There is no 'N' in strumpet, you Diplodocus.

November 06, 2008

You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point. Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER. The ballots have been counted. The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you. It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic. Which, as we LA folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it. Wipe your tears. Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way. The SMART way. Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you. That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night. Seriously. Do you WANT to play to stereotypes? Do you think that's anyway to bring people to your cause? Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable from a "bunch of whiny sissies"...

You have plenty of recourse beyond crying in the street: go to court now, although I doubt you'll get far with that (for two reasons*), AND put it back on the ballot as soon as you can. And in the meantime, conduct yourselves so as to make people feel more favorable toward gay marriage outside of CA's two big urban centers.

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad. In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street. Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE. Not whiny, childish, idiots. There's a lot of stereotype to get past. This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election. But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general. By everyone. We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another. Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. only bigots vote yes on . People will vote their conscience. Help them understand what they fear.

Welcome Instapundit fans! Thanks for dropping by! Feel fee to click around and come back if you see something you like!

** Two reasons (in my completely non-legal opinion) below the fold:
more...

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:32 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 5 kb.

1 So, I was talking to your favorite ex-roomie about how legally it could happen to overturn the results, and it was a pretty interesting discussion. The basic idea that Joe was saying is echoed in the SF Gate: "The suit by San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County argues that any measure allowing a majority of the public to take away minority rights violates principles of equality at the heart of the state Constitution." So, the point is, even if the majority of the people vote to take away the rights of a minority, it can't happen because of the nature of constitution. (Something about, its not giving rights to someone, its taking away rights already afforded.) And we're talking about the CA constitution not the US. The states retain their own choice to whether they choose to contradict themselves or not...you know, that whole states' rights thing. And that's why we have the courts as a check. I'm not sure if I'm cool with overturning the votes. I personally don't think we're going to see gay rights really come to fruition for at least another 5-10 years and that's being very optimistic. Just like we needed all the racists to fade away so the country could do something historic like it did a couple nights ago, we have to wait for the homophobes to disappear too. But I totally aqree that that feeding the stereotype doesn't help AT ALL. But people are reeling right now...give them a bit of time to recover.

Posted by: SBC at November 06, 2008 12:06 PM (dp4iL)

2 People will vote their conscience. Help them understand what they fear. First off, I'm not a CA resident and have no dog in the hunt. However, if I were in CA I would have voted "yes on 8." Second, people did vote their conscience. To assume they did otherwise is unfair. To assume they voted in fear is also unfair. There are a lot of people opposed to gay marriage for whom it is a deeply moral and spiritual issue. Their consciences will not allow them to see gay marriage as OK. That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage.

Posted by: jen at November 06, 2008 12:07 PM (Jp+mD)

3 that's exactly why I'm advocating a campaign that shows gay people as PEOPLE from here going forward. If you change people's minds, you WILL change their votes. Eventually.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 06, 2008 12:11 PM (IfXtw)

4 "That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage." It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. I don't see how the state (not any churches) recognizes a marriage of two men or two women affects your spiritual and moral fibers. I don't understand how someone's religious convictions can be so weak that they cannot allow a secular entity recognize a gay couple because it has the same name as their partnership. I just can't see past this...to echo CTG, I see fear, not a solid conviction of religious ideas. Maybe this comes from the fact that I have a strong sense of faith in a religion that is not the dominant one in this society...maybe I'm just used to having more stronger faith than others and they're just afraid to flex that muscle further. But each time I try and step back to look at it, I see fear, inflexibility, and discrimination. It was not long ago where society would have called my interracial marriage offensive to their spirituality and morality...and the country for the most part has gotten over it. For this reason alone, I can't idly let other people take away the rights of my friends.

Posted by: SBC at November 06, 2008 01:21 PM (dp4iL)

5 For some reason, it just reminds me of this oldie from the Onion. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

Posted by: Chalkie at November 06, 2008 02:05 PM (EZmj/)

6 Good for you taking a stand. Hang tough - it's never pretty when civil/social change happens...

Posted by: Richmond at November 09, 2008 04:33 PM (M6+VC)

7 SBC: "...we have to wait for the homophobes to disappear too" Nice. Anyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe? I would have supported gay marriage before, but seeing people acting like a bunch of petulant children has cost the movement MY vote. Grow up.

Posted by: bristlecone at November 10, 2008 06:10 AM (UCzh5)

8 Dropping the term 'homophobia' in most discussion would be a start. There are a *lot* of people a) feel its not the govt's business what other people do in their bedrooms, b)don't wish gay people any ill,c)are willing to support civil unions of some sort but d) think it is 'wrong' or at least 'abnormal'-- for which latter position non-religious arguments can be made, e)don't buy the blanket form of the 'just made that way' argument (and think legal gay marriage would fully enable indoctrination by the public school on the issue), f) don't want a foundation of all societies, far back into prehistory, redefined so gay people can, by court order/fiat, be granted a sign of approval for their way of life by people who don't feel that way, and whom they failed to persuade. Sorry, but gay is not the same thing as 'black', even in objective terms of evolution. One particular gene gives immunity from malaria -- two copies of the same gene causes sickle cell anemia. The latter is collateral damage of the former -- and for the affected *individual* it is certainly not fine and dandy even if it is 'natural'. We can recognize the dysfunction of it w/o making any moral claim about the person. Another example -- some people are born blind -- do we feel the need to give them driver's licenses in the name of fairness? Or to redefine what a drivers license is so we could adopt the pretense that sighted and blind 'drivers' are the same? Surely what might be termed 'behavioral sterility', precisely if it is involuntary, might be arguably considered a dysfunction and not within healthy variation? People can have sincere, thoughtful arguments and disagreements without slurring the one side as 'homophobic' -- that paints their views and irrational hysteria and therefore not worht considering or engaging. Big counter-productive mistake.

Posted by: newscaper at November 10, 2008 06:34 AM (t+F7R)

9 To keep referring to those who voted for Prop. 8 as homophobic is neither constructive nor accurate and makes about as much sense as saying those who voted against Obama are racists. Gay marriage is not viewed as a threat to traditional marriage. It is viewed as validating a lifestyle and a choice( see Anne Heche, Julie Cypher, et al) that a majority of people view as sinful.

Posted by: patrick at November 10, 2008 06:41 AM (ZxkIC)

10 While you are correct that any constitution is what the people say it is (else consent of the governed is a myth), your voting rights analogy is erroneous. The U.S. Constitution never prohibited either women or blacks from voting. Guaranteeing suffrage did not contradict or repeal anything in the Constitution, other than curbing the states' latitude in determining suffrage.

Posted by: j.a.m. at November 10, 2008 07:10 AM (vapBJ)

11 And then there was the "blame the blacks" crowd. White gays have a house full of dirty secrets. If you're gay you'll know.

Posted by: Jon at November 10, 2008 07:33 AM (zK8hO)

12 If the gay marriages made between the State Supreme Court ruling and the election are still valid but marriage is between a man and a woman, then divorce can only be between a man and a woman. Many of you guys and gals are going to regret getting mixed up with heterosexual sexual politics when you find there is no way to legally divorce. Having been married (heterosexually) three times, I don't see what the urge is. As to the constitutional issues, a court proclaimed a "right" that was novel and by no means explicit and not recognized by the authors of the constitution nor by the general population. The voters corrected the judges with one method open to them - the initiative. The only other method of the voters expressing their legitimate power is by recall of the judges who voted for the decision and their replacement by judges who read the constitution the same way that the majority of voters do.

Posted by: Whitehall at November 10, 2008 08:30 AM (FCAIs)

13 It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. Sure. However, this is a bad strategy. It doesn't help one's political cause when one dismisses the other side's position as a mental problem. I'd suggest that those who can't put themselves in the place of the opposition should chill for a bit, and let others who can represent their side for a while. Among other hobbies, I am a target shooter. Some of the rifles I use have been banned in California and elsewhere as "assault weapons," primarily because they look "scary." They don't function as machine guns (part of the definition of an actual military assault rifle), but their military underpinnings allow me to take advantage of tax-funded engineering that the military does (accurate rifles are expensive enough as it is). The problem is, they look like what our military uses currently, so it's easy to get support for "keeping them off our streets." Now I know that a lot of this support is based on emotions and ignorance, since many supporters of such bans would bristle at bans on other firearms. However, does it do any good to just write people off as emotional and ignorant, when they can vote? Not all of us can empathize with the other side, or see the logic in our opposition. That's fine. Strategically, though, those of us who can't should try to find people who can, to help persuade.

Posted by: BarryD at November 10, 2008 09:32 AM (Zo3yX)

14 There is an easy resolution for this. Have the state record civil unions only, for everybody. That actually is what the state does at this time. It's really not the state's business to enter into a religious discussion. Survey after survey has shown that a majority of people are willing to grant gays the right to a civil union. In point of fact, whatever is recorded by the state IS a civil union governed by the laws of the state and NOT the laws of the relevant church. The distinction is particularly clear in the cases of divorce, where the Catholic church refuses to recognize the dissolution of a civil union. The word marriage carries strong religious connotations, and raises all kinds of issues which the various churches resolve in different ways. So, let the states record civil unions, and leave the discussion of what constitutes a marriage to the individual congregations.

Posted by: Valerie at November 10, 2008 10:27 AM (qIfnY)

15 Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic". On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me". Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that will be won, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house). I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by: William Kovacs at November 10, 2008 11:53 AM (F/98t)

16 Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic". On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me". Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that you will win, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house. I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by: William Kovacs at November 10, 2008 11:54 AM (F/98t)

17 Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic". On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me". Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that will be won, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house). I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2008 11:57 AM (F/98t)

18 "It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia." And it's very hard for me to see the 'phobia' charge as anything but an ad hominem attack deeply rooted in ignorance. Does either view tell us anything other than about where we are standing? The problem with the whole 'phobia' charge is that I would have voted 'Yes' to prop 8. But explaining that with 'phobia' runs hard into the fact that I can sit down and eat dinner with a gay couple. I can work with a gay man. I can and have been friends with gay and lesbian people. Partly it's because I don't really see them as 'gay'. I see them as men who are having homosexual contact with each other. If I couldn't be friends with everyone who did something I didn't approve of, I'd soon find myself striking the whole world off of my list of possible friends. My relationship to a gay man is similar to my relationship to a female friend who bounces from one overwrought serial relationship to another. I don't approve of that lifestyle either. But if anyone needs a friend that doesn't want to get in bed with them, it's someone like that, so what am I supposed to do? There are some people out there just wierded out over the whole idea of homosexuality, but they hardly constitute the whole of the opposition to gay marriage. And for that matter, people who were wierded out by the whole concept don't necessarily support it once they stop being wierded out by it. Really, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage don't do so because they fear gays, but because they pity them. That's going to be alot harder of a position to overcome than fear, and it is going to require the gay community to do a number of things it currently finds totally heritical: stop being a community, stop claiming that you are gay because of genetics (or epigenetics if you aren't the gay equivalent of a flat earther), stop adhering to a sterotype, and generally stop acting as if your life was defined by your sexuality. In other words, you are going to have to stop acting like 'gays' and start acting like 'people'. And even then, there is going to be a certain percentage that is still going to look at your behavior the same way they look at someone who is alcholic or addicted to drugs. That's not 'phobia' or even 'bigotry', and to be frank the whole ridiculous argument that you are gay because of epigenetics of some sort reinforces the whole idea that this is just disfunctional behavior.

Posted by: Celebrim at November 10, 2008 12:01 PM (yXo7J)

19 you guys lost a long time ago. the villain, if you'd like to go and have a chat with him, is SF Mayor Gavin Newsome. when he decided to violate the law by issuing licenses to people who were by law prohibited from receiving them, he lit fire that is currently burning you. instead of using his bully pulpit to lobby for californians to change the law by vote, he cut them out of the discussion. how many of the people who voted against you were only there because they felt pushed there by the CA Supremes. how many would have gone the other way if they were asked first, and not simply slapped upside the face with a wet fish? so we should ask ourselves who benefits. first, Newsome benefited by making sure that all those REALLY far leftists who voted for Matt Gonzalez, the wacky lefty Green party guy who got 47% to Newsome's 53%. for those who don't get it, that means that the guy who introduced gay marriage in the US was the conservative in the mayoral race in 2003!!! the second group who benefits is the people who run groups like Human Rights Campaign. see, if they were to actually succeed in getting citizens to vote for gay marriage, they would be out of a job. their attitude is, keep the gays in line by pissing off everyone else.

Posted by: Sean at November 10, 2008 12:14 PM (ayO6b)

20 gay marriage is such a fundamental part of the California Constitution Yeah, that would be why no one ever heard of the "right" before 4 judges decided to invent it, because it's a fundamental part of the Constitution. In 1972, the CA Supreme Court claimed that the CA Constitution's protection against "cruel or unusual punishment" meant that the death penalty was unconstitutional. CA voters responded by passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that nothing in the Constitution forbade the death penalty. The CA SUpreme Court upheld that Amendment. So, we have 1: Court squints really hard, and finds a "right" in the CA Constitution, for a small group (convicted murderers) that suits their personal preferences. 2: Voters say "you guys are full of it", and pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning the illegitimate decision. 3: Court defers to the will of The People. BTW, just so we're clear here: being a "minority" doesn't give you more rights than being part of a majority. That would be an absurd negation of democracy.

Posted by: Greg Q at November 10, 2008 01:32 PM (87k2j)

21 Wow, didn't realize there were so many responses to my comment. I'll try to take them one at a time. bristlecone -- I'm sorry if I offended you by using that term. I honestly didn't realize it charged up people the way it did. And not everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe -- there are plenty of people who believe that there should be no legal marriages in society or think there should only be civil unions, etc. that has nothing to do with treating a gay union differently in the eyes of the law than a straight one. But, I will say this -- if you're going to change your vote because of how other people act as opposed to what you believe in, you need to "Grow up" more than I do. To the others, who combined a lot of the same points: 1) A reiteration of the apology for using the word homophobia...though I'm curious why no one is all getting upset with the word racist except for I think one. I wasn't meaning it as a slur, btu as a way to describe people who don't support the full integration of gay rights in society. But perhaps I can better describe it this way with some specific examples that have cropped up in my own life: I think someone is racist when they work with people of all races, eat with them, socialize with them, but then turn to me and tell me that I really shouldn't marry outside my own race/culture. I think someone is sexist if an employer highers more females because he feels like he can keep them in line easier. I think someone is homophobic when they fear that the sanctity of their marriage is at risk by the STATE recognizing a gay marriage. So for all of you don't fall into that last category, I would most likely not refer to you as homophobic. Someone mentioned that they thought the majority of people don't fear the sanctity of their own marriage, that makes me feel a lot better actually. But to those who think its sinful...why? And there are plenty of things that are sinful to a group of people that is legal under the law -- i.e., alcohol consumption, sex before marriage, birth control, working on the Sabbath, eating meat, etc. Just because something is sinful to you or people who share your belief, should we deny the rest of the population who doesn't? 2) Maybe you don't think gay is the same thing as black, but should the LAW think that? I'm ok with people feeling actually uneasy with gay activities, but I take issue with people who would take away rights that should be treated equally across the board. In fact, I know plenty of people who get visibly sick if you talk about gay sex, but they would never vote to take away their rights. As for the blind argument -- the blind aren't given driver's licenses because they are physcially unable to perform a certain task. Please tell me who being gay makes on physically unable you to support and love another person the way a man and woman does in marriage. Or is about the sex in the end? And just to let you know, homosexuality has been witnessed in almost 1500 species at this point. 3) I wasn't trying to make a strategy to convince people to support gay rights. I was talking they way I talk when I'm in CTG's home or office, wasn't trying to be politically correct and didn't even realize the word angered so many people. I will try to post more PC again and I'm sure you'll all call out CTG when she isn't writing PC either. And again, I'm sorry to offend the ones who posted, but I think there are "homophobes" - people who fear gays -- in society, and I do hope their views fade away like racism did over time. Again, I think this is going to take a lot more time than the gay community may wish it were like CTG said. Desensitization to the subject in a way. I actually think that a good chunk of society has become a lot more open than I would have though a decade ago.

Posted by: SBC at November 10, 2008 01:48 PM (oqS+F)

22 ) Maybe you don't think gay is the same thing as black, but should the LAW think that? Well, let's see. We have a 14th Amendment to the Constitution that was passed to ban racial discrimination. We don't have any amendments passed to ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation, and CA doesn't, either. So yes, the law should treat "gay" differently than "black".

Posted by: Greg Q at November 10, 2008 02:26 PM (87k2j)

23 My opposition to gay "marriage" is nuanced (heh). I don't believe the government should be in the business of redefining words. That is Orwellian. Marriage, as it is nearly universally understood, means the union of a man and a woman. Why do gays want to co-opt the heterosexual's term? Gays need their own word/concept. Can a group of people who form a "community" become married in the eyes of the law? Why not? Where does the redefining end?

Posted by: mockmook at November 10, 2008 03:03 PM (kA365)

24 Losers. Everyone thought the rally to block traffic was lame.

Posted by: left coast liberal at November 10, 2008 06:45 PM (yg49V)

25 In re: "homophobia" I think the problem people have with this term as opposed to "racist" or "sexist" is that "homophobia" means "fear of (gays)." Yes, I know that's not quite how it's meant anymore, but that's still how it's interpreted. If we could come up with some different term, that might help. But as it is -- we're not "afraid" of them. So when we state our beliefs about the gay lifestyle or whatever and then get told "You're homophobic!" it makes us go "Huh?" Then we try to explain that we're not afraid, and get told again "You're homophobic!" You can also substitute in "full of hate" or "hateful" or "You hate me" or "You hate gays" in there as well. But the thing is... we're not afraid, and we don't think we're hateful either... so being told that we are just makes us go "You're delusional!" And thus we have a very hard time giving your arguments the shrift they properly deserve. As another poster stated: Stop acting like "gays" and start acting like "people who happen to be gay" and you'll win a lot more converts to your cause. Dropping "homophobic" and/or "full of hate" into every argument just isn't the way to do that. I'm straight, but I think it's just as flattering if a guy tries to hit on me as if a woman does. I just tell them I'm not interested, same as I would for any woman who I'm not interested in. If I lived in California, I don't know how I would have voted. I think the best actual solution would be the whole "government does civil unions, religions do marriages" dichotomy, and as such, I probably would have voted for the proposition simply to be in opposition of the redefinition of the word "marriage." But that'd really be my only reason. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or who you do it with, or what you call that person you do it with either. Something many people don't know is that Salt Lake City actually has a "domestic partner" program for its employees. You can designate *anyone* as your "partner" -- be it a spouse, a relative, a friend, or whatever. Many gay people who work for the city thus have full benefits of a "civil union" right here in the heart of "Mormondom." As I recall it, the (Mormon-dominated) City Council unanimously approved the plan, and (to my knowledge) the church didn't make any statement one way or the other about it. There was a bit of controversy about it for about 2 weeks. Nobody's cared since. See how nicely that worked? Govt calls it "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage" and nobody cares. . . . . .

Posted by: JC at November 11, 2008 12:48 AM (kHvUx)

26 Democracy sucks when your side loses. I guess if these celebtards don't pay their taxes it's ok for me too? No?

Posted by: Bandit at November 11, 2008 05:57 AM (/R+6i)

27 Protesting at Mormon Temples ,calling Blacks the N-word because they supported Prop 8 by 70% margins... Why don't you direct your ire at the religion that voted for Proposition 8 by a probably 100% margin....That's right: Muslims..What did you say?..I didn't hear you?.... No, you go after the soft target mild mannered Mormons...Totally gutless...

Posted by: sirpatrick at November 11, 2008 08:13 PM (ZxkIC)

28 Let's get a few things out on the table: Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. To protect the important institution of the family we should protect traditional marriage. That's the Prop 8 pro side. Now you may disagree with this or agree with it (I stand on the agree side) ... BUT ... There is NOTHING 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay' about the above statements. support for Prop 8 was NEVER a 'hate' thing, it was always a "Whats wrong with keeping marriage the way its been for 2000 years of civilization" thing. No hate, no 'phobia' just pro-family and pro-traditional-values. Ad hominem is a well-known fallacy and the 'hate' charge on the pro Prop 8 side is PURE AD HOMINEM. It is disgusting, insulting and beneath contempt for gay-activist extremists to be so violent, pissy and outrageous in calling anyone who happened to disagree on this hatemongers. oh, and the N-word stuff an the violence at Saddleback church sure showed class. not! THEY are the 'hatemongers' with such vile and personal attacks. And to do it after the vote makes them out to be vile, violent, hateful and *impotent*. Worst of all worlds. I THINK IT SHOWS TO MANY PEOPLE THAT THEY DID THE RIGHT THING IN SUPPORTING PROP 8. IF THE PEOPLE WANTING THIS ARE SO EXTREME, VIOLENT AND BIZARRE, ITS SURELY NOT THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR SOCIETY.

Posted by: Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 09:54 PM (uuYgX)

29 1) Even the Greeks who celebrated homosexuality confined marriage to a man and a woman. Marriage was for procreation and homosexual lovers were for recreation. And these homosexual relationships were long term committed relationships. 2) I'm willing to bet that a large portion of us who voted yes on prop 8 would be willing to vote in favor of civil unions, which already exists in many places. The gay community however insists on marriage. This is partly an effort to destroy conventional morality, partly an effort to force acceptance of a lifestyle. Many of us are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior without endorsing it. This is not good enough for homosexual activists. 3) Even if I was in favor of homosexual marriage I would have voted yes on Prop 8 because it was a "right" created by judicial fiat, directly opposed to the will of the people. There is no Constitutional right to homosexual marriage, in either the State or Federal Constitution. 4) It is not an issue of equal rights either. I have the right to marry a woman and cannot marry a man. Homosexuals have the right to marry a woman and cannot marry a man. That's the definition of equal. 5) If you allow homosexual marriage, by what possible standard can you deny polygamy? State interest? Morality? Majority opinion? Does anyone seriously think that Muslims, fundamentalist Mormons and hippie communes won't immediately start pressing for the rcognition of polygamy?

Posted by: gahrie at November 11, 2008 09:58 PM (4gHqM)

30 "the second group who benefits is the people who run groups like Human Rights Campaign. see, if they were to actually succeed in getting citizens to vote for gay marriage, they would be out of a job. their attitude is, keep the gays in line by pissing off everyone else." ROFLMAO! HRC are purely one of the liberal special interest group arms of the Democrat-liberal-establishment complex, designed not to advance any agenda except the electing of Democrats. Actually achieving the agenda would be a real bummer for them. gays need to stay on the plantation with the blacks, union members, welfare recipients and govt workers, or the whole 'system' breaks down!

Posted by: Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 10:04 PM (uuYgX)

31 "It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. I don't see how the state (not any churches) recognizes a marriage of two men or two women affects your spiritual and moral fibers." You dont see it, but others do see how Govt recognition impacts societal mores. We know this from looking at how divorce and welfare laws impacted family structure and breakdown. And borken families are harder on kids, its well known. So concerns about what will happen to family structure when marriage is redefined are NOT irrational. What is YOUR phobia with having some allowance and recognition for the more important role of man-woman-marriage-based families, over and above other family units? Why are you afraid to recognize the importance of traditional family in the raising of children etc.? Or acknowledgement that this would be a legit concern? Why cant you be open-minded enough to see the importance of marriage institution from the traditionalist POV, instead of ignoring their reasons and insisting that you can detect motivations of those with a difference POV? (hint: you cant) Being "PRO-TRADITIONAL-MARRIAGE" is not necessarily "anti-gay".

Posted by: Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 10:15 PM (uuYgX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 05, 2008

The Fresh Perspective of Morning

I went to sleep around midnight, after gorging myself on the scant hour of local returns coverage we got, courtesy of overzealous networks that wanted to rehash the historic events of yesterday.

On waking this morning I found myself very reflective. How am I going to respond to what happened yesterday. Instinctively, I reach for Pollyanna: everything will work out great! But I know better.

The truth is, I would like to spend the next four years nitpicking and slamming and treating Barack Obama with all of the disrespect that was lavished on George W Bush for the last 8 years, and for the same non-reasons. But I can't do that. The man IS the President-elect, and let's be honest, he ran a hell of a campaign. I'm not saying it wasn't dirty, or race-baiting (hell, all you have to do is turn on a TV and see a crying black person exalting about "we're" in the White House to know that), or that it was the best campaign ever. I'm just saying he did more, had a better strategy, and all around out-foxed the other guy and his people.

Last night's speeches were probably the best of the campaign, particularly McCain's heartfelt concession, which I thought was the ultimate in class.

President Bush's speech this morning was also thoughtful and classy, and it struck me as one of the best from him in a long time.

He and Senator McCain must be so relieved this morning. That it's over!

I honestly don't know what's going to happen. My own prediction is that the Democrats will soon be victims of their own success. With such large legislative majorities, they can't blame it on the Republican whipping boy anymore. Combine that with the deep divide in the party that began with ultra-liberal vs moderate democrats and grew over the race between Barry and Hillary. Which creates an opportunity for the GOP to remind people what they are all about, without the looming "spectre" of George Bush and Dick Cheney as the faces of the party.

The pendulum swings, and this time it has swung towards something entirely different and unknown. All of the TV talking heads made this point last night, a question I have raised before, as well: WHO is Barack Obama? What will his policies be? How will he lead this country? The campaign always focused on Obama the man, not Obama the leader. Even the most enlightened political insiders are unsure of what's next.

Which brings me to my last point. Listen, I appreciate that racism is a visceral thing for many blacks. That the memory of discrimination is palpable. But this isn't 1968. Racism isn't what you think. It does not exist the way that you remember. White people don't automatically see black folks as less. I've seen so many black people on TV saying that NOW (only NOW???) they were going to tell their children to dream big dreams. WHAT??? Why aren't you teaching your children to dream big dreams already? Why can't they succeed? Maybe because you're teaching them that they can't?

AUUUGH. It grates. That black folks are "proud to be an American again" that black children "now have a chance" GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES. This amazing country is a place where ANY child has the opportunity to become ANYTHING. Nowhere else do children born in poverty have the opportunity to rise to the heights of fortune and fame. And you take it for granted and piss it all away because you think, THINK, that someone will try to take it away from you because your keratocytes take up more melanin.

This ladies and gentlemen is the culture of victimhood. That because we've never had a black president, you couldn't let your children dream of being the president. How the fuck are we ever going to get there if we don't think of it first?

So I will congratulate Barry Obama. He won, seemingly fair and square. Sure, I could point out that the black dude won so nobody's bitching, but that would be counterproductive and petty. I will congratulate him, and at the same time let him know that we are all watching. And we will hold him to his promise to hear our voices. And we will hold him accountable.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:09 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Excellent post! Couldn't have said it better myself. And didn't.

Posted by: pam at November 05, 2008 09:24 AM (l6NIn)

2 Clap. Almost rocket science.

Posted by: Two Dogs at November 05, 2008 10:25 AM (ZiMYt)

3 If what Michelle was wearing last night is any hint of future-fashion, we're in for a bumpy ride. But I'm more concerned with his upcoming Supreme Court nominations, and expect to see the return of some very ugly policies like the Fairness Doctrine and another AWB. We're so screwed.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 05, 2008 10:32 AM (VNM5w)

4 Excellent post CTG. And I felt better after reading this today... http://chizumatic.mee.nu/not_the_end_of_the_world It is what it is...

Posted by: Richmond at November 05, 2008 10:42 AM (XW9e/)

5 Excellent! You articulated so well what we were batting around here in the wee hours...

Posted by: Marie at November 05, 2008 11:10 AM (UunPp)

6 awesome sam. well said -- especially the racism aspects. it grieves me to no end that 1/2 the country basically voted for socialism.

Posted by: kate at November 05, 2008 11:27 AM (Zq135)

7 I have to echo something you said on this post...it drives me batty sometimes about how the African American community claims so much success because of Barack Obama's stunning campaign. I get a little annoyed because it was his white mother and white grandparents that raised him, and if I recall at the start of the primary, there were accusations that he wasn't "black" enough. It annoys me too. As a person of color, its great to see this one wall shatter (though I disagree that systematic racism has been obliterated), and I actually do understand the whole "dreaming" thing with the kids. It's not so much that they couldn't let their children dream about reaching the highest office in the land...it's more about not tempering it with realism. Let's face it -- the exceptional break the walls for the rest of us, and sometimes they can't do it because of where society is at the time. I think of it being akin to parents talking to their kids about being actors. Yeah, sure you could become a huge actor/actress, but you know, you probably should have a fall back degree or job because it doesn't really happen and you shouldn't expect it (seriously, how many non-gorgeous actresses are successful on the big screen). At least when *I* read about it, that's what I think. Sure, things are possible but now there is some empirical evidence. I don't like the culture of victimhood either but when I step back and look at the big picture, this is what I'm seeing. But I didn't vote for Obama twice (primary and general) because he's black or because he would break racial walls. I voted for him because he is closer aligned to my value system than the other candidates...and, and I'll admit this: I voted for him because he was an intellectual. I want someone *very* smart (not just above average) in the office...I want someone who will bring in other smart people and listen to opposing opinions before he makes decisions as opposed to only bringing in your friends or people who share your own values. I am freaking giddy about this actually. And maybe some people didn't think he was that smart...and I don't know if I would have said he was two years ago...but he is the only man to beat the Clinton machine AND the RNC. That takes balls and brains. Call me elitist, I don't care. In summary: Anyone who says I voted for Obama-Biden because of race will get a serious tongue lashing from me. And mind you, I am waiting for my party to fuck it up royally. They always do. I'm just hoping it will take a little longer this time. I just want him to keep it in his pants... (BTW, why do you refer to him Barry? Not just in this post, but in others. Even if that is what his family and friends called him, it's not like you're his close friend. I would seriously be upset with you if you referred to me by something other than my professional name in public...not that I think you even know my family name, but nonetheless, I would be very pissy. Then again, I didn't like the media referring to Senator Clinton as Hillary either, so maybe it just means more to me.)

Posted by: SBC at November 05, 2008 12:52 PM (5S9Yt)

8 Well, President Barry is better than President YoMama for sure!

But I'm find it interesting that you think by him using his full name was more politically expedient than Barry and his mother's maiden name. I wonder how much the Barry thing affected him growing up. You know, when we moved from Jersey City to SJ when I was younger, my sister had to take this Americanized abbreviation of her name. She didn't want to, but the teachers refused to learn her name and it just stuck. So for years she wasn't called by her professional name...and that's how most people knew her as growing up. But she HATED it. In fact, when she went to Caltech, she made it a point that everyone call her by her full name. To my understanding, when Obama really entered the professional field, he embraced his full name like my sister. I, on the other hand during the move, in the second grade had audacity to not let my teachers off the hook. Apparently, I said something on the first day to extent of, "I will teach you to say my name right until you learn it." And every year, I had to go through the same thing, "it would just be easier" or "well we could shorten it up"...by the time I was in HS I really was just so angry about the issue that they backed down within 30s. But I am truly unique to have developed this at such a young age. Most other people I know with similar issues just took whatever American bastardization of the name that school kids or teachers made and they seemed to resent it. So either way, I guess the name thing is a bit important to me. I want people to recognize me fully so I try really hard to recognize them fully...you know actually referring to the Chinese by their Chinese name instead of their American one. ::shrug:: It's one of my things I realize... So, is your cousin seriously thinking about running for office or was that just an example you were giving?

Posted by: SBC at November 05, 2008 02:58 PM (5S9Yt)

9 Hmmm... Here I thought that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Great post, CTG.

Posted by: Conservative Belle at November 05, 2008 03:14 PM (xlHsB)

10 My sentiments exactly. Of course, I took all of four lines to say it so it didn't sound nearly as thoughtful or eloquent as yours.

Posted by: Lauren at November 05, 2008 03:25 PM (Pt1kf)

11 SBC, Thank you for giving me another perspective to look at.

Posted by: Lauren at November 05, 2008 03:27 PM (Pt1kf)

12 I think that electing BHO has now taken racism, as an excuse to fail, off the board. "The Man" isn't holding anyone down now. He isn't going to pay off your mortgage either. The honeymoon will be short.

Posted by: Baddog at November 05, 2008 07:28 PM (t/pEj)

13 Hi, I'm Hazel Jones and I work in a company interested in blog advertising. I found your blog engaging and I'm contacting you to ask if you are interested in blog post sponsorship. If you are interested, kindly mail back at k5sino@bigstring.com, indicating your blog for reference, and I'll send you back pricing details, guidelines and processes. Looking forward to doing business with you. Sincerely, Hazel Jones

Posted by: Hazel Jones at November 05, 2008 10:40 PM (XY940)

14 Note that I have gone by Joseph at work and school for the past five years, so much so that (1) I actually find it weird to sign off emails and be referred to as Joe now, and (2) I get cranky when ppl at work suddenly start calling me Joe despite what I write in my email. Similarly -- "Billy" Clinton? "Ricky" Nixon? "Johnnie" Kennedy? Hm, well there was Jimmy Carter to be sure, and there's a case for Ronnie Reagan, but by and large Prez candidates go for the more 'serious', professional-sounding version of their name. And do NOT tell me the conservatives and others wouldn't have accused him of running away from his 'true' self (and lent credence to the 'secret Muslim' bullcrap) if he'd insisted on being billed as Barry. Indeed, I think it was a combo of the professional full name and the preemptive 'yeah, it's Barack' than the 'hey liberals who will already like voting for a stable black man, I'm multi cultural too!'

Posted by: Joe at November 06, 2008 09:54 AM (wKdud)

15 actually, it was Bill Clinton (rather than William) and Dick Nixon (rather than Richard). Eisenhower preferred "Ike", Truman was Harry, and Ford was usually called "Jerry". Hell, LBJ preferred his initials, hence why we still call him that 40 years later. So I don't see the hang up over Barry vs Barack. But as I said to someone yesterday in meatspace, if it really is about a professional redirection, I'll happily drop the Barry thing. But I doubt it.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 06, 2008 10:59 AM (IfXtw)

16 Not to nitpick, because I really enjoyed your thoughtful and eloquent post, but he actually "distanced himself" from being called Barry when he went to Columbia - twenty years or more ago. Came via Margi's place, and I just wanted to echo your last line. We're on common ground on at least one point: as an Obama supporter, I will be holding him accountable, too.

Posted by: Jennifer at November 06, 2008 06:41 PM (s7/kM)

17 Jennifer, many thanks for the fyi on when he shifted to Barry! Any chance this is documented online, for confirmation? Eh, I bet it can be found via simple googling... but I'm just so *lazy*. :-) And as an ostensibly unbiased journalist by training, I'm hoping the members of the media will also hold Obama, his admimistration, the Dems new and old, AND the Republicans all accountable as well. If I get me a proper j-job, I promise I will.

Posted by: Joe at November 07, 2008 08:03 AM (wKdud)

18 It's in his books. Also covered in the first paragraph of this Newsweek article from March 2008.

Posted by: Jennifer at November 07, 2008 11:48 AM (1aLkV)

19 Ooh, is that my ill-informed showing?

Thanks, Jennifer.

As for other presidents' names, I concede Ike and Harry, of course, but I'd split hairs saying Bill isn't as casual as Barry, LBJ certainly isn't a casual name, Ford wasn't elected POTUS, and the rest weren't elected under their more casually known first names. Even if you count Bill & Jerry, it's 12-6 in favor of formal since Teddy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/chronological.html Yay totally pointless statistics! :-D

Posted by: Joe at November 07, 2008 08:19 PM (JLqd9)

20 I think that I have a plan for the future, if you are interested. The Republican future.

Posted by: Two Dogs at November 08, 2008 12:11 AM (6qN3R)

21 Just took a quick glance Jennifer at the Newsweek article, and thanks for pointing it out. It actually does seem to echo a little bit of what my sister went through and since it seems like he changed it in Columbia, well before he was a politicians, its not about him changing it 2 or 4 years ago for political ambitions. And CTG, its not a hangup -- I didn't mean to make it such a large part of the posting, I really was just curious why you kept on using it. As I said before, *I* probably have a thing about names, dealing with my own identity issues growing up in this society. I take names and titles pretty seriously and I make it a point to try and be respectful whenever I came (say always referring you to as Dr. G******** instead of your first name to your students). You can ask Joe, I never call our current president W, always his last name or full name or President Bush. If he's going by Barack Obama, I call him Barack Obama. If Bill Clinton is going by Bill Clinton as opposed to William, I'll call him that too (though I always say Richard Nixon instead of Dick). But again this is just ME, I personally find it an issue of respect, but by no means, meant it to be some hang up.

Posted by: SBC at November 08, 2008 08:48 AM (JLqd9)

22 well, after that campaign he'll have to EARN my respect.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 08, 2008 09:37 PM (IfXtw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 04, 2008

Put away your race cards

That argument doesn't hold water anymore. This country just elected a black man as President.

It's gonna be an interesting two years.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:04 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Done

Well, it's over for me anyway. As of 7:15 this morning.

Our polling place is at a little church a block or so away, and we thought the lines would be small this morning, so we decided to chance it.

Arriving at just before 6:45, this is what we found:

The mother and daughter directly in front of us (blue and black jacket, respectively) were perusing the Democrat Voter Guide, which irked the crap out of my husband. He kept muttering "think for yourself!" and "know what you're voting for" under his breath...

According to the numbers on our ballot stubs we were #29 and #30 to vote at our precinct. It took about 30 minutes to get to the door, where the check in was, and to get through the ballot. Then I had to wait because the lady in front of me (in the blue jacket, above) voted twice on Prop 10, so she had to decide whether to re-vote a new ballot, or just ask the computer to accept her ballot and NOT count her Prop 10 votes (she decided for the latter).... In any case, we were both done by 7:20, and despite the worst morning traffic I've ever seen in The 'Dena (two Sigalerts on the 210 so everyone was on the streets!), I got hubby to school on time and I am back home prepping for my lecture this afternoon. Or at least I will be as soon as I finish this post and get my bagel out of the toaster.

Go vote. It doesn't matter who or what you vote for, as long as you vote your conscience. I did.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 09:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

November 03, 2008

Head in my hands, Heart on my Sleeve

I've been thinking a lot about Prop 8. It's the only ballot measure I haven't yet decided on.

My head tells me to vote yes and tell activist liberal judges to get a fucking clue. That CA's registered Domestic Partnership law provides the same rights to gay couples who register as marriage does to straight couples. That marriage is a construct not of the state, but of the church, and really the RDP law should apply to gays and straights both as a "civil union," a mere contract. That "marriage" is solemnized and consecrated by your belief system, whatever that is, and abides by those rules. God's rules. Or gods' rules. Whatever you believe. Not the state's rules.

I worry about the consequences for churches and ministers who are against marrying gay couples, for whatever reason. Will they be breaking the law if they refuse? Will they lose their 501 status? Will anyone be allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong or state that belief? It may be bigoted, but in this country, people have a right to believe as they choose. We call it Freedom of Religion.

And you know, I just am so tired of all the in-your-faceness of the Prop 8 fight. I just want to vote no to say HA! Keep your "whether you like it or not" and all your Gay PDA on TV (for the record, all PDA on TV makes me sick, we've just seen a lot of it with this Prop 8 thing). It makes me want to be perverse and give all the Prop 8 opponents the finger.

But my heart tells me differently.

As I've mentioned many times on this blog, one of my dearest friends is gay, and he married his partner about 5 years ago in one of the most beautiful, heartfelt weddings I have ever seen. I was proud to be a "bridesmaid" and stand up for them, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. I remember feeling so clearly the love between them, and seeing how precious they were to each other. I could never take away from them the things that DH and I have, the comfort of knowing we are each other's first and last resort, that we make each other's life and death decisions, that we share the rights and responsibilities of our life together for better and for worse.

I received this today, via email. I hope my friend won't mind me sharing it with you in part, and with the names redacted, of course.

Hi Everyone,

As you know, we're barely a day away from the most historic election of our time. But as you are also probably well aware, there's a lot more at stake than the Presidency.

Here in California, one of the most important -- and one of the closest -- issues you can vote on is Prop 8.

Prop 8 seeks to eliminate fundamental rights for one group of people. If passed, Prop 8 would take away something very close to Nick and me: our marriage. I trust you agree that eliminating fundamental rights -- from anyone -- is unfair and wrong.

...

If you want to help but don't have much time, here's something simple you can do:

The simplest thing you can do is to call everyone you know when you have a few free minutes on Tuesday and bug them to go vote if they haven't. Even if they say in advance that they'll vote, call them on Election Day to make sure they've voted. Even if it looks like the Presidential contest is over nationally by 5 or 6 pm our time, it's still critical that everyone goes to the polls to vote NO on 8. And even if it's raining, and even if the lines are long ... that shouldn't matter.

Finally, please modify and pass along this e-mail to everyone you know in California.

(And, no, you don't need to call N or me on Election Day -- we have both already voted by absentee ballot.)

Thanks so much for all your support!

Love,
A (& N)

I just can't tell them no. As much as I think this whole issue is screwed up and proceeding ass-backwards and I want to vote yes to make a political point, I don't think I can look my friend in the eye and tell him I voted to take away the marriage that means so much to him in favor of a lousy, meaningless contract. Unless you give me one of those lousy, meaningless contracts, too.

So this girl's in an unfamiliar quandry: head or heart? I can't tell which makes more sense.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 02:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 779 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I think it comes down to this: if you believe that your gay friend's marriage should be treated the same as your own (and marriage, not some partnership that is treated as something that has rights but still not a marriage), then you should vote no. I really feel, and these are my opinions, that a vote yes is equivalent to someone coming to my wedding but doing something to make my interracial marriage invalid. There was a point in California law where interracial marriages were actually illegal -- Armenians couldn't even buy homes in some places. I know you don't like judicial activism, but some activism is necessary to help society progress. Without it we wouldn't have had the civil rights movement for sure. I think this is actually the right way to go about bringing gay rights on a national level. I don't think its right to do something on a national level until at least a quarter of the states have really taken a good hard look at the issue. California should be at the forefront of this because of our unique diverse population. You express annoyance for the No on Prop 8 people but aren't you just annoyed with the Yes on Prop 8 people? The blatant exploitation of children is just damned noxious to me. To quote my boss -- "it is what it is." It's the "elimination of rights for same sex couples." It's not about telling churches what to do - Catholic churches can refuse to marry some people if they are not really practicing Catholics...same with Jewish temples. It's a scare tactic used by people who only want traditional marriage. There are going to be some idiots who may try sh*t but then it'll go to the courts and we'll take care of that as it comes. I hope you vote No and I hope I helped a little.

Posted by: SBC at November 03, 2008 03:16 PM (JLqd9)

2 It's tough - more than tough. It feels unfair. And frankly - we believe in fairness whether it be in the retrospect of skin color, sexual persuasion, socio economic class, or whatever... Laws should be "fair". But I *do* have issues with the the word "marriage" within a social or church philosophy being dictated by law. I DON'T believe that I am any less married in God's eyes because I was married by a judge in a chapel and NOT in the Catholic Church (or any other). I do believe that people in a committed relationship should be recognized (if they so choose) - the same as me - as "married". With all of the benefits and detriments (hello - painful, complicated dissolution of said relationship) and legal ramifications (as in decisions concerning medical care or disbursement of estates) as *I* am. I have trouble with labeling the whole deal "marriage" - because that indicates a relationship recognized by the church and GOD. "Civil Union" works for me - Meaning equal rights under the law for committed couples regardless of hetero sexual palimony or same sex union - and a few of the gay people who are in my life (see Wald Law Blog) - they are trying to find a balance too. It's tough. Something will make it right - I am just not yet sure that a definition of "marraige" is it... WE shall see...

Posted by: Richmonds at November 03, 2008 06:22 PM (RCeqK)

3 Don't go to the dark side! This is not about what feels good, it's about what is best for the future of our nation. Vote Yes on 8!

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at November 03, 2008 10:11 PM (Q3iRb)

4 Vote no! Vote no! Parenthetically, you should see the emails that flew back and forth on this between my dad and my sister...

Posted by: ZTZCheese at November 03, 2008 10:15 PM (Iw+8+)

5 CTG, you know the right thing to do. If the proposition were about activist judges defining marriage, it would be the "Judges Don't Define Marriage" Proposition. But that's not what it's about. It's about defining marriage. Restricting it, by law. Is this the right way of doing it? A vote against 8 doesn't mean you favor activist judiciary, or even marriage for LGBT -- it can also mean you simply feel that the proposition as written is too flawed to vote for. It hurts too many people. I myself voted against a proposition in the previous election that ostensibly stood for things I believed in, but it would not have accomplished those things, not in the right way. You know what's right. Good luck tomorrow.

Posted by: Joe at November 03, 2008 10:25 PM (JLqd9)

6 Definitely a rock and a hard place. I too have a dear friend who is a lesbian. And was there when she stepped out of that closet. We had a dear friend commit suicide because we *believe* he was hiding his homosexuality. These are people we love, and would never choose to hamper or harm them. It is a struggle on so many levels.

Posted by: Stacy at November 04, 2008 12:15 PM (92p8H)

7 I weighed it out between my flesh and my spirit. I chose to vote by my spirit because in the end, it is what matters most to me. As long as YOU can live with your choice, that is all that matters.

Posted by: Lauren at November 04, 2008 09:13 PM (Pt1kf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

95kb generated in CPU 0.0145, elapsed 0.0223 seconds.
25 queries taking 0.0117 seconds, 103 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 7322
Files: 94
Bytes: 50.5M
CPU Time: 4:31
Queries: 512835

Content

Posts: 1959
Comments: 6192

Feeds

November 06, 2008

November 05, 2008

November 04, 2008

November 03, 2008

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds