Wtf, Ca?

[LusciousLoralie]

Openly gay Mark Leno was elected into CA State Senate. It was 79-21.

Right now, prop 8 is 53-47.

WTF!?! So they want a gay man to represent them and their state, but they don't want him to have the chance to get married? WTF!?!

 

[John Doe]

Long ago I stopped trying figure out California.

 

[Etoile]

I'm just stunned by Prop 8. The news outlets as of right this second all claim it's "too close to call" but it's 51.8% in favor of Prop 8 so it looks like a pass. Unbelievable. In California! I'm absolutely shocked.

I was really excited about Obama winning - I still am - but to wake up to this news about Prop 8 kind of quiets me down a little. Happy, but not super happy, you know?

Of course Prop 102 passed in Arizona, too.

 

[CJontherocks]

The California voting public, in my opinion, has always been short-sighted and inconsistent. I couldn't believe it when Prop 22 passed, and after the CA Supreme Court ruling, can't believe that Prop 8 hasn't already been defeated by a landslide. I was surprised a few years ago when I discovered that Massachusetts embraced same-sex marriage but California still outlawed what I believe is an inalienable right. And California is supposed to be a liberal-minded state?

But considering the short attention span of California voters, I am not all that surprised.

Here's something else from the CA Voter Information Guide that surprised me:

<BEGIN QUOTE>

FISCAL EFFECTS
Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.
By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

<END QUOTE>

You'd think just this factor alone would be an impetus for even the CA rednecks to allow same-sex marriage. It is kinda short-sighted in terms of gain... but that fits CA voters.

DISCLAIMER: I was a California voter for many many years, and mean no disrespect to those who vote. The views and opinions used in this commentary are my own, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs... even if they don't match mine.

 

[Etoile]

It occurs to me that gay marriage will not go without beng challenged for a long time. The only reason Massachusetts hasn't had to fight is because the laws there require ballot measures to be approved by the govt before people can vote, and so far they keep rejecting potential propositions.

But yeah, I was surprised too that California was not the first state to legalize gay marriage. And for it now to have been taken away AGAIN, I'm just really shocked.

Fortunately California's temporary gay marriage prompted Massachusetts to open theirs up to out of state couples. Hopefully they'll keep it that way.

 

[none2_none2]

California wasn't the only state to vote down gay rights:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/

I'm not surprised. Lets face it for a lot of people being liberal only means if it something legal or affordable that you might want for yourself one day.

 

[CJontherocks]

What I really don't get is why the heck not??? Who's it hurting? Who's losing a darn thing here? I understand that not everyone thinks the gay way is A-OK. But how does that give anyone the right to decide what kind of relationship one adult consenting human can have with another adult consenting human? Do we really think the difference between taxing a single gay person and a married gay person will reduce the budget deficit? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to the argument against same-sex marriage. But I've racked my brain trying to figure out any cogent argument against it and so far I've been unsuccessful. Help me out here.

You really wanna stimulate the economy? Let some of us start spending on wedding dresses, rehearsal dinners and reception parties.

 

[wayfarm]

I'm embarressed over this.

California voted to give farm animals increased humane treatment.

They voted to ban same sex marriage of humans.

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[neon_noodle]

Three things to think about:

1. Judicial fiat is the wrong way to obtain gay marriage. It leads to a backlash that you wouldn't get via passing laws about it. People get fired up if they feel unelected judges are making up laws.

Look at CA. If instead of trying to force the issue via the courts, if groups had attempted to change CA marriage laws, it might have eventually passed, as people get more comfortable with gay marriage. Instead, now there's a constitutional amendment, so it will take another ballot measure to change the law. Good luck on that. The mood of the country is trending towards gay marriage acceptance, but forcing the issue by having judges make up the law just leads to set in stone state constitutional amendments.

2. Gay marriage is a bold step for gay rights. 10-20 years ago it would have been a strange if not laughable proposal. These things take time for society to accept, and basically ignore collective human history, as gay marriage has never been officially sanctioned by the state until now. Don't feel that rejection of it, especially if forced on the public by judges, is a sign of bigotry.

3. While the only politically correct image of a bigot is a white man, the fact is that blacks, draw to the pols by the Great Leader, were the deciding factor in the measure. Blacks voted about 3-1 for the change, Hispanics by a little bit, and whites were against it. Further gay issues such as marriage, adoption, etc are going to be in conflict with blacks and other minorities, who now make up the majority of the population in CA. So don't blame some pickup truck driver from Bakersfield - blame a black man in LA. If such a thing is still legal.

 

[none2_none2]

I'm embarressed over this.

California voted to give farm animals increased humane treatment.

They voted to ban same sex marriage of humans.

Doesn't make sense to me.

You don't make any since to me. Your logic is the same reason it took over nine years to pass stiffer laws against animal cruelty... There was a small dog that four young men thought would be cool to dose with fuel, light on fire, and then video tape the event. That was back in 1997, and started the campaign to stiffen the penalties.

Our legislature was heavily populated with pro-life politicians. Part of their logic for not passing such a bill was that as long as an unborn baby could get murdered, it wasn't fair to pass an animal cruelty law. You don't have to be a vegan or a member of PETA to know that such was a very twisted attitude.

If you want people to vote for your causes, then you need to feel compassion for others especially the least of us -- including animals. Otherwise, others will never respect your causes as they will simply see them as selfish demands that are always low on the totem pole.

 

[none2_none2]

Three things to think about:

1. Judicial fiat is the wrong way to obtain gay marriage. It leads to a backlash that you wouldn't get via passing laws about it. People get fired up if they feel unelected judges are making up laws. ...

Granted that attitudes change slowly. However, many times progress has been made via dictates that the people do not want. Even on the topic of civil rights, many of that movement's forward momentum was based on decrees -- not by laws passed by majorities of those affected by them. The Emancipation Proclamation was an order by the president to free slaves in confederate states. Many of the desegregation orders (schools, military, etc) were not things passed by the people, but forced upon them. Many whites may have eventually come around to accepting the civil rights of minorities without these orders. Thus maybe some of the back lash may have been avoided. However, would those changes of attitude have happened soon enough for minority people who felt like they had been held back for too long? Maybe there would have been more violence from even more years of this unresolved tension if these dictates hadn't happened.

Though I did not personally vote for Barrack, I could tell that many black Americans seemed to NEED Obama to win -- to impart the sense that they could aspire to anything they so wish for. When I saw videos of just how touched both Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were by Obama's win, I could tell just how important this was. From a white person's perspective I see them both as Secretaries of State, who were 4th in line to the presidency. Yet somehow they must have felt some glass ceiling that I as an outsider to their struggles wouldn't truly appreciate.

Waiting for honest acceptance from others isn't a bad thing, but as modern society's rate of change accelerates, so do people's expectations for change and acceptance. I don't have the patience that my parents or grandparents had on various things. I'm sure the young people today probably have even less patience than me.

 

[Etoile]

Animal rights and marriage rights are both important. One has nothing to do with the other - Prop 8 didn't pass because Prop 2 passed, or vice versa. It might speak to the nature of Californians that they voted the way they did, but that's all.

The passage of the farm animal bill will have an economic impact on the food-producing industry in California, which has effects beyond that, etc.

And as CJ said, the passing of the marriage rights bill will also have an economic impact on the state.

 

[wayfarm]

You don't make any since to me. Your logic is the same reason it took over nine years to pass stiffer laws against animal cruelty... There was a small dog that four young men thought would be cool to dose with fuel, light on fire, and then video tape the event. That was back in 1997, and started the campaign to stiffen the penalties.

Our legislature was heavily populated with pro-life politicians. Part of their logic for not passing such a bill was that as long as an unborn baby could get murdered, it wasn't fair to pass an animal cruelty law. You don't have to be a vegan or a member of PETA to know that such was a very twisted attitude.

If you want people to vote for your causes, then you need to feel compassion for others especially the least of us -- including animals. Otherwise, others will never respect your causes as they will simply see them as selfish demands that are always low on the totem pole.

I'll not be debating what is more important animals or humans.

If it doesn't make sense to you, it bothers me not.

 

[none2_none2]

I'll not be debating what is more important animals or humans.

If it doesn't make sense to you, it bothers me not.

I didn't expect it would. However, don't expect people to share you ideals and vote the way you think when your ideals are illogical.

 

[John Doe]

I'll not be debating what is more important animals or humans.

Then why did you make the comparison?

 

[Etoile]

Then why did you make the comparison?

Oh, snap!

 

[Netzach]

I would like not to eat crappy tainted poultry. And for everyone to be able to get married. Both.

I'm holding out a little bit. Because this is a constitutional, equal-protection issue. It's going to have to be imposed on people. Obama's administration is going to have to show some support to the people who put it there, too. Even more accountable - the house and senate.

Civil rights should be protected by the people we hire to legislate, every time these go to referendum it's because someone has no balls and wants re-election more than they care what happens.

There's a very stark black and white on this, at LEAST on the civil-union level. I am an adult and should be able to make a contract legal and binding with anyone, period. That they be able to see me if I'm dying, inherit half my stuff, have visitation and custody rights to my child.

 

[lightsaver]

I would like not to eat crappy tainted poultry. And for everyone to be able to get married. Both.

I'm holding out a little bit. Because this is a constitutional, equal-protection issue. It's going to have to be imposed on people. Obama's administration is going to have to show some support to the people who put it there, too. Even more accountable - the house and senate.

Civil rights should be protected by the people we hire to legislate, every time these go to referendum it's because someone has no balls and wants re-election more than they care what happens.

There's a very stark black and white on this, at LEAST on the civil-union level. I am an adult and should be able to make a contract legal and binding with anyone, period. That they be able to see me if I'm dying, inherit half my stuff, have visitation and custody rights to my child.

*Nods*
I am an adult who thinks its crap that if I were married, the mortgage rates I was presented with a few years ago, would be better. At the time, I was told by the bank manager, that if I got married, it would be much more manageable.
Time off from work because my boyfriend is sick whether he exists or not, or may be a woman or not.
Has nothing to lean on in terms of credibility. But if he were my husband, there is a slight chance, depending on the boss, that I could get away with it. Whether it was true or not.
My insurance is more than a woman in my exact demographic, aside from marital status. Again, my agent told me so when I signed up for one 8 yrs. ago.
Why is it society needs a man and a woman to be married so damn much?
Why is that formula still the only one that gets the most recognition?

End of rant.

 

[Etoile]

Hmm, that makes me ponder.

FMLA is a federal law. Does that mean only federally-recognized families get to take FMLA leave? Or is that left up to individual employers? Hmm.

 

[Netzach]

Hmm, that makes me ponder.

FMLA is a federal law. Does that mean only federally-recognized families get to take FMLA leave? Or is that left up to individual employers? Hmm.

Same-sex partners are pretty much screwed on this.

Obama Biden platform is to make it so that anyone can take the time to care for anyone who resides in the same home for over 6 months.

I worry that the perfect may be the enemy of the good on this issue, I already see a lot of GLBT posters on other sites damning Obama for not doing enough, damning the Black and Latino communities for voting this, when the GLBT community FAILED to build coalition and relied on rich shiny white poster children to be its mouthpiece like we usually do.

But I think it's important to expect a degree of accountability. Without making politically disastrous mistakes - it's a fine line, but I'm sick of seeing the queer community under the bus again and again.

 

[none2_none2]

Same-sex partners are pretty much screwed on this.

Obama Biden platform is to make it so that anyone can take the time to care for anyone who resides in the same home for over 6 months.

I worry that the perfect may be the enemy of the good on this issue, I already see a lot of GLBT posters on other sites damning Obama for not doing enough, damning the Black and Latino communities for voting this, when the GLBT community FAILED to build coalition and relied on rich shiny white poster children to be its mouthpiece like we usually do.

But I think it's important to expect a degree of accountability. Without making politically disastrous mistakes - it's a fine line, but I'm sick of seeing the queer community under the bus again and again.

I guess I don't follow you on some of the things you stated. Granted unfortunately, we cannot get rights because it is the right thing to do. Instead, we have to get rights be cause we beg and plead long enough that maybe the majority community (str8) will grant them.

However, I"m not sure what you mean by white poster children as I thought the topic was gay marriage -- not gay adoption. If you meant minority gay couples (adults), I have never heard of of a gay PR stunt that deliberately asked racial/religious/nationality minority gays to NOT participate.

On the other hand, there have been conservative gays who have wanted the more controversial sexual minority gays to tone it down -- drag queens, dikes on bikes, group lovers, etc. I can see both sides of the issue. We already freak out the sensibilities of many straights, so I understand why it is even harder to get others to accept when there are even more controversial things beyond just the mechanics of our sexual preference. Still, back in the days of Stonewall, it wasn't the Wall Street clothed gays that fought for our freedoms, it was the drag queens. So to exclude them would be like having a 4th of July parade and saying that military veterans couldn't be part of the parade. There was a day not too many years ago that I used to listen to a gay radio show by putting it up to my ear with the volume down and all the windows shut. I even apologized for being gay to my boss when he caught me kissing someone -- no sex. (It was a weekend when I came in and worked on my own time, so I wasn't using my employers time or his business for my play hour.) Those things were in the 1990's. Granted a lot of the fear was in my head and because of my CHOICES to not live or work in a gay enclave (or at least friendly) place. I cannot imagine what my attitudes would have been if I had been an adult in the 60's, 50's, or earlier. Those people who fought for our rights were probably braver than we can probably imagine.

For myself, I want gay marriage for the same reasons many blacks wanted Obama president -- to know the possibilities for ANYTHING were open to ALL people (not just the minorities) even if some from that minority group didn't exercise them. I do love my partner, but because of my chosen semi-closet life I would be afraid of backlash if I got married and some county/state court house with such a list got people who hate us out to do us harm.

 

[Netzach]

I guess I don't follow you on some of the things you stated. Granted unfortunately, we cannot get rights because it is the right thing to do. Instead, we have to get rights be cause we beg and plead long enough that maybe the majority community (str8) will grant them.

However, I"m not sure what you mean by white poster children as I thought the topic was gay marriage -- not gay adoption. If you meant minority gay couples (adults), I have never heard of of a gay PR stunt that deliberately asked racial/religious/nationality minority gays to NOT participate.

On the other hand, there have been conservative gays who have wanted the more controversial sexual minority gays to tone it down -- drag queens, dikes on bikes, group lovers, etc. I can see both sides of the issue. We already freak out the sensibilities of many straights, so I understand why it is even harder to get others to accept when there are even more controversial things beyond just the mechanics of our sexual preference. Still, back in the days of Stonewall, it wasn't the Wall Street clothed gays that fought for our freedoms, it was the drag queens. So to exclude them would be like having a 4th of July parade and saying that military veterans couldn't be part of the parade. There was a day not too many years ago that I used to listen to a gay radio show by putting it up to my ear with the volume down and all the windows shut. I even apologized for being gay to my boss when he caught me kissing someone -- no sex. (It was a weekend when I came in and worked on my own time, so I wasn't using my employers time or his business for my play hour.) Those things were in the 1990's. Granted a lot of the fear was in my head and because of my CHOICES to not live or work in a gay enclave (or at least friendly) place. I cannot imagine what my attitudes would have been if I had been an adult in the 60's, 50's, or earlier. Those people who fought for our rights were probably braver than we can probably imagine.

For myself, I want gay marriage for the same reasons many blacks wanted Obama president -- to know the possibilities for ANYTHING were open to ALL people (not just the minorities) even if some from that minority group didn't exercise them. I do love my partner, but because of my chosen semi-closet life I would be afraid of backlash if I got married and some county/state court house with such a list got people who hate us out to do us harm.

I simply mean this: when the face we put in front of everyone is Ellen DeGeneres all the time don't you think other people look at her and go "how is she so oppressed?" When we rely on extremely wealthy white celebrity to the exclusion of people who *need* the kitchen-table benefits of marriage or even civil union to protect their relationships, because they can't just hire cadres of lawyers or move to anywhere. I realize this isn't the only message, but I believe that there's a failure to build bridges here and it's not just the homophobe's fault.

 

[wayfarm]

Then why did you make the comparison?

I made the comparison because I felt it important to state my stance on this issue.

Debating animal rights with someone who throws out an example as above is generally wasted time to me. Having said that, None2, I have read your input, and do appreciate you taking the time to provide your perspective.

I felt that there was some assumptions made here, but again, bothers me not. Biggest waste of time here is Etoiles superficial Snap comment. I guess there is a clique thing going here. John Doe, a post count like that?! You make me nervous. I'll leave it at that.

I don't think I'm the only one to see this as a reflection of stupidity.

Chickens 1 Gays 0
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/chickens_1_gays_0
"Perhaps I am not being clear. The idea that someone could go into a voting booth, consider a chicken, feel compassion and empathy for the chicken, and vote in favor of basic chicken rights; and THEN, immediately afterward, consider a person, feel no compassion or empathy, and vote to strip that person of a basic human right, is ABSURD AND CRIMINAL. That is what I am saying. Priorities, people.

http://www.hotfeeder.com/us/californians_like_chickens_more_than_gay_people_475928

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest7-2008nov07,0,3827549.story
Today, Barrett was alone, holding a sign that read, "Chickens - 1, Gays - 0

 

[Netzach]

Hyperbole is so stupid.

The Chicken thing isn't some feel-good fuzzy any more than gay marriage is about indoctrinating new homos.

Do you want to eat the kind of poultry that comes from a sickly boxed life? I don't. Let's not vilify a good decision with a shitty one, as a carnivore, non-animal-rights-concerned chicken killing maniac, this was a good idea.

Know what I'm reading lately on GLBT blogs? "I'm never doing anything again for black people, fuck 'em they voted against me." I'm not kidding.

Stop the insanity.

If anyone thinks this is going to move us forward, if anyone thinks that the mainstream GLBT community doesn't need to get its own racism dealt with more actively, THIS is a huge problem. Because however people feel that the Democratic party has been treating queer people lately, that's how the rainbow pride mainstream of the GLBT movement has treated gay people of color, historically.

THAT is a problem. THAT needs to be addressed. When communities feel like they are hurting their own children and neighbors not some abstract celeb, they're going to be less inclined to be scared into stripping rights.

 

[Netzach]

If you meant minority gay couples (adults), I have never heard of of a gay PR stunt that deliberately asked racial/religious/nationality minority gays to NOT participate.

Inclusivity isn't just "I didn't say you couldn't show up."