for Prop 8, or campaigned to achieve its approval, will really regret it. Not to mention the other social conservatives.

Oh, and it'll be covered by the international press, I'm sure. This could eventually have a global effect. At least I hope it will.

Good luck to all of you involved, and kudos :)

[freeny]

I will be there in spirit. I have two little mouths to feed and they take priority. I will certainly be watching the news on Saturday...

[rdowns]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

[Anuba]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

Pure poetry. Very profound. Although after the SNL skit with Affleck as Olbermann I'm finding it hard to keep a straight face when Keith goes into bombastico overdrive.

[rdowns]

If the gay community can get organized and get a national spokesperson half as eloquent as Olbermann in that video, they can make huge progress. Question is, who's their spokesperson?

[EricNau]

Question is, who's their spokesperson?
Who's willing to put their career on the line?

...It shouldn't be that way, but I'm afraid it is.

[aethelbert]

These people need to accept the fact that they lost and try again in the future. They've been arguing over this for years and once they bring it to a vote, one side has to lose. I'm not taking a stance on the issue, but seriously, get off the streets. Protests certainly don't make me gain respect for a cause and I cannot imagine that it improves the vision of the cause in the public eye. It got voted in fair and square. If one side is going to agree with the vote, then it also needs to accept the possibility of losing. If it's such a big issue, try again in another election, but please stay out of my way when I'm driving down main street. Thanks.

[CalBoy]

Who's willing to put their career on the line?

...It shouldn't be that way, but I'm afraid it is.
That's going to be very hard to figure out, because no natural leader comes to mind.

The person would have to be well liked by most Americans and someone who is generally regarded as 'wise.'

At this moment in time, very few names come to mind.


Protests certainly don't make me gain respect for a cause and I cannot imagine that it improves the vision of the cause in the public eye.

Normally I would agree (I mean, who really cares about protestors these days), but in this case, there had always been a lack of action and coordination from the gay community, and now that's finally changing. Protests are but the first phase, and they are crucial in signally to law makers and judges that the issue is not over yet.

It got voted in fair and square.
That point is still up for debate (which is why some people are protesting), and ultimately the California Supreme Court will decide that matter. But let's not discuss that in this thread, since it is only about the protest efforts.

but please stay out of my way when I'm driving down main street. Thanks.

To my knowledge, the protestors have been obeying laws and there have been few incidents of police action. Have you been actively prevented from using the roads, or is this a general comment you are making about all protestors?

[leekohler]

These people need to accept the fact that they lost and try again in the future. They've been arguing over this for years and once they bring it to a vote, one side has to lose. I'm not taking a stance on the issue, but seriously, get off the streets. Protests certainly don't make me gain respect for a cause and I cannot imagine that it improves the vision of the cause in the public eye. It got voted in fair and square. If one side is going to agree with the vote, then it also needs to accept the possibility of losing. If it's such a big issue, try again in another election, but please stay out of my way when I'm driving down main street. Thanks.

Hey man, next time we vote away a fundamental right of yours that impacts you in serious ways, I'll expect you to to just sit there and take it.

Sorry, but your inconvenience is only getting started.

You think you heard a lot about us before, well get ready to hear a whole lot more. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you. Think about what it's like for us.

And no- we will not accept anything short of full equality. Just keep that in mind.

And rdowns, thank you for that.

[todd2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

Very well said! You could really hear the emotion in his voice, It almost sounded like he was about to cry a few times.

Oh and as for my previous post, emailing Sirius seems to have worked. I heard Derek and Romaine mention http://www.jointheimpact.com at least once on their show tonight, lets hope the other shows do the same.

P.S. Lee you may want to edit your original post, it seems they changed the site around and that link no longer works, I say just link to http://www.jointheimpact.com.

[todd2000]

Since were posting videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF-qjFYL-1o

[Ntombi]

I can't participate due to health reasons, but I'll keep spreading the word and doing what I can.

I'm encouraged by both the grassroots protests and the legal possibilities to get this overturned, and I hope that ongoing conversation helps those who voted against civil rights for all to rethink their position.

I saw Keith Olbermann's special comment today too, and was particularly moved, especially since he was quiet and thoughtful instead of bombastic. Kudos to him, and to all who are speaking out on this issue.

[aethelbert]

To my knowledge, the protestors have been obeying laws and there have been few incidents of police action. Have you been actively prevented from using the roads, or is this a general comment you are making about all protestors?
It's sort of both. While I don't live in CA, I do know that there have been instances of people blocking traffic as the protest on the street. I have been prevented from driving before by protestors and I'd really prefer that not to be the case when they're protesting near me this weekend.

[.Andy]

It's sort of both. While I don't live in CA, I do know that there have been instances of people blocking traffic as the protest on the street. I have been prevented from driving before by protestors and I'd really prefer that not to be the case when they're protesting near me this weekend.
Aspirations for civil rights equality better not stop me getting to the mall :mad:.

[djellison]

I'd really prefer that not to be the case when they're protesting near me this weekend.

How selfish. How ignorant. How wrong. People are having their human rights stripped from them and are fighting to get them back - and you're moaning about a bit of traffic trouble?

Talk about screwed priorities.

[beatzfreak]

It's sort of both. While I don't live in CA, I do know that there have been instances of people blocking traffic as the protest on the street. I have been prevented from driving before by protestors and I'd really prefer that not to be the case when they're protesting near me this weekend.

Well then, why don't you follow the link provided by the op, find out when and where they are going to be and stay away? Or is that too much trouble for you?


Anyway, I'll be at City Hall in NYC this Saturday, camera in tow.

[itcheroni]

How selfish. How ignorant. How wrong. People are having their human rights stripped from them and are fighting to get them back - and you're moaning about a bit of traffic trouble?

Talk about screwed priorities.

But this seems to be the usual reaction to protests. At best, people who are neutral to the issue put up with protests as a nuisance. Every time I've walked in a protest, I always, always end up with the impression that protests, nowadays, accomplish nothing.

That being said, does anyone want to meet up for the one in LA?

Eventually, gay marriage will be legal. It's a generational change.

[leekohler]

It's sort of both. While I don't live in CA, I do know that there have been instances of people blocking traffic as the protest on the street. I have been prevented from driving before by protestors and I'd really prefer that not to be the case when they're protesting near me this weekend.

Well then by all means let's cancel all protests so akonradi can get where he needs to be! :rolleyes: Call it off!

Unbelievable.

Well then, why don't you follow the link provided by the op, find out when and where they are going to be and stay away? Or is that too much trouble for you?


Anyway, I'll be at City Hall in NYC this Saturday, camera in tow.

Rock on! Make sure to post pics! I'll try to get some too.

[chrmjenkins]

I imagine quite a few hungry citizens were inconvenienced in the South when people decided to have sit-ins. If they had just let them get their burgers, everything would be great now.

[abijnk]

That being said, does anyone want to meet up for the one in LA?


Me and chrmjenkins are going. We live in the South Bay area and will be coming form there.

[CalBoy]

It's sort of both. While I don't live in CA, I do know that there have been instances of people blocking traffic as the protest on the street.

In fact, there have been no major cases of blocked traffic. They were temporary at best, and never intentioned to be traffic blockers.

I have been prevented from driving before by protestors and I'd really prefer that not to be the case when they're protesting near me this weekend.

I understand that to you this is an inconvenience, but would you imagine for a moment if your right to marry was taken away by a 52% margin in a voter referendum?

Would you really be going about your day "business as usual" or would you fight to get your rights back?
Me and chrmjenkins are going. We live in the South Bay area and will be coming form there.

You guys are going from San Jose to LA?

Why not join in the Bay Area protests?

[abijnk]

Why not join in the Bay Area protests?

No, LA South Bay area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bay,_Los_Angeles). We live in one of the beach cities.

[CalBoy]

No, LA South Bay area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Bay,_Los_Angeles). We live in one of the beach cities.

Oh. See, that's why you should specify before hand. :p

South Bay=San Jose area in Bay Area parlance. ;):D

[iParis]

Thanks for the information!
I couldn't find anything on times though.

[leekohler]

Thanks for the information!
I couldn't find anything on times though.

The times are all at the very top of the locations page. They are all the same.

[yojitani]

Thanks for posting the links, Lee. I will be out there Saturday!

[leekohler]

Thanks for posting the links, Lee. I will be out there Saturday!

Thanks for the support! Let's make some noise!

[Surely]

I was stranded at the Starbucks at Wilshire and Santa Monica on Thursday evening for over two hours because of the march from the Mormon Church in Westwood up Santa Monica Blvd. to West Hollywood. To top it off, AT&T had a service outage from around 6 pm until 11:30 pm-ish, so I couldn't call my wife to tell her where I was. She was stuck in traffic from 4:30 pm until around 8 pm, when she arrived to pick me up.

Although I was inconvenienced for those 2+ hours, I didn't mind so much. Neither did my wife. It's good to see people protesting an injustice. I felt that me being inconvenienced was a small price to pay- I stood by and clapped for the protestors as they passed by.

I feel it's a shame that such a hateful proposition passed. I feel it's a shame that it was allowed to be voted on in the first place. A civil rights issue should never be put to a public vote. The minority will almost always get screwed.

However, I also feel that the gay community was not very organized prior to the election. I think people assumed, "It's California, there's no way it will pass." Where was the outreach? Where was the education to the conservative neighborhoods? Where was the passion that we are seeing now?

A friend of mine was warning people for months before the election, telling them to stop spending money on weddings and parties and to get organized and fight and to prepare for a 'yes' vote. They pretty much just brushed him off. No one thought it would pass.

I hope that something can be done about this. I'm doubtful that anything can be done immediately, even with all the protests. It may take a number of years though until another proposition can be introduced to lift the ban. Until then, fight on....

[leekohler]

I was stranded at the Starbucks at Wilshire and Santa Monica on Thursday evening for over two hours because of the march from the Mormon Church in Westwood up Santa Monica Blvd. to West Hollywood. To top it off, AT&T had a service outage from around 6 pm until 11:30 pm-ish, so I couldn't call my wife to tell her where I was. She was stuck in traffic from 4:30 pm until around 8 pm, when she arrived to pick me up.

Although I was inconvenienced for those 2+ hours, I didn't mind so much. Neither did my wife. It's good to see people protesting an injustice. I felt that me being inconvenienced was a small price to pay- I stood by and clapped for the protestors as they passed by.

I feel it's a shame that such a hateful proposition passed. I feel it's a shame that it was allowed to be voted on in the first place. A civil rights issue should never be put to a public vote. The minority will almost always get screwed.

However, I also feel that the gay community was not very organized prior to the election. I think people assumed, "It's California, there's no way it will pass." Where was the outreach? Where was the education to the conservative neighborhoods? Where was the passion that we are seeing now?

A friend of mine was warning people for months before the election, telling them to stop spending money on weddings and parties and to get organized and fight and to prepare for a 'yes' vote. They pretty much just brushed him off. No one thought it would pass.

I hope that something can be done about this. I'm doubtful that anything can be done immediately, even with all the protests. It may take a number of years though until another proposition can be introduced to lift the ban. Until then, fight on....

There's already talk that 8 is likely to be squashed by the courts and the legislature. It looks like they can do it too, for the very reason you mentioned- no one's rights should ever be put to a vote. That's unbelievably un-American and the reason you're seeing the outrage now.

As for what happened before the vote: you're right, no one could have even imagined this passing. But the lies and fear were spread very effectively by the religious right. It's gonna be OK though. We needed this to galvanize our movement.

I can tell you- the religious right has no idea what it just awakened.

[aethelbert]

Oh yes, I'm just running around hating people and their ideas, thinking that they're no good, dirty, rotten scum. I definitely said that, right? And we also must stop any form of fighting for our rights! Oh yes! My experiences with people in the streets with stuff like this show no good. It's certainly not going to produce much support, either. And as it's pretty obvious to tell, if this passes because of protesting, then more people will be protesting because it passed. These protests will not solve anything and they'll make a logistical mess for many places. If there was something to be gained by protesting for law in a place 2000 miles away, then maybe I'd have a different view. But since California law is not dependent on the views of people outside of the state, I do not support these protests here. I have no stance on the cause here, but I certainly don't think that people running around with gay rights signs in Scranton will make huge influence on Sacramento.

If you give in to one side, the others will rebel the same. I couldn't care any less on the outcome of this bill seeing as I have no place in California law or politics, but spreading it across the country won't help the cause. The state government is there to represent the state which it governs, not the rest of the nation. The people of California have spoken; whether one likes the outcome or not (or if one is an indifferent bystander), one must accept the bill as law unless the voting results of Prop 8 can somehow be legitimately reversed to prove that this is the will of the majority. That's how the government works, regardless of the priority that any group may place on one issue.

In fact, there have been no major cases of blocked traffic. They were temporary at best, and never intentioned to be traffic blockers.
Intentional or not, blocking traffic during rush hour in Los Angeles by standing on the street won't bring respect to a cause as much as it will make people mad.

[CalBoy]

Intentional or not, blocking traffic during rush hour in Los Angeles by standing on the street won't bring respect to a cause as much as it will make people mad.

In the short term it might upset the people who are driving, but the protests will have the impact of reminding those people who voted for Prop 8 that they voted against people and not merely faceless objects.

Again, I ask you to consider what you would do if your rights were taking away via voter referenda. Would you really be arguing about something as petty as traffic congestion (which in LA is not really the fault of pedestrians at all)?

[.Andy]

These protests will not solve anything and they'll make a logistical mess for many places.
What if people hit the streets protesting logistics?

[EricNau]

If there was something to be gained by protesting for law in a place 2000 miles away, then maybe I'd have a different view. But since California law is not dependent on the views of people outside of the state, I do not support these protests here. I have no stance on the cause here, but I certainly don't think that people running around with gay rights signs in Scranton will make huge influence on Sacramento.
Then why, pray tell, did the majority of funding for Prop 8 come from organizations outside of the State of California?

If you give in to one side, the others will rebel the same. I couldn't care any less on the outcome of this bill seeing as I have no place in California law or politics, but spreading it across the country won't help the cause. The state government is there to represent the state which it governs, not the rest of the nation. The people of California have spoken; whether one likes the outcome or not (or if one is an indifferent bystander), one must accept the bill as law unless the voting results of Prop 8 can somehow be legitimately reversed to prove that this is the will of the majority. That's how the government works, regardless of the priority that any group may place on one issue.
The will of the majority is completely irrelevant to this issue. If civil rights were always decided by the majority, 49% of the population wouldn't have any rights.

Protesting is a very integral part of American politics, and has been since the inception of our country.

[aethelbert]

In the short term it might upset the people who are driving, but the protests will have the impact of reminding those people who voted for Prop 8 that they voted against people and not merely faceless objects.
Well, we have to recognize that their desire here is to gain short term support so that the bill will stay away from becoming law. I personally think that they need the long term support, but they're voicing their opinions in trying to keep this from happening in the here and now.

Again, I ask you to consider what you would do if your rights were taking away via voter referenda. Would you really be arguing about something as petty as traffic congestion (which in LA is not really the fault of pedestrians at all)?
I'm not looking at their rights at all because this isn't an issue which involves me to any degree. While it's not the fault of the protestors for the entirety of the traffic problems (as with any city... yay), contributing to the slowdown, in my opinion, will not better their cause to keep prop 8 from becoming the law of tomorrow. It got voted in because the state's people are not ready for the adjustment. In the future, they likely will be, making a better time to deal with this. You're either forcefully taking away the rights of one group or exerting the will of the minority onto the entire populace. Someone will be mad either way.

If I lived in California, I would be accepting this as law. If it didn't pass and gay marriage was allowed statewide, I would be accepting it as well.

[EricNau]

Meanwhile:

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

:)

[jplan2008]

Oh yes, I'm just running around hating people and their ideas, thinking that they're no good, dirty, rotten scum. I definitely said that, right? And we also must stop any form of fighting for our rights! Oh yes! My experiences with people in the streets with stuff like this show no good. It's certainly not going to produce much support, either. And as it's pretty obvious to tell, if this passes because of protesting, then more people will be protesting because it passed. These protests will not solve anything and they'll make a logistical mess for many places. If there was something to be gained by protesting for law in a place 2000 miles away, then maybe I'd have a different view. But since California law is not dependent on the views of people outside of the state, I do not support these protests here. I have no stance on the cause here, but I certainly don't think that people running around with gay rights signs in Scranton will make huge influence on Sacramento.

If you give in to one side, the others will rebel the same. I couldn't care any less on the outcome of this bill seeing as I have no place in California law or politics, but spreading it across the country won't help the cause. The state government is there to represent the state which it governs, not the rest of the nation. The people of California have spoken; whether one likes the outcome or not (or if one is an indifferent bystander), one must accept the bill as law unless the voting results of Prop 8 can somehow be legitimately reversed to prove that this is the will of the majority. That's how the government works, regardless of the priority that any group may place on one issue.


Intentional or not, blocking traffic during rush hour in Los Angeles by standing on the street won't bring respect to a cause as much as it will make people mad.

Your "experiences with people on the streets with stuff like this" aren't the experiences of actual community groups and struggles. Pretty much every civil rights struggle has involved public protest as well as other legislative and legal battles. (and each has involved people complaining about the inconvenience, which is probably why you got the reaction you did). What was voted on in California (and FLA and AZ) last week will be voted on in other states. What will be argued in front of the CA Supreme Court in the next year or so will be argued in front of the US Supreme Court at some time in the future. While we all like to think of the Supreme Court and other courts as totally impartial, with the justices only thinking about the merits of a case, public opinion does sway their decisions. Plessy v. Ferguson of one generation changed to Brown v. Board of Education in another. So it's important to speak out across the country beginning yesterday, to prepare for the legislative and court battles of tomorrow. Giving the activists in California some encouragement along the way won't hurt either.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Lee, you're one of the coolest people on MR. Just thought you should know that :)

I was hoping my mom would be going to visit her girlfriend this weekend (who lives near Detroit) so I could go with them, and maybe head to the protests, but it looks like she's not. =\

[CalBoy]

Well, we have to recognize that their desire here is to gain short term support so that the bill will stay away from becoming law. I personally think that they need the long term support, but they're voicing their opinions in trying to keep this from happening in the here and now.

What you're seeing with these protests is beyond just Prop 8. The gay community (and its allies) are finally galvanized to the point where there is a genuine movement going on. Before this, most of the civil rights that gay people had gained had come from court orders and silent behind-the-scenes bargaining. Now the movement is becoming Issue #1 for the electorate, and whether or not you like protestors, you have to understand that these will not be the last ones for the considerable future (even if Prop 8 is voided tomorrow).

I'm not looking at their rights at all because this isn't an issue which involves me to any degree.

And that's the problem you're having with this. Wrestle with the idea that a huge chunk of the electorate just lost rights. If you were in that group, would you really be accepting it? Would you be saying, "well, it's the law now," or would you be preparing to draw attention to the unfairness behind the vote?

[leekohler]

Well, we have to recognize that their desire here is to gain short term support so that the bill will stay away from becoming law. I personally think that they need the long term support, but they're voicing their opinions in trying to keep this from happening in the here and now.


I'm not looking at their rights at all because this isn't an issue which involves me to any degree. While it's not the fault of the protestors for the entirety of the traffic problems (as with any city... yay), contributing to the slowdown, in my opinion, will not better their cause to keep prop 8 from becoming the law of tomorrow. It got voted in because the state's people are not ready for the adjustment. In the future, they likely will be, making a better time to deal with this. You're either forcefully taking away the rights of one group or exerting the will of the minority onto the entire populace. Someone will be mad either way.

If I lived in California, I would be accepting this as law. If it didn't pass and gay marriage was allowed statewide, I would be accepting it as well.

And yet you still miss the point.

It does NOT matter if the majority likes it or not! Civil rights are not something to be voted on by the majority! If that were the case, this country would not be what it is today. Blacks would still be unable to vote, as well as women. This is a matter of equal protection under the law for all people. I don't know how else to better spell that out.

And the point of doing this across the country is because this kind of abuse of people's rights affects everyone. It is so unbelievable to me that in this day and age, people don't understand what the US stands for and how our system of laws and protections is supposed to work.

[beatzfreak]

I have no stance on the cause here, but I certainly don't think that people running around with gay rights signs in Scranton will make huge influence on Sacramento.



I'm not looking at their rights at all because this isn't an issue which involves me to any degree.

Scranton isn't on the list of protest cites(assuming that's where you live)so it won't effect you, and since it doesn't involve you in any way as stated by you, then why are you even commenting on it?

[EricNau]

It's also worth noting, I think, that protests aren't intended to gain the support of the people. Their purpose is to express disapproval and demand change.

In this case specifically, these protests are to gain the attention of the legislatures and the courts by putting faces to those who were affected (or are otherwise unhappy).

[leekohler]

Lee, you're one of the coolest people on MR. Just thought you should know that :)

I was hoping my mom would be going to visit her girlfriend this weekend (who lives near Detroit) so I could go with them, and maybe head to the protests, but it looks like she's not. =\

Aww! :o Thanks Zig! Tell your Mom we'll be here in Chi-Town screamin! :)

[abijnk]

Meanwhile:

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

:)

Silly mormons, don't they have some dead people to baptize???

[ZiggyPastorius]

Aww! :o Thanks Zig! Tell your Mom we'll be here in Chi-Town screamin! :)

Of course :)

[mactastic]

This is a matter of equal protection under the law for all people. I don't know how else to better spell that out.
Amen to that. Separate but equal is NOT equal, nor is it acceptable.

As the saying goes, if one of us is chained, none of us are free.

[Sun Baked]

Hate to think of what Archie Bunker would have to say about this.

[todd2000]

Just an update, JoinTheImpact is getting a good amount of airtime on Sirius QutQ!

[iParis]

Thanks again for the links!!
Any idea as to an end time?
I am going to be busy when it starts so hopefully it last a lot longer.
If it does then several of my friends and I are going.
:D

[Prof.]

As long as the US is a bible-bangin nation, I do not see the ban of gay marriage in california (and the three other states) being lifted much less being passed on a federal level. Unless Schwarzenegger overrides the (Cali) ban. However, the ppl who voted yes on 8 will protest to ban it again. Tho I do not support gay marriage, I wish them well and good luck.:)

[EricNau]

As long as the US is a bible-bangin nation, I do not see the ban of gay marriage in california (and the three other states) being lifted much less being passed on a federal level. Unless Schwarzenegger overrides the (Cali) ban. However, the ppl who voted yes on 8 will protest to ban it again. Tho I do not support gay marriage, I wish them well and good luck.:)
Governor Schwarzenegger has no authority to override the California vote; that power lies solely with the CA Supreme Court.

[leekohler]

As long as the US is a bible-bangin nation, I do not see the ban of gay marriage in california (and the three other states) being lifted much less being passed on a federal level. Unless Schwarzenegger overrides the (Cali) ban. However, the ppl who voted yes on 8 will protest to ban it again. Tho I do not support gay marriage, I wish them well and good luck.:)

Why do you not support equal marriage rights Prof? I'm extremely disappointed in you. You're gay (at least I thought so). Don't think you don't deserve equal rights. You do.

[jplan2008]

As long as the US is a bible-bangin nation, I do not see the ban of gay marriage in california (and the three other states) being lifted much less being passed on a federal level.

The cries about the nation moving/being to the right have become more earnest. They're just not true, and we shouldn't give fodder to the only argument the conservatives have left -- every time we hear this argument we have to point out that it's false. It's true that support for this specific right is not high enough now (why do you oppose this right?), but opinion is moving in the direction of civil rights, not the other way around.

Poll of voters Nov 4, 2008 (silly wording in the poll question --"way of life"):
http://assets.ourfuture.org/documents/change-election-2008.pdf

Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society
Strongly agree: 38% Somewhat Agree: 16%

Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society
Strongly agree: 28% Somewhat agree: 10%

Other polls over the years:
http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

Homosexuals should have equal job rights:
1977: 55% yes 2006 89% yes

Support gays in the military:
1994: 52% yes 2006: 60% yes

Support adoption by gays:
1999: 38% yes 2006: 46% yes

Support gay marriage:
1995: 27% yes 65% no
2006: 37% yes 55% no

[Prof.]

Why do you not support equal marriage rights Prof? I'm extremely disappointed in you. You're gay (at least I thought so). Don't think you don't deserve equal rights. You do.
I support gay rights 100%. Just not marriage. And tbh, I hardly support straight marriage either. I do not plan on getting married; even if gay marriage was passed on a federal level. If I was straight, I still wouldn't get married. I believe you should be together becuz you want to, not becuz you have to. :)

[PlaceofDis]

I support gay rights 100%. Just not marriage. And tbh, I hardly support straight marriage either. I do not plan on getting married; even if gay marriage was passed on a federal level. If I was straight, I still wouldn't get married. I believe you should be together becuz you want to, not becuz you have to. :)

then your view of marriage and the inequality that it brings in its current state is a little narrow minded.

marriage in no way makes people have to be together. look at the divorce rate.


edit: i understand not approving of the institution that is marriage especially when you look at it in a historical context. but you're not even taking it that way, there is more to marriage than the aspect of loving your partner.

[leekohler]

I support gay rights 100%. Just not marriage. And tbh, I hardly support straight marriage either. I do not plan on getting married; even if gay marriage was passed on a federal level. If I was straight, I still wouldn't get married. I believe you should be together becuz you want to, not becuz you have to. :)

I think you have a misunderstanding as to what marriage is, my friend.

[bradl]

If the gay community can get organized and get a national spokesperson half as eloquent as Olbermann in that video, they can make huge progress. Question is, who's their spokesperson?

For the most, they have two, one with a huge following in their own: Ellen DeGeneres, and George Takei. You want elegance and command of the English language, Takei is your guy. Want the following and have a focal point/head piece, Ellen would be it. If you need someone bigger..

BL.

[leekohler]

For the most, they have two, one with a huge following in their own: Ellen DeGeneres, and George Takei. You want elegance and command of the English language, Takei is your guy. Want the following and have a focal point/head piece, Ellen would be it. If you need someone bigger..

BL.

Rosie O'Donnell could possibly work as well. Although in recent years she's been looking a bit less appealing. ;)

[jplan2008]

I support gay rights 100%. Just not marriage. And tbh, I hardly support straight marriage either. I do not plan on getting married; even if gay marriage was passed on a federal level. If I was straight, I still wouldn't get married. I believe you should be together becuz you want to, not becuz you have to. :)

But in this case "supporting" gay marriage is just supporting the right to marriage that straight people have. It doesn't mean you're supporting the institution of marriage, or your concept of it. I don't agree with religion as an institution, but I believe in the right to freedom of religion, and I would support efforts to uphold that right, if it were threatened.

[Prof.]

...look at the divorce rate.
precisely. Divorce rate is so high it's almost pointless to get married. After seeing my parents go through their horrific/brutal divorce and the pain involved... it's not worth it.

/shurg

Maybe it's just my family's experience with marriage why i have this view. If someone want's to get married, then let them. I'm not gonna try and stop them or vote against [gay] marriage.

[stevento]

http://www.jointheimpact.com

Here's a list of locations for the protests across the US on the 15th! Please try to help if you can!

Even though I voted against it, I don't understand why people want to protest Prop 8.

[bradl]

Rosie O'Donnell could possibly work as well. Although in recent years she's been looking a bit less appealing. ;)

I meant bigger in status or stature, not bi..err... nevermind. ;)

BL.

[leekohler]

Even though I voted against it, I don't understand why people want to protest Prop 8.

You're kidding right? If you don't know, read through this thread, there are plenty of explanations.

[stevento]

I understand why you are against it but you have to understand what you are asking at this point by protesting it now. You are asking for some judges on a bench to overturn the popular vote.

Remember what we got last time judges overturned the popular vote?

http://streetknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bush-cheney_2005.jpg

[leekohler]

I understand why you are against it but you have to understand what you are asking at this point by protesting it now. You are asking for some judges on a bench to overturn the popular vote.

Remember what we got last time judges overturned the popular vote?



I'm getting tired of this spin. What we're asking is for the Court to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Nothing less, nothing more.

[Prof.]

I'm getting tired of this spin. What we're asking is for the Court to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Nothing less, nothing more.
You mean this?:)
http://i36.tinypic.com/rwj38k.jpg

[leekohler]

You mean this?:)
http://i36.tinypic.com/rwj38k.jpg

That's exactly what I mean.

[bradl]

I understand why you are against it but you have to understand what you are asking at this point by protesting it now. You are asking for some judges on a bench to overturn the popular vote.

Remember what we got last time judges overturned the popular vote?


If two women hadn't stood up and protested in Seneca Falls, NY in 1848, and for the 72 years afterward, your mother would not have had the right to vote. And there were laws on the State's books that prevented women to vote. Hell, there's still an amendment to the US Constitution on the books that prevents it! And that was a 'popular' vote!

1920 comes along, enough protests, marches, petitions, etc. and judges overturn the State's laws, and the 19th Amendment gets ratified to include women's rights to vote.

Like I said, a poorly written law, done or passed in the name of religion or popularity, is still a poorly written law. Checks and Balances will see to that, and even Arnold himself is telling people to not give up and make sure that it is overturned.

It was said this morning on a local NPR station program that the California system of propositions and initiatives is flawed, because it only takes money to get the proposition up for vote, and that is what happened, with Prop. 8 sponsored by the Mormon Church. They put up the money for it, and that it is wrong for a group of people to take away rights from one set of people that is allocated to everybody. Keep the following in mind:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.


You should know the rest. It isn't for some people, but ALL people. The moment one starts to cherrypick based off of any criteria (race, religion, sexual orientation), you slip into bigotry, and that is wrong no matter who or where you are.

BL.

[chrmjenkins]

Should be unalienable brad ;)

[bradl]

Should be unalienable brad ;)

aww crap! typo! :P fixed.

BL.

[leekohler]

Should be unalienable brad ;)

Actually inalienable. ;)

[abijnk]

Actually inalienable. ;)

Not according to this (http://renaissanceguy.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/declaration.jpg). ;)

[floyde]

How about non-alienable and we spare ourselves a lot of trouble?;):D

[itcheroni]

Your "experiences with people on the streets with stuff like this" aren't the experiences of actual community groups and struggles. Pretty much every civil rights struggle has involved public protest as well as other legislative and legal battles. (and each has involved people complaining about the inconvenience, which is probably why you got the reaction you did). What was voted on in California (and FLA and AZ) last week will be voted on in other states. What will be argued in front of the CA Supreme Court in the next year or so will be argued in front of the US Supreme Court at some time in the future. While we all like to think of the Supreme Court and other courts as totally impartial, with the justices only thinking about the merits of a case, public opinion does sway their decisions. Plessy v. Ferguson of one generation changed to Brown v. Board of Education in another. So it's important to speak out across the country beginning yesterday, to prepare for the legislative and court battles of tomorrow. Giving the activists in California some encouragement along the way won't hurt either.

You can make educated guesses at how the Supreme Court will decide. Let's hope it doesn't reach that level for a few more years. They definitely would not decide it the way you or I would like. Scalia is 72 and is probably our first shot at replacing a hardcore conservative with a progressive. There are 3 judges, who are all considered liberal, older than him (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer). Anthony Kennedy is also 72 and conservative but he actually believes gay marriage should be legal. Depending on the legal argument put forth, the vote would be either 5-4 or 6-3.

[CalBoy]

Maybe it's just my family's experience with marriage why i have this view.

And a lot of people do (gay and straight) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for their rights.

If someone want's to get married, then let them. I'm not gonna try and stop them or vote against [gay] marriage.

Well that's what happened in California, Arizona, and Florida this year (and has happened in about two dozen others states over the past four years).

You should stand up to say, "No," not because you are gay or because you think marriage is broken, but because it's wrong to treat people differently under the law.
You can make educated guesses at how the Supreme Court will decide. Let's hope it doesn't reach that level for a few more years. They definitely would not decide it the way you or I would like. Scalia is 72 and is probably our first shot at replacing a hardcore conservative with a progressive. There are 3 judges, who are all considered liberal, older than him (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer). Anthony Kennedy is also 72 and conservative but he actually believes gay marriage should be legal. Depending on the legal argument put forth, the vote would be either 5-4 or 6-3.

Honestly, if a hypothetical case went before SCOTUS within the next year, gay rights would take a step back.

The majority (which included Kennedy but not O'Conner) in Lawrence didn't use equal protection for gay individuals, but rather the right to privacy. The California Supreme Court was the first to say that gay rights should be viewed from a strict scrutiny basis and attach an equal protection argument to that (although MA did the same, they used rational basis). A few more state supreme courts need to take up that reasoning before we can expect SCOTUS to follow suit.

[bradl]

You should stand up to say, "No," not because you are gay or because you think marriage is broken, but because it's wrong to treat people differently under the law.

Honestly, if a hypothetical case went before SCOTUS within the next year, gay rights would take a step back.

The majority (which included Kennedy but not O'Conner) in Lawrence didn't use equal protection for gay individuals, but rather the right to privacy. The California Supreme Court was the first to say that gay rights should be viewed from a strict scrutiny basis and attach an equal protection argument to that (although MA did the same, they used rational basis). A few more state supreme courts need to take up that reasoning before we can expect SCOTUS to follow suit.

Then rdowns is right. The whole entire movement is too fragmented, and needs a national group/movement. The quickest way this will make it to SCOTUS is by filing lawsuits in those states that have gay marriage bans on the basis of the 14th Amendment, and run it up through the State Supreme Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals, so it gets to SCOTUS.

BL.

[apsterling]

The movement does need a basis. And more straight people need to get in on it so that the government and other people realize it's not just sticking in for gay rights, but for rights in general. I take so much crap from people for supporting gay rights, even being straight, and there's no good reason for it.

[stevento]

I'm getting tired of this spin. What we're asking is for the Court to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Nothing less, nothing more.

It's not spin. If they find that Prop 8 violates the US constitution, then they'd have to strike down gay marriage bans everywhere and this has been to the supreme before.
We live in a nation of democracy, that means people vote on things and the majority wins. Elections don't always turn out your way (of all people I understand this).
Anyways, this isn't going to make much of a difference. Obama will force states to give legal rights to same sex couples anyways.

What we're asking is for the Court to uphold our interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Nothing less, nothing more.

fixed that for you!

[leekohler]

It's not spin. If they find that Prop 8 violates the US constitution, then they'd have to strike down gay marriage bans everywhere and this has been to the supreme before.
We live in a nation of democracy, that means people vote on things and the majority wins. Elections don't always turn out your way (of all people I understand this).
Anyways, this isn't going to make much of a difference. Obama will force states to give legal rights to same sex couples anyways.



fixed that for you!

What about the 14th amendment do you not understand? The majority may not take away rights from any minority in this country. That's not my interpretation of the Constitution, That IS the Constitution. That's what this country stands for in the first place.

The US is NOT majority rule when it comes to civil rights. Period. YOU of all people, should understand that. You think blacks and women got their rights because everyone voted to let them?

[bradl]

What about the 14th amendment do you not understand? The majority may not take away rights form any minority in this country. That's not my interpretation of the Constitution, That IS the Constitution. That's what this country stands for in the first place.

The US is NOT majority rule when it comes to civil rights. Period. YOU of all people, should understand that. You think blacks got the right to vote because everyone voted to let them?

Actually, they did with 15th.. Women on the other hand didn't, and ironically, it was because of 14th! IIRC, it's the only amendment to the Consititution until 19th that explicitly gender specific. Eventually, 19th passed, and we have what we have now.

[leekohler]

Actually, they did with 15th.. Women on the other hand didn't, and ironically, it was because of 14th! IIRC, it's the only amendment to the Consititution until 19th that explicitly gender specific. Eventually, 19th passed, and we have what we have now.

Fixed it. Thanks.

[bradl]

Fixed it. Thanks.

I'm a history buff, sorry about that. :)

Anywho, SCOTUS' interpretation of 14th is the key here. The more it's known that these bans are in violation, the more they'll have to take the case.

BL.

[abijnk]

I think it should be pointed out too that we are talking about the California Supreme Court and the California constitution. That is where Prop 8 is headed first because, right now, these things are decided on a state by state basis.

[jplan2008]

It's not spin. If they find that Prop 8 violates the US constitution, then they'd have to strike down gay marriage bans everywhere and this has been to the supreme before.
We live in a nation of democracy, that means people vote on things and the majority wins. Elections don't always turn out your way (of all people I understand this).
Anyways, this isn't going to make much of a difference. Obama will force states to give legal rights to same sex couples anyways.



Obama can't force states to do anything. He can sign national legislation regarding the IRS, and regarding various federal rights. California, unlike other states, gives various rights for unions, but not the right to marry. Obama isn't going to take a stand further than that.

Our system of government is not a democracy.

The voters in California do not have the right to take away rights granted by the constitution. They could pass 500 laws outlawing interracial marriage, and none of them would be valid.

Do you really want them (or the voters in Idaho) to have the ability to pass such a law?

But, I agree with Calboy -- I'm not sure that SCOTUS would decide the right (correct) way at this point. That's why continued battles and lobbying and letter-writing and marches at state and local and national levels is needed.

[stevento]

What about the 14th amendment do you not understand? The majority may not take away rights from any minority in this country. That's not my interpretation of the Constitution, That IS the Constitution. That's what this country stands for in the first place.

The US is NOT majority rule when it comes to civil rights. Period. YOU of all people, should understand that. You think blacks and women got their rights because everyone voted to let them?
NO. Blacks and the women's suffrage party had to fight for them. But the constitution was on their side, undeniably. on the issue of gay marriage. it is a toss up
I read the 14th amendment because its posted a few posts back. It didn't say one single word about equality between sexual orientations. I see how could take this part

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities ...... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ...... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and use that to say that no state can take away someone's right to marry.
but that's an interpretation

[abijnk]

It didn't say one single word about equality between sexual orientations.

But, since it says "person" then to deny someone something based on sexual orientation would be to say that they are not a "person."

[jplan2008]

I read the 14th amendment because its posted a few posts back. It didn't say one single word about equality between sexual orientations. I see how could take this part



and use that to say that no state can take away someone's right to marry.
but that's an interpretation

Yes, you're right, all supreme court rulings are interpretations.

When declaring laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional, the interpretation was that marriage is a right. There's nothing in the 14th amendment about the right to marry someone of a different race, either. States had bans against interracial marriage on their books -- passed by the state legislatures that "the people" had elected. Do we want "the people" to have the final say over who is granted rights, or do we want "equal protection?"

[CalBoy]

Then rdowns is right. The whole entire movement is too fragmented, and needs a national group/movement. The quickest way this will make it to SCOTUS is by filing lawsuits in those states that have gay marriage bans on the basis of the 14th Amendment, and run it up through the State Supreme Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals, so it gets to SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS decides on a gay marriage case within the next five years, we will come out the losers.

As I already explained, the majority in Lawrence didn't want to use equal protection when it came to sexual intercourse, and there's been no change in that majority coalition (Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter-O'Conner concurred with an argument that used equal protection).

We need at least two or three new liberal justices and the chance to replace one conservative justice before we launch any such attempt in the courts. The ideal time would be to wait for an Obama reelection; if he wins, we will likely replace Kennedy's seat and possibly Scalia's (depending on Scalia's health), which will give gay marriage a 5-4 or 6-3 majority (mind you, in the year 2016, not in the year 2008 or 2012).
NO. Blacks and the women's suffrage party had to fight for them. But the constitution was on their side, undeniably.


on the issue of gay marriage. it is a toss up

Not really. If you believe that all persons have equal protection under the law, then you would clearly see that no one should be denied the right to marry. It's really not terribly complicated.

I read the 14th amendment because its posted a few posts back. It didn't say one single word about equality between sexual orientations. I see how could take this part

and use that to say that no state can take away someone's right to marry.
but that's an interpretation

SCOTUS has already found a right to marry in Loving v Virginia and has reinforced that finding in other lessor cases (mostly involving property rights and entitlement benefits).

The only way a legal scholar could look at gay marriage and say it is not a right would be if they simultaneously claimed that to be gay strips one of the entitlements of personhood.

[stevento]

you could say the constitution guarantees the right to marry, but the way the conservatives sneak around this is by defining marriage as a man and a woman.
there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman, and therefore no liberties are abridged.
this is clearly a load of crap, but i remind you, this has been before the supreme court before.

what i think gay rights activists should do is draw up a proposition for next year that somehow is cleverly worded to sneak around prop 8. one idea that has been floated is to create a new word other than marriage and define it as two people of any gender and put the same right legal rights onto it. prop 8 doesn't say anything about civil unions.

[bradl]

you could say the constitution guarantees the right to marry, but the way the conservatives sneak around this is by defining marriage as a man and a woman.
there's nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman, and therefore no liberties are abridged.
this is clearly a load of crap, but i remind you, this has been before the supreme court before.

what i think gay rights activists should do is draw up a proposition for next year that somehow is cleverly worded to sneak around prop 8. one idea that has been floated is to create a new word other than marriage and define it as two people of any gender and put the same right legal rights onto it. prop 8 doesn't say anything about civil unions.

That's because there is already a law in the books defining civil unions. The problem here is that because of the way they have defined marriage in Prop. 8, and the way that marriage is generally accepted, it makes civil unions sound lesser than what an actual marriage is, therefore discriminatory. There should be no such difference between civil unions and marriage; a man and a woman can marry or get into a civil union; a man and another man or a woman and another woman can not. Either equality for all, or equality for none.

BL.

[EricNau]

Should be unalienable brad ;)
Actually inalienable. ;)
Oh dear, not this argument. Both words were used in the creation of The Declaration of Independence. link (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm)

It's been suggested that the discrepancy is a result of a disagreement between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and based on what we know today, I think this notion has merit.

We live in a nation of democracy, that means people vote on things and the majority wins.
No, we do not. We live in a Republic, as established by our Founding Fathers, so that inalienable rights can not be voted away by a majority of voters.

[CalBoy]

what i think gay rights activists should do is draw up a proposition for next year that somehow is cleverly worded to sneak around prop 8. one idea that has been floated is to create a new word other than marriage and define it as two people of any gender and put the same right legal rights onto it. prop 8 doesn't say anything about civil unions.

That's called a civil union, and there's no need to do that because straight couples can enter into civil unions but gay couples cannot get married. To quote Hamlet, "Aye, there's the rub."

Subterfuge and manipulation are the work of the oppressors who pushed for Prop 8, not the those who would seek to end its reign.

[leekohler]

NO. Blacks and the women's suffrage party had to fight for them.

And we're not fighting? Are you kidding? Here you are on one hand saying that we shouldn't protest, then you say this? Wow.

You obviously know nothing about the struggle for gay rights in this country. We've been fighting for decades. In some places in the US, one can still be fired from a job because one is gay. Fortunately, those places are few and far between now, because we've been FIGHTING. Do you even know about the Stonewall riots or any other part of gay history in the US?

[Surely]

Just thought I'd mention.....
Dan Savage was on Anderson Cooper's show tonight debating douchebag Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council. Check it out, Dan did great.

[stevento]

can you please show me where i ever said you guys weren't fighting?
what i said was that I'm not sure you guys are fighting a worth while fight. Places where you can be fired for being gay are in states like Montana, where they still using hanging as corporal punishment. I don't think the constitution argument is a good angle for gay rights activists because the conservatives have already found a way to get around it. Its also tough to make the "why take away our rights" argument because the people have already spoken on that. what you should do is put a prop on the ballot next year that changes the definition of a civil union.

[leekohler]

can you please show me where i ever said you guys weren't fighting?
what i said was that I'm not sure you guys are fighting a worth while fight. Places where you can be fired for being gay are in states like Montana, where they still using hanging as corporal punishment. I don't think the constitution argument is a good angle for gay rights activists because the conservatives have already found a way to get around it. Its also tough to make the "why take away our rights" argument because the people have already spoken on that. what you should do is put a prop on the ballot next year that changes the definition of a civil union.

There is certainly an implication here:

NO. Blacks and the women's suffrage party had to fight for them.

Sounds to me as if you're implying that we somehow aren't fighting.

The Constitutional argument IS a good one. It's the foundation of our country for god's sake. It's how we'll end up winning. Several other posters have already explained that to you. And the Conservatives haven't found a way around that, as Californians are about to find out. Looks like Prop 8 is most likely illegal.

[coffey7]

If this didn't pass in California then it will not pass easy in other states. Cali is very liberal and strange it would not pass there.

[beatzfreak]

Trying to do our part here in NYC.

Thousands of human rights advocates massed outside the Mormon Temple on the upper West Side Wednesday night to protest the church's vigorous role in banning California's same-sex marriages.
After some speechifying, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and entertainer Whoopi Goldberg led demonstrators on a flag-waving, drum-beating, slogan-chanting march to Columbus Circle.

More info and video (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/13/2008-11-13_thousands_show_up_for_nyc_prop_8_protest.html)

[Wotan31]

heathens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

[leekohler]

heathens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

Oh lord. :rolleyes:

[CalBoy]

If this didn't pass in California then it will not pass easy in other states. Cali is very liberal and strange it would not pass there.

California is not as liberal as its reputation makes it seem.

There are very conservative counties in California, and while they rarely have enough voting power to swing California to the Republicans for President or Senator, they can have a large impact on ballot measures.

The bigger blow to gay rights in this case was the fact that California is the nation's laboratory. If gay marriage works here and is accepted here (which it will be in a matter of just a few years), then others more moderate states like Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, etc, can feel free to follow California's lead.

Let's also keep in mind that the vote was very, very close. By no means was this a convincing win for Prop 8; given the fact that younger voters are overwhelming for gay rights, and that the Prop 8 campaign invested millions in false advertising, paranoia, and hate mongering, the result was not at all indicative of a win for bigotry, but rather a narrow win for fear tactics.

California voters also had to consider the fact that civil unions exist in California, so they didn't feel as bad when taking away this right.
heathens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q

That video is incorrectly titled. She was not attacked physically, which is what I imagined when I saw the video. She was protested by words and by signs, which as far as I can remember, is perfectly fine under the First Amendment.
Just thought I'd mention.....
Dan Savage was on Anderson Cooper's show tonight debating douchebag Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council. Check it out, Dan did great.

I saw that too, and it struck me that Anderson Cooper could be a great spokesperson for gay rights if he ever decides to leave the closet. :p

[leekohler]

I've got four people going so far with me on Saturday. I hope to get about 8-10 together before then. It's gonna be crazy!

[EricNau]

A very interesting approach taken in Sacramento:

Prop. 8 Opponents Host Staged Protest: Group Gathers On West Steps Of Capitol For Choreographed Event (http://www.kcra.com/news/17971118/detail.html)

Make sure you watch the video (http://www.kcra.com/video/17971699/index.html).

[bradl]

A very interesting approach taken in Sacramento:

Prop. 8 Opponents Host Staged Protest: Group Gathers On West Steps Of Capitol For Choreographed Event (http://www.kcra.com/news/17971118/detail.html)

Make sure you watch the video (http://www.kcra.com/video/17971699/index.html).

Seeing that the director for one of the dance troops/theaters quit his job in protest of Prop 8. and the troop supports him doing so, I can see this!

BL.

[iJon]

That video is incorrectly titled. She was not attacked physically, which is what I imagined when I saw the video. She was protested by words and by signs, which as far as I can remember, is perfectly fine under the First Amendment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6mMQwAEDC4

In this video though the protestors rip this ladies cross from out of her hand. I know not all of the protestors act like this but it does hurt the cause. This just makes the crowd you're trying to convince dislike you even more.

It's unfortunate but it's the truth. We will see if the rallies help at all.

jon

[leekohler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6mMQwAEDC4

In this video though the protestors rip this ladies cross from out of her hand. I know not all of the protestors act like this but it does hurt the cause. This just makes the crowd you're trying to convince dislike you even more.

It's unfortunate but it's the truth. We will see if the rallies help at all.

jon

iJon- while that is definitely the wrong approach, emotions are going to run high for a long time. We've already seen protesters beaten up by the other side and hospitalized. I'm afraid it will get worse before it gets better. People have had enough and they're angry.

[iJon]

iJon- while that is definitely the wrong approach, emotions are going to run high for a long time. We've already seen protesters beaten up by the other side and hospitalized. I'm afraid it will get worse before it gets better. People have had enough and they're angry.

I agree, it's a very personal subject. Do you think you could post some of the links of protestors being attacked by Prop 8 supporters. I am not doubting you, I would just like some links for some other forums I browse, which aren't so supportive of gay marriage.

jon

[mactastic]

If this didn't pass in California then it will not pass easy in other states. Cali is very liberal and strange it would not pass there.
Let me guess -- you're not from California? :p

Yes, California has large population centers that trend very liberal. And yes, we have Santa Cruz (my hometown) and Berkeley and West Hollywood and Santa Barbara.

But we also have Bakersfield and Orange County and Palm Springs and the Inland Empire and many other huge swaths of "red".

This idea that somehow California is "very liberal" is concocted by people who create a caricature of our state for their political benefit. Just think how much mileage conservatives have gotten out of "Hollyweird" or "San Francisco values".

[beatzfreak]

Let me guess -- you're not from California? :p

Yes, California has large population centers that trend very liberal. And yes, we have Santa Cruz (my hometown) and Berkeley and West Hollywood and Santa Barbara.

But we also have Bakersfield and Orange County and Palm Springs and the Inland Empire and many other huge swaths of "red".

This idea that somehow California is "very liberal" is concocted by people who create a caricature of our state for their political benefit. Just think how much mileage conservatives have gotten out of "Hollyweird" or "San Francisco values".

Love Santa Cruz. I lived over the hill in Los Gatos during my teen years and later moved to San Fran.

I agree, Cali is not as liberal as everyone makes it out to be. Especially when it comes to social issues. It became more apparent when I moved to NYC. The land of the "liberal elites". From my experience, the Northeast is more liberal. We already have gay marriage in Conn. and Mass. NY and RI recognize gay marriages from those states.

EDIT: OK, now I'm convinced NY is more liberal, my governor just posted a diary on Daily Kos, and many are asking him to let gays marry in our state.

[leekohler]

I agree, it's a very personal subject. Do you think you could post some of the links of protestors being attacked by Prop 8 supporters. I am not doubting you, I would just like some links for some other forums I browse, which aren't so supportive of gay marriage.

jon

I already posted a video in the other Prop 8 thread.

Here you go:

http://www.latimes.com/video/?slug=la-me-protest7-2008nov07-vid

[Wotan31]

That video is incorrectly titled. She was not attacked physically, which is what I imagined when I saw the video. She was protested by words and by signs, which as far as I can remember, is perfectly fine under the First Amendment.

LOL I don't think you watched the whole thing. iJon got it right. They forcefully took the cross from her, threw it to the ground, and trampled it. That absolutely is a physical act of aggression. It's doubly wrong since this was a religious symbol and has significant meaning to many people.

Lets turn the tables around for a moment. Say, for example, that two gay people just went to the courthouse and got married (in a state that allows such things, obviously). As they're walking out of the building, some demonstrators yank the marriage certificate out of their hands, throw it to the ground, and trample it. More demonstrators surround the newlywed gay couple in an intimidating manner and yell threatening things at them. You wouldn't define that as a physical attack? I sure would.

I'm all for peaceful demonstration! I support the right of the people in that video to voice their opinion and dissent, (even if I don't agree with their cause). But attacking old ladies? Really? That's seriously pathetic.

[leekohler]

LOL I don't think you watched the whole thing. iJon got it right. They forcefully took the cross from her, threw it to the ground, and trampled it. That absolutely is a physical act of aggression. It's doubly wrong since this was a religious symbol and has significant meaning to many people.

Lets turn the tables around for a moment. Say, for example, that two gay people just went to the courthouse and got married (in a state that allows such things, obviously). As they're walking out of the building, some demonstrators yank the marriage certificate out of their hands, throw it to the ground, and trample it. More demonstrators surround the newlywed gay couple in an intimidating manner and yell threatening things at them. You wouldn't define that as a physical attack? I sure would.

I'm all for peaceful demonstration! I support the right of the people in that video to voice their opinion and dissent, (even if I don't agree with their cause). But attacking old ladies? Really? That's seriously pathetic.

I don't think anyone here thinks what they did was right. However, it's a far cry from putting people in the hospital. See the video in my previous post. It makes me sad that this is so ugly already.

[coffey7]

I happened to see this video on a other forum. This is not going to help the cause. The last 1 minute is really bad with an 80 year old women getting pushed around.,

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/11/11/rabid-moonbats-freak-out-on-80-year-old-woman-over-prop-8/

[leekohler]

I happened to see this video on a other forum. This is not going to help the cause. Watch the end of the video. Not good for very large guys to be rude and pushy to an 80 year old women. Forget where the link came from just watch. They should have just ignored her.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/11/11/rabid-moonbats-freak-out-on-80-year-old-woman-over-prop-8/

It's already been posted. Thanks. And judging from the source you posted, I don't think I need to guess your stand on this. Lovely website.:rolleyes:

Right under the video it says:



» Filed Under DOMA, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Homosexual Agenda, Illegal Activities, Mobocracy, Moral Relativism, News, Secular Humanism, Social Engineering, Stupidity, Unhinged, Video

That doesn't help anything either. I also take it you didn't look at the vid I posted.

[coffey7]

It's already been posted. Thanks. And judging from the source you posted, I don't think I need to guess your stand on this. Lovely website.:rolleyes:

Right under the video it says:



That doesn't help anything either. I also take it you didn't look at the vid I posted.

Don't jump to anything about the link. I am on your side. Did you think it was right to push around an old women?

Cali had 6.3 million votes for the Dems and 2.9 for the Republicans. I guess the African American vote was 77% against this. You would think this would pass in Cali. I lived in Cali before.

[leekohler]

Don't jump to anything about the link. I am on your side. Did you think it was right to push around an old women?

Cali had 6.3 million votes for the Dems and 2.9 for the Republicans. I guess the African American vote was 77% against this. You would think this would pass in Cali.

No- I also don't think it was OK for people claiming to be Mormons to send protesters to the hospital. Lets keep it real here. This can get out of hand on both sides.

[stevento]

The Constitutional argument IS a good one. It's the foundation of our country for god's sake. It's how we'll end up winning. Several other posters have already explained that to you. And the Conservatives haven't found a way around that, as Californians are about to find out.

but its already been tried before. this is not the first time this debate has been in the public eye. gay rights activists need a new angle. stop fighting the same fight as 3 years ago, because guess what? you guys lost that one. you're not going to win by doing the same thing.

heathens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q
that guy is a jerk. he is impeding on a woman trying to voice her opinion.

in order to fight them, you have to understand where the right wing christians are coming from. they don't believe that anyone in the world is really gay.

[bradl]

Don't jump to anything about the link. I am on your side. Did you think it was right to push around an old women?

Cali had 6.3 million votes for the Dems and 2.9 for the Republicans. I guess the African American vote was 77% against this. You would think this would pass in Cali. I lived in Cali before.

NPR just had two good shows on this past week talking about the Black vote on Prop. 8. One of them is Forum (http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R811121000) which I believe is heard nationwide, and News and Notes (http://www.nprnewsandnotes.org). Both fairly balanced shows, and worth a listen.

BL.

[leekohler]

but its already been tried before. this is not the first time this debate has been in the public eye. gay rights activists need a new angle. stop fighting the same fight as 3 years ago, because guess what? you guys lost that one.

Oh OK, so our Constitution means nothing then? That's what I'm getting from you, man. Don't bother because you'll just lose. The Constitution in your eyes obviously doesn't apply to us. Much to your dismay, we aren't going to stop. Sorry if that offends you.

And yeah, the guy in the video was a jerk, Absolutely. I also find it strange that no one has commented on the video I posted where people were truly physically hurt, but there are plenty of people having a fit about this. Yes, I understand an old lady got her cross stomped on, and that is wrong. But she wasn't taken to the hospital or anything. Interesting where our attention goes.

[FreeState]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6mMQwAEDC4

In this video though the protestors rip this ladies cross from out of her hand. I know not all of the protestors act like this but it does hurt the cause. This just makes the crowd you're trying to convince dislike you even more.

It's unfortunate but it's the truth. We will see if the rallies help at all.

jon


Unfortunately if you walk into and angry protest and shout fire your going to attract negative attention - and that is what the woman did. She went down to were people were protesting and took the oppositions message right into the middle of the protest - what did she expect? While its not right - she is the one that is on the wrong side of the law - what she did was the equivalent of walking into a crowded theater and yelling fire and then complaining people trampled her.

[stevento]

Oh OK, so our Constitution means nothing then?

you have a wonderful talent for taking something i said and spinning into something completely different. you give keith olbermann a run for his money. the constitution is law. but the gay rights movement has been down this path before, and the supreme court bench hasn't changed much since then, so why are going to put the same case in front of the same judges and expect them to rule differently?
now a few of them may kick the bucket or retire, then the game changes. but for now they need a new strategy.

[leekohler]

you have a wonderful talent for taking something i said and spinning into something completely different. you give keith olbermann a run for his money. the constitution is law. but the gay rights movement has been down this path before, and the supreme court bench hasn't changed much since then, so why are going to put the same case in front of the same judges and expect them to rule differently?
now a few of them may kick the bucket or retire, then the game changes. but for now they need a new strategy.

You know what? I'm done arguing with you about this. It has been explained to you over and over by myself and several other posters. If you choose to ignore it, go ahead.

[hulugu]

...Places where you can be fired for being gay are in states like Montana, where they still using hanging as corporal punishment....

Sorry to nitpick, but typically, that's referred to a Capital Punishment. Also, according to these guys (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution), Montana only uses lethal injection as the method of execution.

I don't think the constitution argument is a good angle for gay rights activists because the conservatives have already found a way to get around it. Its also tough to make the "why take away our rights" argument because the people have already spoken on that. what you should do is put a prop on the ballot next year that changes the definition of a civil union.

Huh? The Constitutional argument can overturn a proposition if, according to the court system (State Court, State Supreme, Circuit Court, SCOTUS) it fails against a constitutional test. Frankly, there's a strong argument in the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

Oh OK, so our Constitution means nothing then? That's what I'm getting from you, man. Don't bother because you'll just lose. The Constitution in your eyes obviously doesn't apply to us. Much to your dismay, we aren't going to stop. Sorry if that offends you.

And yeah, the guy in the video was a jerk, Absolutely. I also find it strange that no one has commented on the video I posted where people were truly physically hurt, but there are plenty of people having a fit about this. Yes, I understand an old lady got her cross stomped on, and that is wrong. But she wasn't taken to the hospital or anything. Interesting where our attention goes.

Well, pushing around old ladies tends to get the dander up, and since there's a cross (i.e. important symbol) people tend to get even more upset. It's important for people rallying against injustice to be calm and cool even in the face of violence or outright craziness. You can never win an argument by shouting down the other side. Even if you want to smack them so hard their head spins around.

[leekohler]

For anyone wondering why this is so important, read this. If this doesn't spell it out for you, nothing will. Pay special attention to what happened in Florida too. Absolutely disgusting. Tell me hatred isn't inviolved in that one.

I had barely finished sniffling over Barack Obama’s victory when I received an e-mail message from Amy Silverstein, the wife of my best friend from high school, Angela Padilla.

She had been glad to read last week’s piece on “the groundbreaking immensity of the election of our country’s first African-American president,” she said.

Up to a point.

“I wanted to make sure you knew and appreciated that despite this seeming like an amazing step forward for all who have suffered discrimination and/or who are deeply committed to eliminating it, this election was anything but that for G.L.B.T. people and our families,” she wrote. “Especially in California, but in three other states as well, the electorate convincingly voted to deny us basic civil rights and made clear that we are a long way from being seen and treated as equal. Protecting traditional marriage is simply code for discrimination. There is no ‘triumph’ for us, and the long period of pain, indignity and injustice continues.”

There’s nothing worse than being told you have a major blind spot. That your self-assured joyousness is built upon exclusion.

Particularly when the person telling you this is right.

Now, I hadn’t exactly ignored the spate of anti-gay ballot initiatives that had passed — in California, Arkansas, Florida and Arizona — on Nov. 4. I’d read about the success of Arizona’s long-attempted gay marriage ban and California’s Proposition 8, which prohibited gay marriage just six months after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry was fundamental, and constitutionally protected, for all.

I’d read about how voters in Florida had decided to target not only same-sex marriage but all relationships that were the “substantial equivalent” of marriage, like domestic partnerships and civil unions, and how in Arkansas, where gay marriage was already banned, voters had decided to deny anyone “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” the right to adopt or be a foster parent.

How strange, I’d thought, reading about how, on the day of progressive victories — Obama’s historic win, South Dakota voters’ rejection of a wide-ranging abortion ban, Californians voting down a ballot initiative that would have required parental notification for abortion — these states had passed such uniquely reactionary and discriminatory measures. How ugly. That’s really too bad.

And then I’d moved on. As most people who were not directly affected by the anti-gay rights measures did. There was just too much else to feel good about.

“I think the country was like, ‘Look, you get Obama, call it a day and go home,” is how Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative in Arizona, who’d opposed her state’s anti-gay ballot initiative, put it to The Times last week.

Ed Swanson couldn’t move on.

The day after the election, the San Francisco lawyer and his husband, Paul Herman, a stay-at-home dad, had had to face the fact that Proposition 8 could mean that their marriage would be invalidated. They’d also had to go to parent conferences and tell the teachers that their five-year-old daughter, Liza, might be struggling in school because she was scared that her family might fall apart.

Liza, who has a twin sister, Katie, had peppered Swanson and Herman with questions once she’d realized that marriages uniting “a boy and a boy” were no longer allowed.

“They can’t take yours away, right?” she’d asked her parents. “They can’t take yours away when you have children, can they?”

“That’s when we realized she was afraid something would happen to us,” Swanson told me by phone on Wednesday. “We said, ‘They can’t take us away from you. We will be here for you forever.’”

“It’s difficult to explain to a five-year-old why it is people don’t want your parents to be married,” he continued. “They’re young enough that there was a chance they could have grown up thinking all their lives that their family was equal and accepted. Now they’re not going to have that chance. They’ll have to spend at least part of their lives knowing that their family is something that people don’t feel is acceptable.”

Jeanne Rizzo, the C.E.O. of the Breast Cancer Fund, can’t quite move on either. She spent election night in a reception room at San Francisco’s Westin St. Francis Hotel. She and her long-term partner, Pali Cooper, were married in September, one of 18,000 California couples who managed to wed in the short space of time between the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage and the passage of Proposition 8.

In one room, Obama supporters were jubilant. In another, opponents of Proposition 4 — the parental notification initiative -– shouted their glee. In hers, the opponents of Proposition 8 saw their joy at Obama’s election turn quickly to “absolute disbelief and pain” as the results of the ballot initiative came in. “It was such a kick in the stomach. The whole hotel was just rocking with joy. We felt so disconnected from it,” Rizzo recalled when I talked to her on Wednesday.

It wasn’t that she begrudged Obama his victory. It was just that his historic triumph made the insult to her community all the more painful. An awful thought came to her that night: Now we’re the designated cultural outcasts. “It’s almost like we’re the last group you can be openly bigoted about,” she told me.

“You look around and you think more than half of the people in this state voted to take this away from us? At a time when we’re celebrating the election of an African American to the White House? I don’t know how you heal from it,” she said. “It’s hard to get it out of your bones.”

It’s easy, if you’re straight, to file away the gay marriage issue in a little folder in your mind, to render it, essentially, inessential. It can fall into the category of “bones you throw the religious right because things could be so much worse.” Or “things that would be great in a perfect world.” Or “what’s the big deal?” because you don’t actually get what a big deal it is to be able to get married when you’ve never had to consider the alternative.

Many of the gay men and lesbians I spoke or e-mailed with this week didn’t fully realize what a big deal it was to be married either. Until they were.

“I don’t think I had realized until then what it felt like to be equal,” Swanson told me. “Paul and I went on a honeymoon in Santa Fe. People would ask and we’d say we’re on our honeymoon; we just got married. We could say it not because it was a political statement but because it was a fact.

“I don’t feel equal anymore. It was a great feeling, while it lasted.”

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/dark-side-of-the-vote/?ref=opinion

[abijnk]

I've been brooding all day about what to put on my sign to no avail... :cool:

Anybody else in the LA area going?

[CalBoy]

Fro anyone wondering why this is so important, read this. If this doesn't spell it out for you, nothing will. Pay special attention to what happened in Florida too. Absolutely disgusting. Tell me hatred isn't inviolved i that one.

I read that this morning and it increased my resolve to see this issue bite the dust as quickly as possible.

How horrible to have your relationship one day deemed by the state to be equal to others, and the next not.
I've been brooding all day about what to put on my sign to no avail... :cool:

Mine is going to be: NO H8 except much larger. :p

[leekohler]

Heading down to the protest! I'll let you guys know how it goes!

[iJohnHenry]

Take a wet facecloth, in a zip-lock. ;)

[iGary]

The government has no business telling you who you can and cannot enter into a contract with.

Period. End of story.

[leekohler]

Take a wet facecloth, in a zip-lock. ;)

I'll be fine. I ain't worried.

[Crawn2003]

Just got back from the one in Santa Rosa, CA. Really great turn out!

My wife and I had a great time.

~Crawn

[iJohnHenry]

Lee, come home. All is forgiven. :confused:

[Digital Skunk]

The government has no business telling you who you can and cannot enter into a contract with.

Period. End of story.

Agreed, and as for the old woman, what did she expect.

[stevento]

You know what? I'm done arguing with you about this. It has been explained to you over and over by myself and several other posters. If you choose to ignore it, go ahead.


why do you always say i'm ignoring something when i just dont agree with it?
if said "explained" to you my POV that doesnt mean you have to agree. really you sound like my mom right now, when she realizes in an argument that she's wrong, she says "ya know what i'm done talking about this"
i bet one year from today the gay rights movement will not have moved one single inch towards equality by using the constitution argument.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Marriage should be looked at as a way to acknowledge that two people of opposite sex have taken great risks both financially and in personal commitment to create and raise new tax payers. Has nothing to do with same sex relationships hence tax breaks for those making this sacrifice. Thats how govt should be looking at this.

As far religions view of a marriage matters little, they are simply a business making $$$ by selling their brand of fiction.

You either fall in the first category or you dont, if you dont then civil unions.

[leekohler]

Just got back and the Chicago protests rocked! It was amazing! We marched all through the Loop and up through the Magnificent Mile! We shut down Michigan Ave. Man, was it great. Even the people stranded in their cars by the protest honked and cheered. Everything was very peaceful and the police even seemed to be enjoying themselves. It was a huge turnout.

Oh- three, yes, THREE prop 8 supporters showed up. They were mostly ignored. My friend Mike got lots of pics, I'll post them when he sends them tomorrow.

[iJohnHenry]

Good stuff.

At least in some communities there is still room for civil disobedience.

[Digital Skunk]

As far religions view of a marriage matters little, they are simply a business making $$$ by selling their brand of fiction.

Slow it down my friend. There are a lot of churches that aren't making any $$$$. And some that have done far more good for their poor communities than the government or your supported organizations have done.

Either way, government shouldn't look at marriage in anyway at all. There should be a complete separation of church and state and culture.

[leekohler]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Anti-Prop-8-Protest-Tomorrow.html

Here's an article on today's protest in Chicago:

Thousands of protesters flooded Chicago's Federal Plaza this afternoon in opposition of Proposition 8 as part of an 80-city movement against the California ammendment that passed earlier this month.

Chicago police had to close down a lane of traffic to accommodate the huge crowds this afternoon.

Event spokesperson Andy Thayer said the protestors were "ecstatic to see so many of their peers standing up for equality. We are angry that our community has been vilified by those who hate us, but determined to fight on for equality."

The amendment to California's state Constitution won 52% of the popular vote, restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. This overrides a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in the state as a fundamental right.

Currently, the California Supreme Court is considering three filed lawsuits, challenging the legal validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that the "amendment" is actually a Constitutional "revision," and therefore must pass state legislature. The suits claim that a majority of voters cannot revoke rights deemed suitable for everyone under the equal protection clause in the state's Constitution.

Until a decision is made, gay rights advocates plan on remaining highly visible, hoping to influence the courts.

Compared to the movements of women's and African-American rights, the gay-marriage controversy has been called "the most crucial civil rights issue of our generation."

Event spokesperson Thayer felt that even though Proposition 8 was on the books half a country away in California, it is still an important issue in Illinois. "Chicago's got everything to do with it. We want equal marriage rights right here in Illinois," Thayer told NBCChicago.com. He also noted that successful legal battles for rights in America have often been accompanied by vocal public support. "Today we have a massive gay rights movement with our allies demanding equality for gay people and we hope that that pressure will be enough to for the California courts to do the right thing."

This may be the first time civil rights have been put to a popular vote. (Both the women's right to vote and the civil rights acts of the '60s were the result of legislation in the House and Senate.) California was also the first state to strike down bans on interracial marriage in 1948, and now has become the first state to take away a currently existing civil right from a group of citizens.

Thayer agrees that marriage equality for all is a civil rights issue. "Civil rights are about rights, no one owns them. Everyone should have them."

A small counter-protest voicing support for Proposition 8 was held nearby the large crowds in the Plaza.

A spokesperson from Chicago's Office of Emergency Management and Communications said no major incidents were reported related to the Proposition 8 protest and it was a peaceful demonstration that ended approximately 2pm.

And here's some pics!

[leekohler]

Here's more on State street. My friend Mike and I got up on the L platform to take these. This was such an awesome event. I love my city.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I just got back from a small protest in Portland. It was pretty fun and our queer* mayor-elect gave a neat speech.


*his phrase, I'm not too fond of it myself.

[leekohler]

Here's some on Wacker and the Michigan Avenues. Wacker, State and Michigan all got shut down.

[iJohnHenry]

*his phrase, I'm not too fond of it myself.

It's a wise man that knows himself, and very rare in a politician.

[beatzfreak]

NYC was great. CNN said 4,000 people.

Pics (http://www.flickr.com/photos/soundfreakphoto/sets/72157609154816763/show/)

[leekohler]

NYC was great. CNN said 4,000 people.

Pics (http://www.flickr.com/photos/soundfreakphoto/sets/72157609154816763/show/)

Yay! Great pics too, man! Here's one more on Michigan:

[Prof.]

Do you think you guys made an impact?

[beatzfreak]

Yay! Great pics too, man!

It's woman.

I forgot to say, great pics from Chicago.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Do you think you guys made an impact?

Of course. When people see how many people support this and how passionate we are it might change some minds.

[leekohler]

It's woman.

I forgot to say, great pics from Chicago.

Sorry about that! You learn something new every day! :)

Do you think you guys made an impact?


After what I saw today, I'd say we're well on our way.

[iJohnHenry]

"Protect marriage, ban divorce."

OMG, would that it were so, then many "kids" would wait just a bit.

[Prof.]

I said this before and I'll say it again. Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, religion has a huge part in the gay rights movement. Not only will you be taking on Government ruling, you will also be taking on christianity. Which makes the climb that much steeper and harder.

[leekohler]

I said this before and I'll say it again. Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, religion has a huge part in the gay rights movement. Not only will you be taking on Government ruling, you will also be taking on christianity. Which makes the climb that much steeper and harder.

We're all aware of that. So why don't you get your butt to the next one? We need you!

[Prof.]

...So why don't you get your butt to the next one? We need you!
Maybe...;)

[iParis]

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to go. =(
I'm glad to heear it went smoothly for those of you who made it.
Thanks for the pics, it looked awesome!
Hopefully there is another one soon that I will be able to go to.

[Macky-Mac]

I said this before and I'll say it again. Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, religion has a huge part in the gay rights movement. Not only will you be taking on Government ruling, you will also be taking on christianity. Which makes the climb that much steeper and harder.

actually there was a significant religious component to the opposition to civil rights back in the 50s & 60s, not so great as with the current gay rights movement admittedly, but it was around. There were quite a number of white preachers and ministers, especially in the south, that preached that it was against the word of god for the races to mingle.

[Digital Skunk]

you will also be taking on christianity. Which makes the climb that much steeper and harder.

People's views of Christianity in actuality. Which was an issue in all of the African American diaspora, from slavery to the civil rights movement.

It's hard to believe that some people actually think and use their religion as a form of oppression for their own people and others. Even if their doctrine and holy books say otherwise.

[leekohler]

Here's another from Denver that a newbie asked me to post:

[Iscariot]

It's hard to believe that some people actually think and use their religion as a form of oppression for their own people and others. Even if their doctrine and holy books say otherwise.

It's a fair bit more than "some".

[Digital Skunk]

It's a fair bit more than "some".

Depending on the time period, the geographical region, and political standing in the world yes.

For example, white Americans during the 18th century and Europeans during early 1900's.

[joepunk]

Here's a bunch of photos from all over the country including Canada. (http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/?hp)

And here is the flicker photo pool (http://flickr.com/groups/strangerphotos/pool/)

Enjoy everyone.

[Digital Skunk]

Here's a bunch of photos from all over the country including Canada. (http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/?hp)

Enjoy everyone.

The photos for our paper just came in, and they are amazing. These will truly define an era and our nation. Expect a few to be in Time.

[iJon]

Unfortunately if you walk into and angry protest and shout fire your going to attract negative attention - and that is what the woman did. She went down to were people were protesting and took the oppositions message right into the middle of the protest - what did she expect? While its not right - she is the one that is on the wrong side of the law - what she did was the equivalent of walking into a crowded theater and yelling fire and then complaining people trampled her.

Still, that's the stuff that's going to get noticed and that is what is going to give these protests a bad name. Here is another link I found that was posted by someone on one of the more conservative threads I browse.

It's just unfortunate that these are the things that will get press. This does not give the crowd a good name.

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

jon

[iJohnHenry]

Denied.

The majority outweighs these "inperfections", no matter what side from whence they spring.

[.Andy]

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904
The comments on that forum are terrible.


edit: this was hilarious;
An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the liberals, a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding, together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know.
Won't somebody think of the children. Who will protect them from fictional extrapolations!

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The comments on that forum are terrible.


edit: this was hilarious;

Won't somebody think of the children.

Damn Liberals! Always trying to protest in awkward ways and exposing our kids to, not only to real sex, but to homosexual sex too!

[leekohler]

Still, that's the stuff that's going to get noticed and that is what is going to give these protests a bad name. Here is another link I found that was posted by someone on one of the more conservative threads I browse.

It's just unfortunate that these are the things that will get press. This does not give the crowd a good name.

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

jon

Jon, can you please try to stay on the topic of today's organized protests? It would be nice if we could stay away from this kind of radical stuff in this thread. If you want to start a thread about it, please do. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to keep this one focused.

[joepunk]

Looks cold in Chicago. Should've held the march in the summer instead. Californians should have the courtesy to start nationwide marches only in the summer months. :p

[iJon]

The comments on that forum are terrible.


edit: this was hilarious;

Won't somebody think of the children. Who will protect them from fictional extrapolations!

That's not the site I browse, that's just the link that was provided. I was referring to some of the actions that were displayed that seemed quite childish. Granted this isn't close to an overall representation to the well coordinated protests. Unfortunately it's a very stringy group of people we have to convince.

Jon, can you please try to stay on the topic of today's organized protests? It would be nice if we could stay away from this kind of radical stuff in this thread. If you want to start a thread about it, please do. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to keep this one focused.

Sure, didn't mean to steer it off course.

[CalBoy]

Marriage should be looked at as a way to acknowledge that two people of opposite sex have taken great risks both financially and in personal commitment to create and raise new tax payers. Has nothing to do with same sex relationships hence tax breaks for those making this sacrifice. Thats how govt should be looking at this.

What about gay couples with kids?

You know that with medical science, it's possible to have a child that is genetically from two males or two females right?

Thus they too are "procreating."

Isn't it easier just to let everyone get "married?"

Unless you want to "civil union" your partner.
Do you think you guys made an impact?

SF was awesome today. So many people, great speeches, and a march from City Hall all the way down to the Castro (Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=1+Dr+Carton+B+Goodlett+Pl,+San+Francisco,+CA+94102+(San+Francisco+City+Hall+Info)&daddr=Market+St+to:castro+and+market&hl=en&geocode=FYd0QAIdoAu0-CGujNgZUdaTbA%3BFaxhQAIdOgC0-A%3B&mra=cc&via=1&dirflg=w&sll=37.77024,-122.429752&sspn=0.038537,0.036049&ie=UTF8&z=14)). Lots of traffic was stopped as a result, but most people were honking in support (some even got out of their cars to give high fives to marchers).

I really felt like we made a difference. Even if we don't win this battle, I think the base has finally been energized, and now we will win the war. :)

[leekohler]

What about gay couples with kids?

You know that with medical science, it's possible to have a child that is genetically from two males or two females right?

Thus they too are "procreating."

Isn't it easier just to let everyone get "married?"

Unless you want to "civil union" your partner.


SF was awesome today. So many people, great speeches, and a march from City Hall all the way down to the Castro (Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=1+Dr+Carton+B+Goodlett+Pl,+San+Francisco,+CA+94102+(San+Francisco+City+Hall+Info)&daddr=Market+St+to:castro+and+market&hl=en&geocode=FYd0QAIdoAu0-CGujNgZUdaTbA%3BFaxhQAIdOgC0-A%3B&mra=cc&via=1&dirflg=w&sll=37.77024,-122.429752&sspn=0.038537,0.036049&ie=UTF8&z=14)). Lots of traffic was stopped as a result, but most people were honking in support (some even got out of their cars to give high fives to marchers).

I really felt like we made a difference. Even if we don't win this battle, I think the base has finally been energized, and now we will win the war. :)

Yeah! We got the same in our march! We kept looking at the people stuck in their cars and saying, "Sorry! We didn't mean for you to get stuck!" They were all just fine with it though. We got lots of high fives from people in their cars and honks of support. It just felt so good. The whole city just seemed to be saying, "You people GO!" There was NOT one negative thing the whole time. It was wonderful.

[CalBoy]

Yeah! We got the same in our march! We kept looking at the people stuck in their cars and saying, "Sorry! We didn't mean for you to get stuck!" They were all just fine with it though. We got lots of high fives from people in their cars and honks of support. It just felt so good. The whole city just seemed to be saying, "You people GO!" There was NOT one negative thing the whole time. It was wonderful.

Apparently there were some "gay=pervert" (yes, that was literally the sign, as the News was sure to show that one clearly) people, but they numbered only about 10 or so and I didn't see them.

Here's the sign I brought with me to the protest; very simple and clean. The only reason it came off half as good as it did is because I had nothing to do with its construction (although I did come up with the design and color scheme). :D
144492

[leekohler]

Apparently there were some "gay=pervert" (yes, that was literally the sign, as the News was sure to show that one clearly) people, but they numbered only about 10 or so and I didn't see them.

Here's the sign I brought with me to the protest; very simple and clean. The only reason it came off half as good as it did is because I had nothing to do with its construction (although I did come up with the design and color scheme). :D


I think you did a great job! Most people just used magic markers.

[CalBoy]

I think you did a great job! Most people just used magic markers.

Aww thanks Lee. :o

I really didn't do the actual coloring; my friend came up with the brilliant idea to use spray paint and construction paper.

I couldn't spot our signs on the news though. Part of me wanted to so I could download it and save it to show my kids one day, "you know, I was that protestor way down there." :D

[leekohler]

Aww thanks Lee. :o

I really didn't do the actual coloring; my friend came up with the brilliant idea to use spray paint and construction paper.

I couldn't spot our signs on the news though. Part of me wanted to so I could download it and save it to show my kids one day, "you know, I was that protestor way down there." :D

Aww! You didn't take any pics?

[CalBoy]

Aww! You didn't take any pics?

I did, but you know there's always something more special about a news clip years later. :p:)

[leekohler]

I did, but you know there's always something more special about a news clip years later. :p:)

Well then, start posting your pics! We've go them in Chicago, NYC and Denver. Put 'em up here! :)

[stevento]

let me play devil's advocate.


You know that with medical science, it's possible to have a child that is genetically from two males or two females right?

yeah but its also possible for a man to get pregnant. twice. (the pregnant man is pregnant again link (http://blogs.tampabay.com/moms/2008/11/pregnant-man-te.html) )
that doesn't mean its right.

[ravenvii]

let me play devil's advocate.



yeah but its also possible for a man to get pregnant. twice. (the pregnant man is pregnant again link (http://blogs.tampabay.com/moms/2008/11/pregnant-man-te.html) )
that doesn't mean its right.

You do know that "he" was born a "she", and kept her female organs, right? The "media sensation" isn't much of a sensation IMO.

[Iscariot]

that doesn't mean its right.

What makes it wrong?

Playing devil's advocate usually means that the other position is worthy of advocacy.

[synth3tik]

let me play devil's advocate.



yeah but its also possible for a man to get pregnant. twice. (the pregnant man is pregnant again link (http://blogs.tampabay.com/moms/2008/11/pregnant-man-te.html) )
that doesn't mean its right.


I think there is a clear difference between two people getting married and genetically modified (or otherwise altered) babies.

two people getting married only effects those two people. Playing around with genetics though is placing all the burden on the person being used as an experiment.

It is clear to me why some people may be against genetics and stem cell research, but fail to see why people really care about 2 dudes or dudettes whom they don't even know.

[leekohler]

let me play devil's advocate.



yeah but its also possible for a man to get pregnant. twice. (the pregnant man is pregnant again link (http://blogs.tampabay.com/moms/2008/11/pregnant-man-te.html) )
that doesn't mean its right.

Can we stay OT please? You want to talk about this? Start your own thread.

[CalBoy]

Well then, start posting your pics! We've go them in Chicago, NYC and Denver. Put 'em up here! :)

Naw, I don't really have any good, "Wow, look at that mob," ones. I'll look through them again though, just for you. :)

BTW: For discussions about babies, genetics, etc, I've started a new thread. Please put all such comments there.

[FreeState]

Here are some pics from San Diego... which had the largest march - 20,000 - 25,000 people per the police and organizers :)

[leekohler]

Here are some pics from San Diego... which had the largest march - 20,000 - 25,000 people per the police and organizers :)

Those are great! Thanks!

[Beric]

I just think it's amazing how much the media is trying to stir up the anti-prop 8 voters.

[.Andy]

I just think it's amazing how much the media is trying to stir up the anti-prop 8 voters.
Liberal media :mad:

[Prof.]

I really like this pic.
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144813&d=1227043072

[leekohler]

I just think it's amazing how much the media is trying to stir up the anti-prop 8 voters.

Yep- darn those homos for wanting rights that are guaranteed by their state constitution according to the supreme court! Darn them! It's just awful! :rolleyes:

[EricNau]

I just think it's amazing how much the media is trying to stir up the anti-prop 8 voters.
That doesn't even make sense.

The protests were organized by independent organizations and covered by the media because they happened. If the GOP convened a national protest of over 1 million people, I'm sure it would be covered as well.

The media covers what happens; they don't make it happen. Frankly, I think you have the process backwards.

[leekohler]

That doesn't even make sense.

The protests were organized by independent organizations and covered by the media because they happened. If the GOP convened a national protest of over 1 million people, I'm sure it would be covered as well.

The media covers what happens; they don't make it happen. Frankly, I think you have the process backwards.

What he means is that the media shouldn't report on it. The kids might see it on the news and he'll be forced to explain it to his kids. We're trying to take his rights away. We're trying to tell him he can't raise his kids like he wants to. Don't you get it? ;)

[EricNau]

What he means is that the media shouldn't report on it. The kids might see it on the news and he'll be forced to explain it to his kids. We're trying to take his rights away. We're trying to tell him he can't raise his kids like he wants to. Don't you get it? ;)
Oh, I see. And just when I thought it couldn't make any less sense...

[CalBoy]

I just think it's amazing how much the media is trying to stir up the anti-prop 8 voters.

FYI, this past Saturday's protests were organized online via Facebook and other websites. The media actually reported on this quite late (I first saw the protest info three or four days before I even heard a news story about any upcoming protests).

On a side note, Beric, I've always wanted to know: are you a Stanford student?

[mkrishnan]

The call to boycott (http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/6541600) Cinemark because its CEO donated money to Prop 8 campaigners was on NPR last night...

Brings up an interesting dilemma, as there seems to be little evidence that the CEO used his role at Cinemark to further any anti-gay views he might have, and I'm not aware of people accusing the company of wrongdoing in its corporate actions.

[leekohler]

The call to boycott (http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/6541600) Cinemark because its CEO donated money to Prop 8 campaigners was on NPR last night...

Brings up an interesting dilemma, as there seems to be little evidence that the CEO used his role at Cinemark to further any anti-gay views he might have, and I'm not aware of people accusing the company of wrongdoing in its corporate actions.

Any money we put into Cinemark partially is used to pay this CEO, hence the boycott. I absolutely support it and won't go to their theaters. Fortunately, we have an independent locally owned theater in my neighborhood, so it's easy.

[mkrishnan]

Any money we put into Cinemark partially is used to pay this CEO, hence the boycott. I absolutely support it and won't go to their theaters. Fortunately, we have an independent locally owned theater in my neighborhood, so it's easy.

It's a fair point, and I do think a CEO functions as a sort of "public figure," in the sense that their personal actions are "fair game."

I don't go to the movies all that often, although I am dying to go see Twilight.

When I go, it's been to various bigger theaters -- usually on dates, somewhere based on convenience. :o

[FreeState]

I'm personally boycotting any business were the owners or management donated to Yes on 8. I could care less about just regular employees - no need to punish the business for their employes political activity away from work.