Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

No on Prop 8 Refuses To Concede

Jim Burroway

November 5th, 2008

The No on 8 campaign called a quick news conference to declare that they are not conceding the race:

Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said 3 million to 4 million ballots remain uncounted statewide. “The fact is depending on the turnout model we are looking at millions of votes yet to be counted,” Kendall said. The race is too close to call. People’s fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

Many of those ballots are absentee and provisional ballots. The California Secretary of State’s office is expected to issue an estimate of the number of uncounted ballots later today or tomorrow. It could take several days to process all of them.

Prop 8 supporters declared victory shortly after midnight early this morning in a move that No on 8 called “presumptuous.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Pomo
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Well, we’re down by 430,000 votes with 96% of precincts reporting. So I guess with 4 million votes not counted yet it could change. However I watched their lead not shrink very significantly all night last night. So I don’t know if that will be enough. I don’t want to be seen as sore losers. Even though I am pissed off and angry… and i’m ordering a batch of buttons that say “second class citizens” that I and others can wear in protest.

Reguardless, every vote should be counted when so many races are up for grabs.

Louie
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Of course the “yes on 8″ committee has declared victory before ALL of the votes have been counted.

We all know that they (yes on 8) are liars and will and have resorted to anything to win, even before the bell has rung!

Must keep hope alive!

Jeff in Surprise, AZ
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

How does 61% of the vote go for a progressive candidate like Obama but not be able to defeat this prop? Maybe because the people didn’t vote progressive but for a black man! This isn’t racist, the polls show that 72% black women voted for prop. 8. Someday, we will vote for the person and what they stand for rather than who they are.

I guess the addage that minorities don’t support each other is true. Oh, that’s right this isn’t a civil rights issue!

rusty
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

what happens to the folk who got married?

what happens next? what are the next steps, can this decision be overturned? challenged, or if, with the final numbers, another vote?

thanks

Russell
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

At the very least, I think that what they are purporting to do out there raises a federal procedural due process issue. If it does, then the California legislature could possibly be enjoined from amending their constitution. (Or maybe it’s not that complicated; maybe the California Constitution is posted on a wall somewhere and people come along and write in changes. Wikitution. That’s what Prop 8 makes it seem like.)

So I’d litigate on that basis alone. But I think further that if there were not a developed jurisprudence of fundamental constitutional rights (i.e., discrimination against protected groups triggering maximum scrutiny, etc.) under the California Constitution, then there would have been no CA S.Ct. decision on the matter of marriage equality of the type that was handed down. If so, then marriage INequality, like slavery and other identified forms of discrimination and injustice, simply can’t be written into the CA Const.

Once the court of last resort identifies something as a fundamental constitutional right, deleting it from the constitution shreds the basic fiber of government. It would be nothing short of mob rule, which in essence cancels the constitution. Prop 8 cancels the CA S.Ct. decision, but the decision itself had constitutional force, so I think that Prop 8 is inherently illegal. Maybe other Props are not illegal, but this one is because of what it purports to do.

Because of the inherent contradiction and the threat it poses to any orderly form of government, I’d bet a lot that a good lawyer could do something with this.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think complaisance is our only option here.

Steve
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I’m a straight married midwestern male with 2 kids and the passing of proposition 8 makes this election bittersweet with Obama’s win.

I’m guessing that a couple of things could happen: Couples that were married prior to Prop 8 may have their legal status challenged. They can then take it up to either the California Supreme Court again (or maybe the US Supreme Court) where this will be ruled in their favor.

I’m not sure at what point it was decided to put up everyone’s civil rights for a vote.

Maybe we can start targeting the right of Christians to marry. You know, if you let them marry, the next thing you know, they’ll be teaching Christianity in teh schools!

Matty
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Know hope, Californians! If evil somehow triumphs over good, you’re always welcome in our progressive oasis of Massachusetts. (Hope you like chowder…)

JC
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

They are ALREADY SUING to overturn the voters’ will also:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20081105-0820-ca-gaymarriage-legalchallenge.html

If the Libs had the won on Prop 8, they would be telling us it was the “will of the people of California”, but since they lost, it’s time to turn to the same Justices that brought us this MESS in the first place and force gay marriage down the voters’ throats! How utterly hypocritical and SAD…..

BobN
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

“If the libs had won”… no one’s rights would have been taken away and there would be no need for a legal challenge.

It’s not hypocritical to fight to keep your rights.

don
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Civil Rights shouldn’t be a vote. It should be a right. Why even allow a vote? That’s like voting on whether people have the right to breathe…

You play their game, you lose by their rules.

Cam
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I don’t see anybody on this site complaining that African American’s didn’t wait for the voters of Mississippi and Alabama to give them their rights, but instead went to the courts earlier in the century. so you will excuse me if I don’t feel like sitting here and waiting until the Mormons, Evangellicals, and just plain bigots decide to hand me my rights on a silver platter.

Will
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

It is just sickening and wrong to me that people’s marriages can be dissolved by a frigging vote. What is wrong with this country? What is wrong with America?! Do gay people get to vote on STRAIGHT marriages, too?

We can elect a President Barack Obama–an amazing accomplishment–but we can’t just leave people alone and let them marry who they want to marry? In CALIFORNIA, no less. Just pathetic. I so, so encourage No On Prop 8 to fight this thing into the ground. Recount, recount, recount.

BTW, I’m a straight married man from Kentucky. And I am just disgusted by the bigotry, and the totally unnecessary intrusion into people’s romantic lives. For what it’s worth.

Steve
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

“If the libs had won…”

How about we overturn Brown vs. the Board of Education? I’m sure at the time, the majority of people in Kansas were not for integration.

Do we have to go back to every single right in the Bill of Rights and put them up to a vote? If we went and overturned the second amendment, you know damn well gun-rights enthusiasts would take to the streets.

Is it skin off your nose if two people who love each other want to marry?

Randy
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

The No On 8 people ran a terrible campaign — never mentioning gays or gay marriage, never showing gay couples with kids, never explaining how gay couples with kids need the protections of marriage for the kids. Instead, they ran away from the real issues. Sheesh, even Ellen couldn’t muster the words lesbian, gay, girlfriend or even the name of her wife, Portia. She just got married to …. someone. Are we really that embarrased and ashamed of ourselves that we have to be closeted about the central issue?

Most of ours ads consisted of Big Important People telling the voters to vote no, Dianne Feinstein. BFD. They never explained WHY they should vote no.

Don’t kid yourselves. For most people, this was a referendum on gays in general. Just read some of the blog comments on mormon sites or elsewhere — it’s all filled with gays are unnatural, gay sex is unhealthy, we shouldn’t encourage it, etc. It was mostly a vote to show disapproval of homosexuality, nothing more, nothing less. The marriage issue was just a cover for them.

We should have been educating the public about what it is like to be gay, and why we are gay (It’s NOT a choice!). Then, at least win or lose, we will have made some progress. We will have forced open a real dialogue that will be a springboard for future acceptance.

Instead, our leaders listened to focus groups. Just like in 2004 Cheryl Jaques listened to focus groups that told her don’t talk about gay issues, people want to talk about health care and the war. So instead of fighting for gays, she dodged the issues, and we lost. She got her ass kicked out.

Haven’t we learned anything?

Patrick
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

If it was this easy to amend the CA constitution yesterday, it will be that easy again in a handful of years once demographic trends eat up that last 2% of bigots and fundamentalists that stand in your way. And two years from now, the Mormons may not be so willing to spend that much money to fight the same battle over again. Just keep putting it on the ballot every election until enough people come to their senses. And those of you already married, do me a favor and be as loud and loving in your marriage as you can be. Make sure the public knows you’re there and that you’re presence isn’t destroying anything. And it wouldn’t kill you to keep the gay divorce rate below the straight divorce rate either.

Know hope, my gay friends. Soon you’ll be able to know the same joys and headaches that straight people like me cherish.

Chris
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I’m a gay man temporarily living in Massachusetts with my BF, a black gay man. Yes, gay marriage is legal here but we had hopes of moving to California because was supposed to be the state of not just rational tolerance like Massachusetts, but of open-mindedness, optimism and hope, true diversity and and sense of freedom and the American and Western spirit. Isn’t that why people there put up with the pollution, traffic, high cost of living, narcissistic Hollywood, etc? Now I’m wondering what is so special about it. Perhaps just an illusion dating back from the 60s. It is clear Californians are no better than the rest of the country and don’t think we either am worthy of social inclusion. We might as well go back go our now-blue home state of North Carolina, which is a SOUTHERN state that doesn’t have bigotry written into it’s constitution unlike “progressive” California. It’s a lot cheaper! It’s a further spit in the face to especially my BF being black as so many black people devastated by centuries of discrimination just voted for it. Obama will be a great president, but unlike the media, I harbor no delusions that this is the end of discrimination. Sorry for feeling a little alienated from the party. When is this country going to care about sexual orientation discrimination as much as black discrimination? When are even gay people going to care about it? It seems like on here and in California, a lot more straight people courageously and passionately took up the cause of opposing this hatred and I thank them, but it isn’t their struggle. Imagine if MLK Jr. were white…Oh well, let’s just do some more crystal and have some more sex!

Harold in NY
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Rusty:
The legal landscape is both long and confusing.
My guess is that, since the amendment does not state that it is retroactive, it will be applied prospectively. If so, those homosexual couples who are already are married, stay married. Ultimately, the issue of retroactivity is for the courts to decide.

Even if the California Supreme Court were to rule that the amendment is retroactive, there exist both procedural and substantive challenges.

Procedurally, Prop 8, in reality, was a constitutional revision (substantively affected the State Constitution), not an amendment; thus, to promulgate such a revision, the Legislature by a 2/3 vote would have to pass a referendum for the people’s vote. In short, such a substantial change in the Constitution cannot be achieved by voter initiative–a more deliberative process is required (see Raven v Deukmejian, 52 Cal3d 336 [1990]).

Substantively, it can be argued that the amendment violates the fundamental right of citizens to marry and that it violates the State’s equal protection clause by using the suspect classification of homosexuality. The California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases held that the right to marry is fundamental and that laws that single out people based upon their sexual orientation violate the Equal Protection Clause. Prop 8 clearly violates both such rights. It cannot be that the right to marry is fundamental and homosexuality is a suspect classification (warranting strict scrutiny), but homosexuals cannot exercise their fundamental right. For example, suppose Prop 8 stated that California would recognize marriage between one man and one woman of the same race. Putting aside Federal Constitutional concerns, would anyone hesitate to believe that Prop 8 in that case is substantively improper?

Ken R
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

“Is it skin off your nose if two people who love each other want to marry?”

Steve, the reason for the passage of Prop 8 was not mainly for upholding traditional marriage it was done because of the vile attitude towards gays by most of the religious sect of California and across the US. They know full well hetero marriages were safe and were not going to crumble away. Many knew that their kids would not be told about gay marriages. To them if gay marriages were to remain legalized and recognized that would mean that the law would be validating an evil sin in their minds according to their view of Scripture. Many will not admit to this publicly but if you pressure them long enough they will finally admit to it. Of course after they admit to it some do follow with words like abomination, immoral, unnatural, perverted, and select passages of Scripture to beat you in the head with. They will even fight against anything that recognizes two people of the same sex as married. Amendment 2 in Florida was a good example of this. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships cannot be recognized in Florida either. Its only the beginning. Future state amendments across the US I have not doubt will use the same wording the Florida Amendment 2 used. Its not so much the definition of marriage they want to protect. Its the fact anything that is conceivably close to the definition or the rights of marriage (medical benefits) they seek to stop because they view it as nothing more than validating sin.

Ken R
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

“When is this country going to care about sexual orientation discrimination as much as black discrimination?”

Because in their minds Chris, Blacks didn’t CHOOSE to be Black. Gays CHOOSE to be gay. And their scripture dictates this so-called truth to them. Sad but true. I and you may not believe it but that is what they hold onto.

Joseph
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I’m extremely ecstatic that this measure passed. Hooray for traditional marriage!

I voted YES on Prop 8 and I’m glad my vote counted!

Lets not make a sacrilege and a mockery of the sacred union between a man and a woman.

trey
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Schwarzenegger deserves a lot of blame and shame for the passage of Prop 8, too. While he did meekly and quietly state his opposition to it, he did little or nothing more to assure it’s defeat (even though there were ads using his picture and statement) and his influence (at least with many of those who likely voted “YES,” could have gone a long way to change those to a “NO” vote. I’m not really surprised he was such a coward about this (at the same time he makes juvenile jokes about other’s lack of “manliness” and such…) but I am tremendously angry and disappointed at his role in this.

BiTtEr SwEeT « Samantha’s Blog
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

[…] is an interesting tid bit. Read the comment section! I heart Steve. […]

AJD
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Patrick,

Be serious. Barring a successful legal challenge (I’m hopeful, but I’m not holding my breath), it’s going to be many years before we achieve marriage equality, not just a “handful.” The people who supported this thing aren’t going to disappear, and there is every reason to think they’ll be just militant next time as they were this time.

I don’t know how people can continue to be so optimistic. I’m not saying we should be pessimistic, but we have to realize that this is an enormous setback for gay people everywhere in this country. We’re about to see the cliche “things will get worse before they get better” come true.

Ray
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

We can only hope the remaining absentee and provisional ballots are skewed heavily toward more progressive, engaged voters–the kind who educate themselves in advance of an election and are so active in their lives and communities that they can’t be sure they will be at home to vote on election day. But if this travesty prevails in the end, shouldn’t there be a state-wide day of mourning where everyone devastated by the outcome refuses to turn on the lights at work, to write and produce the TV shows Californians watch, and to provide all the other media and services we depend on in our lives? Voters need to know in a dramatic way how this decision to write discrimination into the state constitution impacts their neighbors, friends and co-workers–and yes even their favorite celebrities. We should not accept this vote quietly. Californians should be forced to face the hard reality that people they know and care about have been made into second class citizens by this vote.

Chris
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Ken,

Frankly, I’m sick of it. I’m supposed to be sensitive to everybody else’s past discrimination and yes, some of it has merit, especially if they were personally touched by it or it still exists. But it’s never acknowledged how alienated from society we feel, how hard it is at work, the insecurity, shame, etc. When I tell someone I’m gay, it’s something to not talk about, something they get squeamish about, but black people can go on and on about the discrimination they’ve faced and the white guy is required to be sensitive and understanding. But when I talk about the problems I’ve faced, I’m looked at like I’m an idiot for even thinking I’ve had problems, solely because of my economic position. That’s what makes today so difficult. It is a big milestone symbolically for racial equality, but people act like that’s all that’s needed, that we’ve slayed the beast. Like I told a black coworker, at least you have legal equality, if not historical and economic. Isn’t that the bare minimum? And not all gays are well off, despite what the media says, and their income levels certainly aren’t boosted by our high suicide rate, high drug use and being fired for being gay. And then what about my black BF?! And people can say you can hide it, but how many straight people hide a big part of their life, their relationships? It makes success much harder.

Kevin
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Does anybody know the ‘effective as of’ date for this?

Rob W.
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

My wife and I (yes, we’re a straight couple) voted no on 8 because, quite frankly, it makes no sense to limit one’s rights in this regard.

We’re doing a major renovation on our house, and had narrowed our choice for contractors down to two. Today one of our finalists showed up to give us an estimate. They had a Yes on 8 sticker attached to their bumper. We’re going with the other company. I encourage others to do the same, particularly in this economy. If business is hurting…well…I guess they’ll just have to pray harder.

Patrick
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

AJD

“Be serious. Barring a successful legal challenge (I’m hopeful, but I’m not holding my breath), it’s going to be many years before we achieve marriage equality, not just a “handful.” The people who supported this thing aren’t going to disappear, and there is every reason to think they’ll be just militant next time as they were this time.”

I am being serious. As a matter of fact, one of the groups who support this in the greatest proportion, those over 65, really is going to disappear. They’re dying off, being replaced by a younger generation of voters who have finally become active and who support your fight by almost 2-1. That’s what I was talking about when I said demographics.

You lost by >2%. That’s all. The next time around, you’ll have more people who have met one of the 18,000 gay couples living their lives without destroying CA. They won’t be so quick to support it next time. Some of your opponents will die off, and new supporters will come of voting age. I’ll put down cash money right here that if this gets on the ballot in 2010, it will pass by margins similar to what we saw yesterday.

You can expect that a diminished group of opponents to your cause will be just as militant as they were this time in the future. The answer to that is to be more militant than they. Organize better, talk to more people openly and honestly, raise more money. You got within 2% frankly without doing much, while they raised and spent a record amount on their efforts. If you level the playing field in ground game and fundraising, you will blow them out of the water once and forever.

You have the better argument and the momentum of history on your side. Tear their throats out.

Scott
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Time for a new proposition to ban elderly marriage. Many of the same arguments apply. We’ve already put together a flyer.

http://doreg.us

I wonder if we can get enough signatures to get this on the ballot next time. It can be paired with a proposal to reverse prop 8.

Louie
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Kevin – I believe that Prop. 8 (if it does pass) will go into effect when the CA Secretary of State approves all of the votes cast. They still have several millions of absentee and mail-in votes that have not been counted.

Late absentee and provisional ballots meant as many as 3 million ballots were left to be counted after all precinct votes were tallied.

Kurt
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

“Tear their throats out.”

Not smart. Yes, there are bigots on the pro-8 side. But there were also some swayable fence-sitters who got spooked by exactly this sort of rhetoric.

If you want to win over that 1 voter in 50 who would have made the difference yesterday, “tear their throats out” isn’t the way to go. Even if it feels good to vent.

RMR
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

To Jeff in Surprise AZ. I voted no on 8 and I’m black. Your post is way off base. For decades now DEMOCRATS have garnered 90%+ of the Black Vote. Sure some Blacks voted for Obama b/c he is Black, but you can be sure that in this election, any Democrat on the ballot would have garnered huge numbers of Black voters. Make sure you know your facts before you spew inaccurate rhetoric.

eddie
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

It is unfair to say that all homosexuals want to engage in sodomy. There are many homosexuals who seek or practice chastity. There are many homosexuals who recognize the unnaturalness of their desires.

If you want to characterize the opponents of Prop 8 do it honestly.

The opponents were people who defiantly believe same-sex sodomy should be placed at the same level as natural human coitus despite the fact that they are in no sense equal.

Ralf
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I agree with Andrew Sullivan…that the black community needs to be engaged more, that we have not engaged them enough.

Today, that thought is too much for me, but I know as a community organizer, that this will be the work we need to do.

And it will, eventually, earn us great gains. Not just for LGBT rights, but towards meaningful, person to person integration into living, breathing CONNECTED communities.

But I need a few more days to mourn and process first.

AJD
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Patrick,

Those 65-year-olds will take a while to disappear. People live way past 65 these days, you know. And that doesn’t count all the under-65 people who will continue voting against us.

Not only that, but the only way to get rid of this amendment if a legal challenge fails will be to pass another amendment. Passing an amendment to legalize same-sex marriage will be a hell of a lot harder than passing one to ban it.

Organizing better and talking to more people isn’t going to happen until we fire the idiots who listened to focus groups when they should have been organizing better and talking to more people and showing more happy gay couples all along — which any half-moron would have known to be effective from the get-go.

My point is, gay marriage won’t be legal in California for many years, and it’ll be at least a generation before we achieve it nationwide. And that probably be after numerous other setbacks.

Tom in Lazybrook
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I’ve got an idea…

Lets put the repeal of anti-Gay Mormon Laws right back on the ballot in CA! Lets vote on it in every election until it passes.

As for the Mormons, I suggest we go after them where they’ll really feel it…their pocketbook. Here’s how

1) Demand Federal Legislation retaxing political contributions from tax exempt charities. If they are using tax exempt donated funds for politics, the taxpayers should get the money back.

2) Protest every company that interviews at BYU, BYU-Idaho, and BYU-Hawaii. Since openly (non-celibate) Gays cannot be students at those schools, any company that specifically recruits there, is discriminating against Gay people. Lets go after them on this.

3) Put the issue back on the ballot again and again. Let the Mormons keep spending 70 million dollars each 6 months to fight this. Until we win.

4) Start calling the discriminatory law the “Mormon Law”. Bumperstickers, yardsigns etc should read…Repeal Mormon Laws..etc. They bought the law, lets blame them for it.

5) Encourage the enactment of a law demanding that any non-profit with tax deductible donations in excess of 10 million dollars (including affiliated organizations) must produce a PUBLIC list of the following: 1) An income statement 2) A Balance Sheet listing all assets 3) A detailed list of all payments to an individuals BY NAME in excess of $75,000 per year, and BY FAMILY in excess of $100,000 per year. Including employees.

That would be a start.

John
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Joseph wrote: “Lets not make a sacrilege and a mockery of the sacred union between a man and a woman.”

Joseph, we are talking about a legal contract between adults, enforceable in court, with real and substantive psychological and financial impact for the two parties (neither of which is you).

Believe what you like, marry who you like, but don’t interfere with other religions (some of which do perform same-sex marriages) or with those who believe differently than you. The constitution is not there for one group to rule others, rather it is there to ensure that everyone is treated equally. “Freedom of religion” also means “freedom from state-imposed religion” — the reason our ancestors emigrated from Europe to begin with.

A key purpose of marriage historically was to establish and manage property rights. It’s unfair to take that away from a particular group of people.

AJD
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I just read Andrew Sullivan’s blog entry about Prop. 8. Here are some tidbits:

“[T]his is a civil rights movement. It goes forward and it is forced back. The battle to end miscegenation took centuries. These are the rhythms of progress.”

Centuries? Wow, that’s so encouraging! Just 300 more little years, and I’ll finally get to marry! It’s just around the corner! And then it’ll be forced back again! I’m so excited!

“And observing this backlash against us will reveal to many the cruelty of allowing majorities to take the rights of tiny minorities away.”

Yeah, just as it did in what was supposedly one of the most gay-friendly states in the country!

I might read his post and feel hopeful if I was reading it 50 years ago or in Iran. But this is the United States. When we can already marry in Spain, which deposed a fascist dictator only 30 years ago, and South Africa, which is 14 years out of the Apartheid regime, but meanwhile have to settle for “going forward being forced back” in what is supposedly the freest nation on earth, it’s only further evidence to me that this whole country is a fucking lie.

Tom
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Visibility isn’t enough. I’m glad there are 18,000 or so of we newly-married same-sex couples, but that won’t get it done.

My family have been friends with another family for over 30 years. This couple has known me since I was about 15. They are invited to many of our family’s most important gatherings (my parents’ 60th wedding anniversary, my mom’s 90th birthday party, etc.) They have dinner with my sister every Friday night. They have met my husband. The wife of the pair has a cousin who is gay.

They voted “yes” on 8.

They will NEVER hear from me again. They will never be invited to another family event. (At least none that I am a part of.)

We either have to have the courts settle this, or wait 5-10 years for the old folks to die off and be replaced by new, more tolerant voters.

very sad
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I feel so very sad today. My whole town had signs in their yards for Yes On 8!! I knew my town would vote it in, bUt I am so shocked that the prop. passed.
I am sad for my fellow Amercians that are being treated unfairly. I think in many years from now, all of our kids will be reading baout this in history books. About how Amercians refused to give equal right to all of its people. Both my husband and I voted NO on H8te!! i AM SO VERY SORRY TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WILL SUFFER BECAUSE pROP 8 PASSED.

Patrick
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

“It is unfair to say that all homosexuals want to engage in sodomy.”

That’s very true Eddie, you see, there’s this whole group of homosexuals you may have heard of. They’re called lesbians. And I’m going to bet that most of them are about as interested in sodomy as my wife is.

“There are many homosexuals who seek or practice chastity. There are many homosexuals who recognize the unnaturalness of their desires.”

You mean desires that have been observed in literally dozens of other species throughout the natural world? Do you enjoy being painfully ignorant?

“If you want to characterize the opponents of Prop 8 do it honestly.

The opponents were people who defiantly believe same-sex sodomy should be placed at the same level as natural human coitus despite the fact that they are in no sense equal.”

No, they were people who defiantly believe that an accident of birth is not a valid reason to deny homosexuals access to the same basic rights every other human being in the country enjoys. They believe in equality and that discrimination is an inherent evil that has no place in our laws.

If you want to characterize the opponents of Prop 8, do it honestly.

Ron
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

I now for the first time feel that my children are safe in their schools – without the fear of gay indoctrination –
this is the way it should be – this disturbed deathstyle is cramed down our throats with out regard or care of the horror and long term damage it can inflict on a society –
this San Franciscan will proudly fly my Yes on 8 bumper sticker on my car till it fades off!!!
Thank you to the REAL Californians for making the RIGHT choice!!!!!

Dave
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Ron, why would your children have been unsafe, before Prop 8, and safe after? What does a legal contract recognizing a loving commitment have to do with anything but making your (possibly already gay) child safe in school?

It should be a “no-brainer” that ridicule, discrimination, and fear, such as you express, are the causes of many ills in our world. You write, “disturbed deathstyle…horror and long term damage” based on what? Without the gay people in the world the world would be much worse, not much better. But you probably don’t have a clue as to who these might be (many, many talented geniuses from all walks of life).

LIghten up dude – would you turn out your son if you learned that he was left-handed rather than right-handed? Do you think there’s any more choice in being gay or straight than in being left or right handed? Sure, a lefty can learn to write with the right hand. But what’s wrong with using the left?

Timothy Kincaid
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Ron,

Sorry, bud, but there will be exactly zero impact on the education of children. Other, of course, than the future history lessons that explain your attitude and behavior in pretty much the same terms as they do Southern Americans who supported Jim Crow laws.

Jim
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Funny thing about Prop 8 supporters – reformed polygamists like the Mormons ascend the pedestal as paragons of morality on the subject of marriage! Next thing you know, they’ll let black people into their LDS temples! Oh wait, their “President & Prophet” had a revelation when the IRS threatened to reject their tax exemption in the 1970s…typical hypocrisy!

Louie
November 5th, 2008 | LINK

Ron – The Hit and Run commenter wrote:

I now for the first time feel that my children are safe in their schools – without the fear of gay indoctrination…

It’s “know”, not “now”. I can’t believe someone put YOU in charge of MY civil rights!

So, when your children hear all about this hub-bub about gay marriage being banned, you don’t think that some kid in class is going to ask their teacher about this? You don’t think that they will ask “If gay people can’t get married, what will they do?” and of course the answer is “Well, Jimmy, gay people can still get a domestic partnership!”

Hmmm, imagine that. Looks like the kids are still going to learn about gay people in school.

Joel
November 6th, 2008 | LINK

i despaired when it was around 6% of votes reporting.. and the odds were 53-47.
And when it was 31% reporting and the odds remained the same… i gave up hope.

Now we need to look to the not-brighter future and continue the uphill battle.

toujoursdan
November 6th, 2008 | LINK

I am sorry to hear about California’s loss. You are welcome to come here to Quebec and get married. You can even try poutine!

Seriously though, look how far CA has come in only 8 years. Prop 22 passed by a 61% to 39% margin. In only 8 years this has shrunk to a 52% to 48% margin. Young people opposed Prop 8 by a 2 to 1 margin.

This isn’t going to take hundreds of years. It may take a few more elections but it will happen.

Ben in Oakland
November 6th, 2008 | LINK

This is not my final version, but I will be publishing this next week in the BAR. time to get off our asses.

Time. Energy. Money.

As a recently married gay man, I contributed a lot of each against Prop. 8. I’m sad that we failed to defeat it. But I’m also very angry– and not just about political campaigns fueled by bigotry, conservative religion, and way too much tax-free money–because I could see it coming like a train wreck.

At the campaign kickoff, I asked Mark Leno personally if they were going to do the liberal-tolerance-equality strategy again, pointing out that it has failed repeatedly. Or, were they going to show actual gay people, actual families, and actual lives. You know: reality. He said that focus groups indicated that everybody-make-nice and civil liberties were the way to go. This would affect the undecided voters who were so crucial. I made the same point to HRC’s Marty Rouse and several campaign people, and got the same response. The approach would be political rather than human, in every sense of both words.

Politics may move undecided voters, but it is only as valuable as the last person they talked to. Human connection moves hearts and minds, even people whose minds are made up. People who know gay people don’t usually vote against them. But it’s easy to vote against someone who is invisible, faceless, a menacing other, instead of friend or family, or even someone you just met on the street. And we were quite invisible. We saw the supportive, loving parents, but no gay daughter, no grandchildren. No on 8 seemed totally uninterested in a speakers’ bureau to reach out to community groups and churches; I gave up asking. They wanted volunteers for phone banking and sign waving in the Castro, not personal contact with real voters. At a training we were told NOT to use words like children, because Pro-8 people had appropriated the issue. We refused to claim it, and thus it was used against us. Likewise, don’t talk about this ancient and deeply rooted anti-gay prejudice, either, because by calling attention to a reality in our lives, we might offend people who call us a threat to family, faith, and country.

This all may make sense to professional political people in their world and culture, but not in mine. It fails as a strategy because it embraces THE CLOSET, which is our real enemy, not the Radical Right. The closet is us, making ourselves invisible and unknown, rather than showing the simple fact and humanity of our lives. It is our consent to the lies, our silence in the face of naked prejudice. It is us not standing up for ourselves, and when we don’t, who else will stand with us? I absolutely praise and thank our leaders for their efforts and sacrifices and dedication. But frankly, if our leaders don’t know this, or if perhaps have their own issues of internalized homophobia, they shouldn’t be our leaders. Because here’s the result: we were barely visible, and more people thought that the standard of living of California chickens was more important than the families of their fellow Americans.

Thirty years ago, I worked against the Briggs Initiative. A much smaller group of people, with far fewer resources, in a far less accepting time, succeeded against great odds. Maybe I’m romanticizing, but I seem to remember it was because all we really had to show were ourselves and our lives. We said NO to the closet.

I know this is far from over. We will be back. However, if the future campaign is going to be focus groups, phone banking, invisibility, and cute but irrelevant ads that look good on political resumes but change nothing– don’t expect one minute of my time, one iota of my energy, or one dime of my money.

Louie
November 6th, 2008 | LINK

Ben is right on the money with what he wrote.

This identical strategy used by No on 8 in California was also used in Arizona’s fight against Prop. 102 and we can all witness how that turned out.

At a meeting my husband and I attended, we were specifically told to stick to the talking points. I.E. don’t mention “gay” or “same-sex couples” or “children” because of the “gay people are icky” factor.

So, we faithfully and blindly regurgitated the talking points and the banal folks on the right, religious extremes attacked with their visions of doom and gloom about what would happen to Arizona and her “children” if we didn’t append discrimination into our Constitution.

Even though we already had a State law against same-gender marriage since 1996 and that had been upheld by an appelate court and that the State Supreme Court felt no need to review.

That wasn’t the point. That did not register with “the people”. They got spooked by all the “what if” scenarios advertised by all the holy high rollers. Even though they were outright and total lies and fabrications! The majority of our populace just doesn’t seem to want to do their own research. They don’t seem to want to seek the truth about outlandish claims. Then consider that the claims are being made by religous people and before you know it we’re back to the “Scopes Monkey Trial”!

And the funding disparity didn’t help either, No on 102 $575,000 | yes on 102 $7.6 million!

But then again, I don’t think throwing vast sums of money at something that doesn’t work will miraculously cause it to actually start working.

We tried it “their” way. It didn’t work. Let’s not go for a third using these same tactics. What do we have to lose using Ben’s method? We’ve already lost. Why not give it a shot? If it works, great! If it doesn’t let’s see why it didn’t work.

Throwing good money at bad ideas just doesn’t seem to work.

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

unrepentant old hippie: Ballot Measures to watch today (UPDATED)
November 19th, 2012 | LINK

[…] Nice. I can't imagine people being any more vicious and petty.PROP 8 UPDATE II: The No Side is not conceding yet. Good for them — do not concede until every. last. vote. is counted.PROP 8 UPDATE III: Passed, […]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.