And each and every person I ever heard objecting to marriage equality invokes reasons that are ILLEGAL for everyone!

And I might agree that if there is any assertion that because homosexuality is a choice, it’s therefore fair game to exclude gay people from Constitutional protection, then certainly religious choice should be the first to go out from that protection.
Particularly because our country isn’t supposed to favor one religion over another and doesn’t enforce how one comports their religious choice.

The court had much that was unique and unprecedented in the case of Prop. 8.
But one thing is clear and can’t be reiterated enough: that a minority like gay people are one of several in our history who have been BRUTALLY isolated, discriminated against and still face physical, mental and social threat and abuse from the very populace that voted on quality of life issues for gay people.

The vulnerability of gay people isn’t unique, but it has SIMILAR qualities to how the lives of blacks were decided on by the dominant culture.
THIS is unacceptable and should be the paramount concern of the courts and the Constitutional clause of protecting a minority, especially like gay people FROM the tyranny of the majority.

Gay people don’t have to be especially reserved anymore. Lives are on the line and there is a general public out there VERY ignorant of the fact that there are more laws that discriminate against gay people than include them. Even in CA.

Domestic partnerships are NOT enough, not even close. Neither are CU’s.
We need to be OUT with the public. Talking to them, giving them printed materials and the benefit of how life is REALLY lived as someone gay.

The MSM allows too much of the anti gay to hijack and distort information and convince everyone it’s gay people victimizing everyone instead of the other way around.
Even if you ask point blank, who was hurt by all those gay couples getting married and they bring up that class of second graders, you could still brace them with the fact that those kids weren’t HURT by witnessing such a wedding of a teacher they loved.

But they might question why our laws wanted to hurt their teacher.

I’m willing to go door to door, face to face, on foot and open up the conversation.
Gay people have to OWN this, and tell those who hijack the issue to step OFF. THEY are effected at all. And we can point off just how their scare tactics did more harm than good.

I agree that until one wins in the court of public opinion, one has not won.

However, you are incorrect in saying “Consider that the emancipation of Negro slaves in the United States and the vote for women in most countries, where there were much better grounds for a judicial settling, were done by simple majority vote.”

The emancipation of slaves was against the will of the states in which it was enacted (that was, after all, why they were fighting) and the right for women to vote was not enacted by a public vote of the male population.

Excellent points on what kind of marriage (a particular theologically defined Christian marriage) they are defending.
Given that several religious denominations (Unitarians and the MCC come to mind right off) perform marriages for same sex couples isn’t there an equal church/state argument that Proposition 8 impinges on their right to perform marriages? I haven’t seen much discussion on this side of the issue.
One way or another we need to separate civil and religious marriage so we can stop the efforts to enshrine someone’s particular sacramental theology in law.

The next TV commercial should look like this:

Dark music plays in the background as lines of text flash across the screen:

“Fourth Century AD: Byzantine Emperor Theodosius decrees that men should be burned alive just for being gay”

“14th Century: 15-year-old Giovanni di Giovanni publicly castrated and killed just for being gay”

“1930s-40s: Nazis kill 50,000(?) people just for being gay”

“2008: California deprives an entire class of citizens of the right to marry the people they love just for being gay”

Personally, I’ve thought GLAAD and HRC should have been funding this type of PSA a long time ago. Similar to the “So Gay” campagin that was recently launched. Not necessarily with the focus being on marriage, but the persecution/denial of rights in general.

I also agree they need to more publicly and bluntly (take off the gloves) about confronting religious attacks, especially regarding “choice” arguments. I.E. reminding people that “religion” is a choice and still a protected anti-discrimination/hate-crime classification for instance.

I also think PSA’s need to be made to specifically target the junk science used enlisting the professionals conducting the science who have renounced the distortions and misuse, etc.

An amendment to ban Mormon marriages in the state of California would not be able to get on the ballot.

Well then, in keeping with the spirit of the thought…

Resolutions to recend “faith” as a protected class in anti-discrimination laws.

Resolutions to recend tax exempt status for all churches.

Resolutions for the state to no longer allow clergy to act as functionaries of the state by issuing marriage licenses.

Resolutions for the state to no longer recognize “church performed only” weddings as marriages. I.E., as in several European countries, you want state recognition, you must have a civil ceremony. Any religious ceremony being optional and unnecessary for state recognition.

However, I wonder if an “oh, this isn’t targeting Mormons, it’s just upholding tradition” approach could be crafted.

Perhaps an amendment that bans all marriages that purport to extend beyond death. Clearly the state of California cannot dictate terms in the afterlife and so any marriage that intends to bind souls in another realm should not be allowed by the state.

It just so happens… that traditional Christian theology does not recognize eternal marriage. So this would, in a round about way, appeal to tradition and ban Mormon marriage.

I doubt it would work, but it would be fun to have the legislature propose it and bring it up for a vote. It might scare them a little about the consequences of bullying others.

That might help us get out of the recession too, as sales of those foreskin restoration kits will likely be included in the federal government’s budget as part of a “stimulation package” (sorry, I couldn’t help it).

If Prop 8 is upheld, what I would like to see is the gay-rights movement finally growing a pair and actually fighting against the religious right. Some loud, angry, obnoxious demonstrations outside churches like the ones that followed Prop 8’s are a start. Barring illegal activities, I think just about anything would be fair, especially if it sends a clear message to the religious right that messing with the gays has repercussions. That’s what will make them think twice about these sorts of amendments in the future.