• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

If California's Proposition 8 Passes, What Next?

Cain said:
This doesn't look good. 68.5% ( 17,416 of 25,423 ) precincts partially
or fully reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 1:05 a.m. and 52.5% voting "yes." I blame the black people.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
Click to expand...


Don't blame Blacks as if their skin color determines their views, blame their ridiculous Evangelical flavor of Christianity as well as the Protect Marriage campaign for instructing many AA churches (incorrectly) that Sen. Obama supports the constitutional ban.

Anyway, it seems Prop 8 will pass though out of 5 news articles, 4 have mentioned "immediate court action", so hopefully this wont even see the light of day.
 
casebro said:
You took that sentence out of the context of my whole post. I basically stated that I had no dog in that fight, and that I would not vote either way- I would leave the decision to those who hold stronger opinions.

I am a believer in Democracy- the most good for the most many. Some of the modern changes seems to benefit the few at the cost to the many. But on this, I don't care- I see no cost to the many.

I do see that some kind of 'domestic partnership' ought to carry legal weight. Why should roomies have to be either hetero or homo to not share legal burden or perks? I'm not concerned with how anybody gets their rocks off, but I can see that long time friends ought to have some kind of legal consideration- without having to resort to adopting each other or getting specific in wills.





Yes, I do believe that men should have the right to a "legal abortion". I ought to be able to go file legally binding papers that state "I choose not to be the father of any pending child". Just as women can go to the doctor and "choose not to be the mother of any pending child". Gay marriages seem to affect 5% (from above), fatherhood affects 50% (+/-). In view of my earlier statement re: greater good for the greater many: which subject is more "democratic" at heart?

Re: my not voting for things I consider inconsequential to me, would you rather I vote at random? Should I choose by an assumed ethnic connection based on surname? sex? occupation? Why pick between Bob Smith or Tom Insunza for dogcatcher, at random? I know nothing of either, not likely to be affected by either, but realize the choice may be important to others. I with-hold the 50% chance of me screwing somebody out of something that is more important to them than it is to me.

You'll decide how to vote by your conscience, I'll decide my way.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
All I can say is anyone here who is a CA resident make sure you vote next Tuesday, and vote "no" for this travesty of an amendment.

Hopefully the question in the OP will be moot.
Click to expand...

I think WildCat succinctly describes why you should care.
 
Cain said:
This doesn't look good. 68.5% ( 17,416 of 25,423 ) precincts partially
or fully reporting as of Nov. 5, 2008, at 1:05 a.m. and 52.5% voting "yes." I blame the black people.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
Click to expand...

I know your comment about black voters is tongue in cheek, but it does seem that they have made the difference. Exit polls have shown that black Californians have supported Prop 8 by a 2:1 margin.

I really don't understand. I also don't understand why it's apparently a taboo subject in the media- I think there's a story here and it deserves some amount of examination.

It's a setback, but not a defeat. I'm confident that there will be equality someday, if not today.
 
It is a stupid,stupid, admendment.
But the opponents shots themselved in the foot with their campaign against it. There is one ad that basically was a attack on the LDS..and it was not even thinly veiled. It showed a couple of smirking Mormon missionaries basically acting like a Gestapo searching a couple's house for "things we don't like".
I am not thrilled with the LDS's huge funding of Yes on 8, but the ad went beyond legit criticism into out and out bigotry. And it made opponents of 8 who were decrying it..quite rightly...because of it's bigotry look like bigots itself. Big mistake.
 
dudalb said:
It is a stupid,stupid, admendment.
But the opponents shots themselved in the foot with their campaign against it. There is one ad that basically was a attack on the LDS..and it was not even thinly veiled. It showed a couple of smirking Mormon missionaries basically acting like a Gestapo searching a couple's house for "things we don't like".
I am not thrilled with the LDS's huge funding of Yes on 8, but the ad went beyond legit criticism into out and out bigotry. And it made opponents of 8 who were decrying it..quite rightly...because of it's bigotry look like bigots itself. Big mistake.
Click to expand...

So you get bigots on both sides. Blatant lies didn't scare off any off anyone from voteing for it.
 
They always put out signs that say "protect marriage" if this comes up for another vote I say we make signs that say "protect freedom."


I had a scathing Letter to the Editor all written up where I castigated all those that voted for Prop 8 as simple minded bigots unfit for life.........this morning I thought it best I didn't send it in.
 
It is sad when people who are basically in the right...in this case the Anti Prop 8 people...shoot themselves in the foot so badly.
 
dudalb said:
It is sad when people who are basically in the right...in this case the Anti Prop 8 people...shoot themselves in the foot so badly.
Click to expand...

They really ran a lame campaign in my opinion. They should have been putting a human face to the issue by having people talk about how much it means to them to marry the person they love, or to see their child get married, etc. I guess they wanted to avoid doing so out of fear that same sex couples would be "icky" to a lot of voters, but I'm sure with proper casting and scripting that could have been minimized.

Instead, the No on 8 campaign basically ran two types of ads: ones that talked in vague generalities about discrimination and taking away rights, and ones that got them dragged into this stupid sideshow about what children will or won't be taught in schools.

I guess on the bright side, if you'd told me ten years ago that gay marriage would be within a few percentage points of winning on the ballot, I doubt I'd have believed it. Hell, I think ten years ago I thought of it as a radical notion.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Even when opposing bigotry, you can't help but slip in a little bigotry.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised my remark generated as many comments as it did. It was said tongue n' cheek, an exaggeration, but it does also contain a bit of truth. THE black people are not responsible, but African-Americans did vote overwhelmingly (nearly 7:3 if, I recall correctly) to strip civil rights from a historically discriminated against minority, and they did so in an election that will see the first black president. I'm sure progressive black leaders are ashamed and embarrassed.
 
Cain said:
I'm surprised my remark generated as many comments as it did. It was said tongue n' cheek, an exaggeration, but it does also contain a bit of truth. THE black people are not responsible, but African-Americans did vote overwhelmingly (nearly 7:3 if, I recall correctly) to strip civil rights from a historically discriminated against minority, and they did so in an election that will see the first black president. I'm sure progressive black leaders are ashamed and embarrassed.
Click to expand...

But how many black leaders support gay marriage?
 
ponderingturtle said:
But how many black leaders support gay marriage?
Click to expand...

A couple of seconds of google searching revealed that Jesse Jackson doesn't. Whether or not a man who has expressed his desire to castrate the President-elect is worthy of being called a "black leader" is something I'll leave up to the reader.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But how many black leaders support gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Well, off the top of my head there's Al Sharpton and Desmond Tutu. The point is that blacks more than just about anyone should be sensitive to issues of civil rights and discrimination. Many people underestimate how conservative the black community is when it comes to some social issues (same sex marriage, corporal punishment, even abortion), and that's mostly because the church is their most viable and important social organ.
 
Cain said:
Well, off the top of my head there's Al Sharpton and Desmond Tutu. The point is that blacks more than just about anyone should be sensitive to issues of civil rights and discrimination. Many people underestimate how conservative the black community is when it comes to some social issues (same sex marriage, corporal punishment, even abortion), and that's mostly because the church is their most viable and important social organ.
Click to expand...

But they now for the first time have the power to legaly descriminate against others, and that is the american way.
 
How sad. When will California fix their ridiculous situation whereby their constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote? That means that people's civil rights can simply be taken away by 50.1% of the population and that's what happened here.

I've always understood that one job of state and federal constitutions is to protect civil rights against the tyranny of the majority.
 
There are lawsuits already being filed against this proposition. I also heard on the radio this morning that some counties are already denying gay couples marriage licenses. Californians are going to be voting on this issue every two years for the foreseeable future. What a sad situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom