Skip to main content

Every indication is that California's Proposition 8 will be decided by a close margin. The proposition would ban the same-sex marriages that California's Supreme Court said last May are a matter of due process equal protection:

While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.

In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.

Denying due process equal protection is what Proposition 8 is all about. It's not a protection of marriage. It's not a law to block "special interests." It's simply another effort to undermine equal rights. Human rights. No surprise that the Yes on 8 people would lie about that. Nor that they would falsely claim that various politicians, including Barack Obama, support the proposition. He doesn't, as he wrote in a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club last June 29 here.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

The No on 8 campaign has responded to the Yes on 8 lies with this ad:

If you're a Californian or know a Californian who is tempted not to vote because the polls show Obama ahead in the state by 20+ points, don't stay home. Proposition 8 is another reason to remember that every vote counts.

+ + +

Link to Prop. 8 Roundup

You can volunteer here.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:10 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Most expensive race in the country (18+ / 0-)

    Over $70M I heard at last count...

    "Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."-Unknown

    by skywaker9 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:10:56 AM PST

    •  It does make one wonder (22+ / 0-)

      All that money the LDS could be using for, I dunno, feeding hungry children, they're sending it this way instead? What the blazes?

      •  Mormons have shown themselves . (10+ / 0-)

        "I don;t need to , because I don't give a shit who YOU are" MAORCA ***mean people suck***

        by indycam on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, some of them (8+ / 0-)

          are decent folks, but this lot's a bunch of asshats (to broadly generalize).

          •  I useta joke around with the guys walking (6+ / 0-)

            around in their little uniforms , no more .
            Now when I see them , I think of the money spent on this hateful thing . That "house of god" is broken .  

            "I don;t need to , because I don't give a shit who YOU are" MAORCA ***mean people suck***

            by indycam on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama's stand on gay issues (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pender, KentuckyKat, atg, sethtriggs

              I've never really read such a firm stand on gay issues spoken by Obama. He always seems to flip fop a bit, never being completely firm on what he believes regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the FMA.

              For a look at both the pres and vp candidates stand on gay issues, check out what they've said in past interviews/debates:
              http://tv1.com/...

              The one thing in common is that the Republicans seem to be hateful and unwilling to be flexible. Or show any sympathy or understanding towards gay issues.
              --------------------------
              Obama 2008
              “Mad McCain” videos: http://tv1.com/...

              •  Obama has pledged to repeal (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KentuckyKat, sethtriggs

                DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. He's been very consistent about it. As for marriage equality, I honestly believe that, as a constitutional laywer, he trusts the courts to do the right thing and doesn;t think the issue should be legislated. But that last part is only, as I said, my own exrapolation on how he has presented his position so far.

                "Your silence will not protect you" -Audre Lorde

                by LaKathie on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:46:18 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  He also pledged not to vote for a FISA bill (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  4kedtongue, atg

                  that had telecom immunity.  So I hope he follows through on this pledge if he's elected.

                  Also, he can't repeal DOMA.  He can only work to get a new law through Congress and then sign it.

                •  Well, he's said he SUPPORTS a repeal of DOMA. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KentuckyKat

                  We'll see if he'll actually do anything about it. The more I listen to him on gay issues -- particularly his tepid back-against-the-wall rejection of Prop 8, the more I think he'll ignore us as soon as he's in office.

                  I'd love to be proven wrong.

              •  Re: Obama's Stand on Gay Issues (0+ / 0-)

                His lack of 'firm stance' is likely due to what politics has, unfortunately, become.  He likely feels strongly pro-gay rights; however, needless to say, politics has become more and more about ethical and moral issues than what politics truly is about (and people forget this).

                Perhaps he fears that he will drive away voters that have fallen into the conservative's plan of attracting voters through the use of hate and fear.  This tends to appeal to the lesser intelligent voters, and it (unfortunately) works.

                Conservatism is dead (or nearly dead).  I said it.  The only way they are gaining appeal is by attacking groups of people (illegal immigrants, homosexuals, abortionists, single parents), because this is all that they have left, and knowing that the majority of society equates the actions of their party with the failing of the economy, the needless war, the irresponsible spending, (I don't really need to go on here), they continue to appeal to voters only because they support hate-based initiatives, which only further divides and polarizes our nation.

                Republicans create these bills knowing that there still is a large group in America that believes that not all people are created equal, that our ability to go forth in life is unequally distributed to us upon our birth.

                We must support people in our country who are oppressed (such as homosexuals), because this is the only way we can become a "free and equal" nation, where fairness can truly exist—we are, after all, 'all created equal.'  I remember reading that somewhere, but where?

          •  While protesting at the Mormon temple in Oakland, (11+ / 0-)

            a woman sneaked up and whispered that there were many church members inside who were with us in spirit but couldn't make their feelings known.  Several ex-Mormons on the sidewalk concurred that speaking out against the church's position would result in excommunication.  They said our "comrades" were likely contributing to the YesOn8 campaign, too, at the behest of the church, despite their personal beliefs.

            Who the hell would belong to a church like that?  

            (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

            by john07801 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:36:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sigh (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              john07801, Pender, atg

              Fun with institutionalized religion!

            •  People who are emotionally blackmailed (8+ / 0-)

              and intimidated into staying. Excommunication from the Church would mean excommunication from one's entire extended family (in most cases) and many people are not ready to make that sacrifice. LDS church enforces "shunning" in practice, I don't know if the acknowledge it in theory. Those people literally have to choose between their own conscience and losing their entire social support network. That's a sacrifice a lot of people are emotionally unable to make, and understandably so. I think it leads to massive cognitive dissonance, and a lot of well-concealed depression. I hear the use of anti-depressants in LDS communities is astronomical, especially amongst women.

              •  Easy to believe (3+ / 0-)

                Our march attracted a young, gay San Franciscan who had been a rising star in the church, but was excommunicated after a formal trial for his "lack of church leadership," ostensibly.  We spent quite a while talking and it was apparent that the church had been his entire life until the end (fortunately, the "end" seemed to be more about his meeting his partner, now husband.)  He is now a leader of an ex-Mormon-gay organization.  I imagine there's a lot of support needed for those who are "caught" being gay and thrown out.

                (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

                by john07801 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:10:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS TO PROP 8 (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tmo, 714day, john07801, dotalbon

              http://www.sfgate.com/...

              Both Pro and Con.

              By the by, the donations by supporters of Prop 8 are so consistent as to be suspicious: all round denominations of $1,000 or more -- $1,500, $2,000, $2,500, etc.

              Which seemed to support what I'd read: that the Mormon Church had ordered members to donate specific sums of $1,000 or more.

              Donations to No on Prop 8 were more varied, like $50 and $200 and up. Which seemed more as though they came from individuals, of their own free will.

              •  Well, I don't know about that "free will" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                evilstorm, john07801

                part -- a lot of guilt tripping essays on kos pried MY wallet open!    

                Kidding, of course.  But I can't deny that knowing other folks care as passionately as I do about this changed my donation level.  I would have contributed anyway,   but TEN times in the past three weeks?  I doubt it.  

                The power of dailykos!  

                Electing a Republican is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

                by dotalbon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:04:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Thank Moroni for secret ballots! n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              john07801, atg

              My marriage doesn't need protecting, thank you very much.

              by Cali Scribe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:07:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  People who need to be told (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pender

              what to think, how to think, and when to think... and where, too, I suppose.  Fundamentalist religions prey upon the weak, and then manipulate them to act in furtherance their (the religions') power-grabbing agendas.  Kinda like Republicans, now that I think of it...

              Kick apart the structures.

              by ceebee7 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:02:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Proof that not all Mormons are homophobes. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo, Maudlin, high uintas, sethtriggs

          Steve Young, former QB of the SF 49ers, is Mormon. USA Today quotes this e-mail sent to the gay rights group Equality California from Young's wife Barbara on its website this morning:

          "We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop.8. I am very passionate about this issue, and Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for equality. We both love our Church and are grateful that our Church encourages us to vote our conscience."

          Pretty cool.

      •  They spent a lot of time and money ... (12+ / 0-)

        ...to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment decades ago, too.

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:28:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ahahaha. You're funny. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pender, dotalbon

        like the religious right (LDS or another kind, pick your denomination) actually cares about feeding hungry children.  Control, not compassion, is the goal for the right wing fringe.

        •  Actually, LDS does a tremendous amount of charity (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dotalbon

          work, especially in the area of feeding the hungry, both domestically and abroad.  Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because they are (horribly, tragically) wrong on the issue of gay marriage that they are necessarily hypocrites who don't follow through on their beliefs.  (If anything, their intense support of Prop. 8 is proof that they do follow through very strongly on their convictions.)

          I live in California, and have voted against Prop. 8 already.  I resent that these out-of-state forces are trying to amend my state's constitution.  But I can't and won't deny that LDS does a tremendous amount of charity work around the globe.

          You can oppose the issue without making villains of the opposition.

          •  Hypocrite applies, in spite of your loyalties. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deaniac83, Pender, dotalbon, sethtriggs

            Their "convictions" are not correct or a measure of benevolence on all counts.  To act with "Christian" goodness in a few areas while being blinkered by the larger picture and promoting hatred in others is a quintessential description of a hypocrite.

            •  It's not hypocrisy because it's not inconsistent. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sethtriggs

              Their moral code is the same when they state it as it is when they act upon it.  You think they're hypocrites because their value systems don't comport to yours.  They don't jive with mine either, but that doesn't make them hypocrites.

              They also don't see supporting Proposition 8 as being the promotion of hatred, merely the opposition of sin.

              As a resident of this state I'm really frightened that Prop. 8 might pass.  The whole thing leaves my stomach in knots when I think about it too much.  But what we need to do is recognize that the people voting Yes on Prop. 8 are human beings who think they are doing the right thing.  If we write them off as hypocrites who want only control, we can't bring them around to what we see as the moral, just path forward.

              •  You've repeated yourself. (0+ / 0-)

                That is hardly persuasive.
                You reiterate your position by saying
                "They also don't see supporting Proposition 8 as being the promotion of hatred, merely the opposition of sin."
                I suggested their position is not one of goodness, or loving "your brother as you love yourself" (surely you know who reportedly said that).  I'd say that means they don't get to tell me what irrational nonsense they consider to be a sin.
                It IS hateful, in spite of what they SAY it is.
                That is the hypocrisy as I see it.
                I will only deal with logical perspectives and I will persuade no religious zealot who holds mumbo jumbo notions of reality.  I cannot loose someone from the bonds of foolishness with concrete information.  I accept that and it doesn't worry me overly much in the expanding, advancing universe.

          •  No one said LDS doesn't do charity (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Heather in SFBay, 714day, Pender, dotalbon

            I said the religious right doesn't care about hungry children.  They made it very clear that their issues are social, not economic.  I am not accusing the entire LDS Church membership of being bigots, I am saying that those on the right wing fringe do not care about feeding hungry children.  I stand by that.

            •  And that line of thought is unfortunate, because (0+ / 0-)

              it's both totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, and is demonstrably inaccurate.  Do you really think that if you asked a member of the LDS whether they care about hungry children, and they gave you an honest answer, that answer would be no?

              We should be trying to have a dialogue with these people, and bring them around on as many important issues as possible.  Obviously, that's extremely difficult because of entrenched values, but it becomes nearly impossible when people on our side say ridiculous things like "control, not compassion, is the goal for the right wing fringe."

              Don't make them into an evil "other" to whom we can't relate.  Disagree with them on the issues if you'd like (as I do, passionately).  Fight their campaigns  but turning them into bad guys is both intellectually lazy and counterproductive.

              •  with all due respect (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pender, CajunBoyLgb, sethtriggs

                Do you really think that if you asked a member of the LDS whether they care about hungry children, and they gave you an honest answer, that answer would be no?

                If by this question you mean if there are ANY members of the LDS Church that do not care about hungry children, the answer is a resounding yes. And even more believe that stopping two loving people from marrying is a bigger priority than feeding hungry children.  That is DEMONSTRABLY true to anyone who decides to look at the donor rolls for the Yes on 8 campaign.

                We should be trying to have a dialogue with these people, and bring them around on as many important issues as possible.

                Who are "these people", exactly?  Can you define?  If "these people" are people who feel so strongly about disenfranchising me of equal treatment under law that they will demonstrate and donate and hold up hateful signs like "God hates fags" and yell at me "Yes on 8!  Fuck the homos!" when I'm tabling for No on 8, then no, I do NOT want to have a dialogue with "these people."  The religious right wing fringe is not looking for a conversation, they are looking for dominion.

                Don't make them into an evil "other" to whom we can't relate.

                Except they are.  There is nothing in their beliefs that I can relate to.  Again, this isn't about an assault on Mormons as a whole, just those who hate my kind of love so much they would donate to and help out a cause dedicated entirely to making me a second class citizen.

              •  Give me a break. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deaniac83

                Do you really think that if you asked a member of the LDS whether they care about hungry children, and they gave you an honest answer, that answer would be no?

                And do you really think that if you asked a member of the LDS church whether they have expended more time and energy this year on the feeding and care of the hungry or on trying to eliminate my right to marry the man I love, any but a small handful would tell you the former?

                Please. The LDS church has never dedicated itself to ANY single project like it is dedicating itself to this one. Implying some kind of equivalence between their all-out persecution of gays and their token care for the poor is like the quip about Mussolini making the trains run on time.

          •  Ditto with the Catholic Church (0+ / 0-)

            and many Catholics have been able to reconcile their Catholicism with their opposition to political stands taken by their dioceses and parishes by donating directly to groups such as Catholic Charities, St. Vincent de Paul, Sacred Heart Community Services, etc. rather than to their parishes or to the annual Diocesan Appeal.

            My marriage doesn't need protecting, thank you very much.

            by Cali Scribe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  How is it that bigots always seem to have (5+ / 0-)

      a lot of money??!??

    •  MB, it is EQUAL PROTECTION, not DUE PROCESS (9+ / 0-)

      Sorry to shout, but I'm just about out the door and won't have time for later comments.  The issue at hand, explicitly in the section you cite, regards Equal Protection rights, not Due Process rights; in the U.S. Constitution, this would implicate separate clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Due Process may be implicated, I'd assume, as regards cancellation of existing marriages, but the essential issue going forward is one of equal protection: do the laws treat people equally.

      The fact that the California Supreme Court grounded their decision in the state's Equal Protection clause, by the way, is why I think that Prop 8 will be overturned even if it is passed: you can't take away fundamental rights on a majority vote.  Imagine if voters, by a majority vote, tried to amend the Constitution to say that gays and lesbians could not teach in public school.  The Court would hurl the proposition out so hard that it would make a dent in the Capitol Building.  This sort of constitutional revision requires 2/3.

      That said, stopping Prop 8 is critical (1) to avoid a vicious and gratuitous slap in the face at the gay community, and (2) to pre-empt the story line that the Justices were being "activist" in overturning this initiative -- which is what I think the Mormon Church would really like to see.   It's a storyline they like a lot.

      Explaining the truth to voters about the constitutionality of the proposition is a lot harder than serving up lies that serve their prejudices.  Maybe the Justices, afraid of a repeat of what happened to Justice Rose Bird et alia over the death penalty in the 1980s, would uphold the proposition; if so, then they should be recalled.

      Anyway, please do change "Due Process" to "Equal Protection" where applicable.

      I spent the week before Election Day in Nevada and all I got is this great President!

      by Seneca Doane on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:43:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not enough mojo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane, KentuckyKat

        to give you...but YES!

        this is one of my primary, angry complaints:

        you can't take away fundamental rights on a majority vote.  Imagine if voters, by a majority vote, tried to amend the Constitution to say that gays and lesbians could not teach in public school.  The Court would hurl the proposition out so hard that it would make a dent in the Capitol Building.  This sort of constitutional revision requires 2/3.

        i would like to think it would get struck down quickly if passed, but i'm doing what i can to avoid that all together.

        "If I can't change the world, I'll change the world within my reach"
        Mark Erelli & Catie Curtis

        by Heather in SFBay on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:12:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Done. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KentuckyKat

        I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  once again (26+ / 0-)

    thanks for front paging the fundie's expensive little hate campaign.

    let's hope they lose tomorrow, and badly.

    NEWS, n. pl and sing. Formal information formatted for the infernally uninformed. (0.12, -3.33)

    by terrypinder on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:11:38 AM PST

  •  If your not a Californian, (11+ / 0-)

    call someone you know who is and talk some sense into them.

  •  No on 8... (12+ / 0-)

    for my sisters-in-law, who have already had TWO California weddings (they went back and re-tied the knot since their first San Francisco wedding was nullified).

    Don't make them have to get married AGAIN...

    I am droogie6655321! (How about you?)

    by AnnieJo on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:12:26 AM PST

    •  NO ON PROP 8 -- FOR SOMEONE I LOVE (9+ / 0-)

      This may be a CA initiative, but it will have negative legal reprecussions nationally, if passed.

      Even if you don't care one way or another about "gay marriage" this proposition will do real damage to real people.

      For instance, my brother Bill in Florida who has lived with his partner Larry for over 30 years.

      The health insurance Bill gets through his job is relatively good -- although Larry has worked for the same firm for 35 years, it's a small business with a lousy plan.

      If Larry gets sick, his healthcare will be substandard, but his partner of 33 years can't add Larry to his insurance.

      Larry could die as blowback from Prop 8.

      Larry is also 9 years older than Bill, but he can't even think about retirement, because then he'd have no healthcare at all.

      This is just one real world example of how someone I love is being hurt by the bigots who want to pass Prop 8.

      Experts agree that if Prop 8 is passed in California it would cripple gay marriage -- or even civil unions -- for the next decade across the United States.

  •  no on 8!!!! (10+ / 0-)

    this one drives me bonkers... im losing my mind over it. if nothing else.. please help me sleep. Thanks.

  •  Ah, the homosexual agenda: asking to be treated (22+ / 0-)

    like other human beings.  Pretty f'n nefarious, all right.  But certainly far from "special".

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM PST

  •  I voted a big NO on 8 (14+ / 0-)

    days ago.  It drives me crazy seeing all the yes on 8 signs.  I can't believe this discriminatory beast has the foothold it has here, arghhh.

    Hey, Nine-House McCain, I lost my house, can I have one of yours? Like HRC says, not a moment to waste, not a vote to spare.

    by RoCali on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:14:06 AM PST

  •  Not to dampen enthusiasm for defeating... (6+ / 0-)

    ... this abomination, but assuming we do, can we expect the forces of hatred to take another shot at it a few years down the road?

  •  I think Prop 8 will fail. (7+ / 0-)

    Well, I'm cautiously optimistic. Andrew Sullivan has done a great ongoing commentary of the measure.

    I'll see your Joe the Plumber and raise you one Powell the General!

    by OReillysNightmare on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:14:56 AM PST

  •  These wedge issues don't really work (6+ / 0-)

    I don't know why the backers of Prop 8 thought that it would be a good idea to put things like this on the ballot. Karl Rove had the same idea in the past but even he realized that in addition to drawing out your own voters, you draw out people that are against it and that for the most part it cancels out.

    Personally it just looks like this measure will convince voters in the heavily urban areas that might not have thought their California vote for Obama was going to matter much that they really do still need to show up. All the better, really.

    Their best bet was to do so in an off year, when there is neither a Presidential or a Gubernatorial election going on.

    •  They did it because they think they ... (11+ / 0-)

      ...can win, which they have done in 18 states the past four years, in some cases banning civil unions as well.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:23:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is why California is a beachhead (5+ / 0-)

        for both sides.  If they can amend the California constitution to include discrimination, it will be an enormous boost for the fundies. If we can beat them back (decisively I hope) it will energize folks in the other states to get rid of those hateful laws.  

        Electing a Republican is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

        by dotalbon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:25:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  of course it depends on the state (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dotalbon

        Cali probably isn't going to be one of them, thankfully. Its the same strategy I remember being used in Oregon when the OCA tried to prevent crimes against homosexuals from being declared hate crimes. It didn't pass statewide so they went the next year and got it to pass in the counties they could get.

        I'm not so worried because Californians are pretty reliable in voting no on ballot measures on general principle.

    •  Wedge issues help "activate" the base (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eddie L

      I believe that the 'Pubs deploy them to rile up low-info voters who might not be sufficiently enthused by the corporate stooges or the corporate giveaways on the ballot.

      Prop-8 feels different tho'. No strong party endorsements. The heavy participation by the Mormons and Knights of Columbus is truly creepy.

      This one may be a genuine "culture war" battle. There's nothing like an Inquisition to bump up church attendance.

      BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

      by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And it helps them in the downticket races by (0+ / 0-)

      .... getting the so - called "family values" neocon Republicans (gag) dragged out to the polls to vote for yet another Republican who is going to screw them over financially.

      There is an intersection of 2 roads several miles away where I have replaced a Brown for Congress sign at least 6 times.  It's in a very rural area with some multimillion dollar houses overlooking it.   Other people have also been replacing it because sometimes the sign disappears for a few hours and then it magically reappears but shifted around to a slightly different orientation, when I come back on the return trip to replace it.  I originally put it up to counterpoint the McClintock and Prop 8 signs on all the corners, they used to just take the Brown and throw it in a nearby pasture with some trash, but I was fetching it back out and putting it back, so now it just will go missing completely.

      This is what I saw the last time the Brown sign disappeared again.

      Hall of Shame,McClintock

      Hey Fag, steal this sign. My dog and I pissed on it. Sniff your fingers

      I don't steal their crappy Yes On Hate 8 signs.  But I hope the really wealthy people behind the gated driveways up the hill overlooking it don't mind if I post this here this morning to show their taste in political discourse.  

      Said politician named in the sign says marriage is only for the "creation of children"  and that Lincoln said a dog has 4 legs and a tail, but the tail isn't a leg so a homosexual union isn't a marriage no matter what we call it.  He's real keen on those Lincoln quotes.

      Nice, huh?  

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:15:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In that case, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AmericanRiverCanyon

        that piece of paper my spouse and I signed 17 years ago is garbage to McClintock, because we don't have kids and never intended to (even before it turned out to be medically risky for me). What's next -- denying marriage rights to infertile men and women?

        My marriage doesn't need protecting, thank you very much.

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He has to check with Lincoln before he could (0+ / 0-)

          .... answer that one.  Does anyone know where Lincoln stood on the issue of civil rights ?  Oh?  No owning other people and buying and selling them?  

          He'll have his consultants issue a Press Release for you next week. In the meantime, pray to the Deity of his choice that your fertility and youth may be restored so you can fulfill your true destiny. Procreating. Lots. No matter what.

          /end snark, but not by much

          "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

          by AmericanRiverCanyon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  They pretty much had to do it now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanRiverCanyon

      while the court ruling was fresh in people's minds -- if they waited a year or two down the road, same-sex marriage would have been far more entrenched, and led to a messier legal battle down the road as those who were married under the court decision sued to keep their status.

      My marriage doesn't need protecting, thank you very much.

      by Cali Scribe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:17:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am SO angry about this wretched PropH8 (12+ / 0-)

    being foisted on Californaia, and funded largely by out-of-state money ( especially, but not solely, by the LDS).
    Especially perhaps as someone who was born in San Francisco, and spent many happy years there...I truly find it incomprehensible that people do not seem to understand - even yet!- that we all all supposed to have equal rights -period.

  •  Off topic. (11+ / 0-)

    In Arkansas we have a similar fiendish proposition. It bans adoption or foster care for kids by "individuals cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of marriage." It only hurts the kids, dammit!

    What cruel freaks these people are!

  •  I live in Texas (8+ / 0-)

    Where we passed a bullshit law a few years ago. I am ashamed of this. I hope Californians have more sense.

    Who would have thought that when fascism came to America it would be wrapped in a sash, wear a one piece bathing suit and sport high-heel shoes.

    by Ex Con on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM PST

  •  Arnold's Mismanagement and $16 Billion Deficit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon, sethtriggs

    Arnold and the republicans are going farther and farther into "I M A G I N A T I O N"!

    They are entering the world of fiction rather than reality.

    Arnold, please deal with the $16 Billion in deficit spending without going to the public coffer for handouts.

    ...grow out of the debt, trickle down economy, ...it sounds more like fiction.  After 50 years of this republican economic policy, the republican have never increased the economy,  there is zero evidence the Republicans know anything about the economy or business!

    Everything is about the con-job, to steal from the public coffer, to steal from corporations, to rob the country blind, that's the only evidence I find.

    ...other than the lead in the children's toy, melimine infested food products, chemical poisons in imported products sold by republicans!!

    Arnold, you are living and talking about fiction and not reality.  Please keep the fiction on the screen and reality in politics.

  •  We need election day volunteers (11+ / 0-)

    The more volunteers we get, the more precincts we can hit.

    10% of voters are voting the wrong way due to confusion.

    We want to make sure our supporters vote no. We have about 10 seconds before they get to the poll to remind them:

    No on Prop 8
    Its Unfair
    Its Wrong
    It takes away basic rights.
    Vote the entire ballot, not just Barack

    There are many shifts! Give what you can on election day. I'm 53 years old and I'll be pounding the pavement all day.

    I'm not gay, but if I don't stand up for them, who will stand up for me?

    Eqaulity for all.

    Volunteer here

    Let's make tomorrow a historic day for civil rights by electing Obama and granting marriage to all in California.

    California is a battleground state, too. No on Prop 8

    by Mo on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM PST

  •  voted in oakland yesterday (10+ / 0-)

    o for oakland, o for obama, o for oh HELL no on 8.

    Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense. -Mark Twain

    by homo neurotic on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM PST

  •  GOTV for No on 8 (7+ / 0-)

    I'll be a poll captain tomorrow in San Mateo Co for the No on 8 campaign.  We need to spread awareness on this as some people are still justifiably confused-- to many it's counter intuitive that a proposition would be put forth to affirm rather than deny fundamental rights.  If you're in California, or know someone in California who is relatively apolitical, make sure they understand this measure and what the consequences are.  This is a margin-of-error race and we are going to need every last vote!!

  •  Supporters of Proposition are HomoPhobic--PERIOD! (5+ / 0-)

    Proposition 8 in California is a joke.

    Supporters of the proposition are homophobic -- period!

    They use the proposition as a smoke screen to hide their homophobia.

    The bottom line is that the non-passage of Proposition 8 hurts NO ONE! Period! End of Story! Irrefutable.

    If proposition 8 doesn't pass, everyone who is married will still wake up married and will not even know if a gay couple is married or not. Nothing changes.

    And all this crap about education in schools is a fear tactic.

    Tell you what -- GET YOUR OWN FUCKING MARRIAGES AND FAMILIES IN ORDER AND STOP THE 50% DIVORCE RATE OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES!!!

    Stay out of the business of other people.

    You know what I find so hypocritical. Republicans talk about less government in people's life -- except of course if government involvement serves their social agenda.

    •  It's not a joke, It could very well pass. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pender, dotalbon

      Don't complain... DO something!

      BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

      by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Yes folks come in several flavors (0+ / 0-)

      Not a day goes by without a letter the SF Chronicle from some couple claiming that their support for Prop 8 isn't based on homophobia (and of course that they have LGBT friends who they dearly love and have no intention of hurting).

      These folks can be broken down into three groups:

      1. They're carefully and consciously repeating a well-rehearsed lie.
      1. They are confused about the difference between religious and civil marriage, believe that teaching kids that same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage are equivalent would be a bad thing because kids need to be shielded from reality, believe that their church's tax exempt status would be subject to revocation if it refused to solemnize a same sex marriage or some combination or variation on these themes.
      1. They are speaking from an unexamined prejudice. Unconsciously they really do believe that some people are better than others. They'd never say such a thing because they know how wrong it sounds, but despite their best efforts, at bottom that's how they actually feel.

      Only the first group is malicious. The other two groups actually believe they aren't being hateful and in fact their reaction to being called homophobic is based on their notion that, to be prejudiced is always the same as being malicious.

  •  Our Rights!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alkalinesky, dotalbon, KentuckyKat

    Stop the conservatives from taking anymore rights away from the American people! Vote No on Prop. 8.

  •  8/hate is (3+ / 0-)

    anti egalitarianism .
    And the people who vote for 8/hate are anti peace love and understanding .

    "I don;t need to , because I don't give a shit who YOU are" MAORCA ***mean people suck***

    by indycam on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM PST

  •  I spent yesterday in west Oakland... (11+ / 0-)

    ...flyering in a low income African American community, with a flyer clarifying Obama's opposition to Prop. 8. I was also putting down a California Democratic Party flyer for Obama and recommendations on state measures.

    The reception was friendly, with people excited about Obama. One guy apologized to my friend for voting yes on 8.

    As an aside, I was taken aback by how many houses were in foreclosure.  I saw one recently vacated house with a "Public Auction" sign in front of the house, and Obama stickers covering the house. I hoped, too, that change comes soon.

    •  Congratulations (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you for canvassing in west Oakland. Did you go there as part of an official campaign canvassing assignment or did you go there on your own?

      A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

      by tmo on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:23:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No on 8 is going to win. (11+ / 0-)

    They've stepped up the ad campaign and are hammering home the message. The Clinton robocall is also working very well.  My parents were yes on 8 until yesterday and they flipped to no after discussing it with some friends of theirs.  That discussion was prompted by the Clinton robocall that my parents received yesterday morning.

    The swing vote on this proposition comes from working class and religious democrats who are going to vote for Obama but have doubts about Prop 8.  We'll get enough votes to defeat this proposition.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:23:51 AM PST

    •  It could DEFINITELY go either way. (0+ / 0-)

      The polls have it neck and neck, and there are many x-factors involved with polling a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage. This is no time to be declaring victory.

      •  It's a prediction not a declaration. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pender

        Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

        by khyber900 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, wasn't meant to be a rebuke. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm just so nervous about this damn thing, and terrified that

          -Democrats in CA won't turn out

          -Black voters (unfortunately in favor of 8 on the aggregate) will turn out disproportionately

          - The Mormons and religious nutcases will drive the Yes-on-8 crowd to have higher engagement than the No crowd, further influencing turnout

          -The polling might overstate the opposition to 8 due to the empirically arguable existence of a sort of Bradley effect for gay rights

          Etc. I have never cared about any political race even half as much I do about Prop 8. I'm a nervous wreck.

  •  Nice ad, lets hope it works. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alkalinesky, dotalbon
  •  Folks from CT need to (7+ / 0-)

    urge friends and family to vote "No" on the Constitutional Convention measure.  It is a back door attempt to undermine our recent State Supreme Court decision which found banning gay marriage is unconstitutional under our State Constitution.

    I'm afraid I have family who are extremely conservative Catholics in CA.  I didn't ask my mother how she voted -- but at least I know my frigging brother never votes.

  •  The actual language of Prop. 8 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crisis Corps Volunteer, dotalbon

    SECTION I. Title

    This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

    SECTION 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

    Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

    I always thought that the easiest way to resolve this problem, and to neutralize the arguments of the proponents of the measure, was for the State to change the name of the marriage license to "Civil Union Certificate".  Then, the State could recognize all unions of loving couples and you could call your ceremony whatever you wanted to call it.  Rather than favor one group with a title, favor none.  Who could complain then?  

    Nah, that would be too easy.

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM PST

    •  Really? Do you have a problem with sharing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpamNunn, Pender

      "marriage" equally with everybody? Your attitude sounds way too much like the dog in the manger.

      •  It sounded like he/she was (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dotalbon, KentuckyKat

        speaking in terms of pragmatism, and not purism. Yeah, it would be great if we could shut the haters up. But we won't. Believe me, I know what happens to "purists" on this site. Everyone bows to the almighty compromise.

        The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

        by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:35:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, I don't. I have stood up for a gay couple at (3+ / 0-)

        their wedding, but if you treat everyone equally, and take away the red flag in front of the bull term "marriage" when it comes to the State recognizing a union, they have no argument left except to say that same sex couples are "less equal" and not entitled to solemnize their union in the eyes of the State.  That argument will not pass Constitutional muster.   It's a strategy to take the issue away.  I say this as an observant Catholic.  Right or wrong (and I think they are wrong), I know what sets a lot of my pew mates off.    

        Unless, of course, it's all about being able to use the terms "marriage".   I don't see that as being the important battle.  Equality is the important battle.

        Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

        by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:37:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  they don't have any arguments now (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfbob, Pender, dotalbon

          but it hasn't stopped them. Lack of arguments doesn't stop them. They can argument from complete nonsense out of complete faith that they are right.

        •  Please. That would not be any easier, politically (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo, socalmonk

          It's hard enough to get voters to extend the word marriage to same-sex couples. People are not going to give up the word marriage altogether. Yours is a point made very frequently, but it's politically totally unrealistic -- to say nothing of the way it implies that we'd rather have no marriage at all than have to share it with the gays. Fuck that.

    •  that would be spun as (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, dotalbon, TichMarie

      wanting to "eliminate traditional marriage"--that liberals really did want to destroy the institution of marriage.

      It would then be very easy for the anti-gay-marriage folks to take the high ground and claim that they're only defending the institution of "traditional marriage" against the liberals' attacks. They might even be able to get Prop 8, or something like it, passed.

      Backfire to the max.

    •  Because most "straight" Californians would (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotalbon, KentuckyKat, TichMarie

      ...object to having to give up "marriage." That being so, why should the LGBT community have to?

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, but they wouldn't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpamNunn, dotalbon

        have to give up "marriage", that is. They could call it whatever they like. So, the only people objecting to "giving up marriage" would be objecting to not having the word codified as the only legitimate union - and largely, only between and man and a woman.

        The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

        by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:52:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

          And by "they", I meant straight people

          The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

          by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. And those objectors would be in the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotusmaglite, TichMarie

          ...majority. I'd personally be happy if we gave up state-sanctioned unions altogether. But we won't. And people will not allow the term "marriage" to be done away with in that state sanctioning. That being so, let's put the word on everybody's state-sanctioned union regardless of their sexual orientation.

          I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:57:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sadly (0+ / 0-)

            you're probably right. Either solution, IMHO, would work; it's just a matter of which solution would make into law. But in the meantime, I hope Californians know this crap prop's dick in the dirt. Shamefully, my fellow Wisconsinites did not when a similar "proposition" wound up on our ballots.

            The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

            by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is an issue where it is counterproductive (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotusmaglite

            for 51% of the electorate to be able to force the other 49% to kow tow to their own version of political or moral correctness.   Alas, face saving compromise in the interest of harmony is a lost art.  

            Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

            by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:12:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotusmaglite

          Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

          by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:01:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And while (0+ / 0-)

            we see eye to eye on this, I do think that Meteor Blades has a point: Even that idea would be too much for the public. This argument speaks to a much larger group which - while not overtly homophobic - have too much invested in their hetero-centrist world to stomach such a change...

            The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

            by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:04:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As to what lotusmaglite said. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotusmaglite

            Hell, you might not even have to change the law.   The head of the CA Dept. of Health could probably change the name of the document.  

            Hey, where do I get my "Spousal Unit Acknowledgement and Registration Certificate"?

            Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

            by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mmmmm... sneaky. I like it n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SpamNunn

              The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

              by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, it's kind of like the clause I put in my (0+ / 0-)

                Release forms:

                It is specifically agreed by and between the Parties that nothing in this Reciprocal Release shall be deemed to be or construed to constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing of any kind by any Party or its agents.

                Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

                by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Really? My church gave me a marriage certificate (0+ / 0-)

        So did the State of New Jersey.  It wasn't important to either of us to have that piece of paper, except to document the fact that we had received the Sacrament of Marriage and to be able to be sure that we had the full panoply of property rights available to both of us under the laws of this State.   That's not even an issue now, here in New Jersey, as we have Civil Unions.  I could care less what anyone calls the bond I have with my wife.  Apparently, that is not the case with everybody.    

        For many, I suspect that this battle is more about being able to compel their right to use the term "marriage", rather than about obtaining equality under the law.   That's why this battle is so ugly, as there is no room for compromise.  Hence, my suggestion.

        Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

        by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:00:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But don't you think (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SpamNunn

          they should have that right? Were I gay, I'd be pretty honked about so much anger and hate channeled through one little word. Maybe I'm just blowing smoke, here, but it seems to me that the word "marriage" has been a safe way for anti-gay people to express their disdain and hate for an entire section of our population. "Marriage" is a symbol of their hate. I would fight the word, too. In fact, I do, in my own way. I agreed with you earlier about neutering the word so the haters can't hide behind it, but if my above assumptions are correct, it is nearly as important to take the word away from the haters as it is to gain the right(s) involved.

          The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

          by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. Marriage is a word that, until the 20th (0+ / 0-)

            Century, had general usage as defining a union, usually religious, between a man and a woman.  To many, same sex marriages are still a foreign and irreligious concept.  That's changing, with the advent of civil unions and same sex marriage, but it's not changing fast enough for some.   Thus, if the State stops using that historic anachronism to describe the document that they issue to sanction those unions, and leaves people alone to define their own unions by issuing a gender and religion neutral document to acknowledge those unions, what's wrong with that?  

            Like I said, this battle is more about power than anything else.  It should be about love. Sad, really.  

            Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

            by SpamNunn on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm Not So Sure... (0+ / 0-)

              "Marriage" in the past usually concerned the union of two FAMILIES through a socially-recognized union of a son and daughter. It was a consolidation of two families' WEALTH and PROPERTY.

              It was convenient to recognize the union in church, since that was the place where most of the community could be gotten into one place. But the main goal was that wealth and property consolidation.

              Poor people generally made do back in that time with common-law marriages, when that option was available.

              Marriage for love was romanticized in Shakespeare's time, but really only was the "norm" starting around the time of Queen Victoria. And marriage as a religious sacrament is recent as well-- but before Victorian times.

              Don't forget: "Traditional" marriage throughout most of the Old Testament was polygamous in nature. Traditions fall by the wayside. And once people have married same-sex couples in their circle of friends, their objections fall away pretty quickly.

              Unless they're complete dolts.

              NO on CA Prop 8! NO on FL Amendment 2! NO on AZ Prop 102!!

              Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we CAN. Because we MUST. NO ON PROP 8!! No on Hate. No on 8!

              by CajunBoyLgb on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  What That Says About the Calif Electorate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon, KentuckyKat

    If Obama is leading in Calif by 60% to 36%,
    And Prop 8 is 49% Against, 44% For,

    Then that suggests that about 10% of the Calif electorate is vulnerable to "Values Issues" campaigning.

  •  Amend the constitution to STRP rights? SCARY. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon, KentuckyKat, Eddie L

    When the dust is settled, 8 will go down.  Both the independent and Democratic straight ticket voter guide has 8 marked as NO.  

    "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

    by livingminimal on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:31:44 AM PST

  •  Already called the 3 people I know in CA (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, wclathe, LuvSet, dotalbon

    Not that it mattered that much; I know these people - they would not sit at home and let this shit pass...

    The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there. - Yasutani Roshi

    by lotusmaglite on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:32:12 AM PST

  •  why isn't Florida's Amendment two (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimberley, dotalbon, sethtriggs

    getting the same attention as California's prop. 8?
    The creeps here in Florida need 60% plus one to pass it, and they are close according to the last Mason-Dixon poll.

     title=

    "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

    by Wisdumb on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:32:47 AM PST

    •  Less attention because gay marriage ... (12+ / 0-)

      ...is already banned in Florida. Prop. 2 just makes it tougher to unban it. That's not good, of course, but in California, Prop. 8 would TAKE AWAY a right conferred in the most far-reaching court case on the subject so far, one decided on the basis of due process.

      I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:41:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AmericanRiverCanyon, dotalbon

        for the the explanation. And it makes some sense. It just angers me to see them get any of their hate amendments passed.

        "Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" Curt Siodmak

        by Wisdumb on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Remember when they tried this in Colorado? (0+ / 0-)

        It had to be overturned on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and a new requirement for all proposed ballot measures to be written in clear language had to be enacted, so that a "yes" vote clearly approves of the measure and a "no" vote clearly rejects it.

        I'm so sick of finding these acts of aggression on our ballots. What a despicable pastime the so-called 'moral majority' has.

  •  How can anyone support this anti-Freedom act. (4+ / 0-)

    All adults MUST have complete control over themselves,what goes on,goes in and goes out of someone's body and mind is their business.
     Until this is true we are not a free country.
     We are not a free country.

    There is nothing Mainstream about the Corporate media.

    by drblack on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:33:10 AM PST

  •  we got married (13+ / 0-)

    My partner (of 13 years) & I got married yesterday at the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists surrounded by family & friends (some of whom had flown in from Seattle or driven from Nevada). They love us. This is what love is.

    Please remember to choose love when you mark your ballot and vote No on Prop 8.

  •  I see the Yes on 8 Signs everywhere (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drblack, Pender, dotalbon, CajunBoyLgb

    and my blood boils.  This is such a prehistoric proposition I cannot believe folks are being fooled into voting for it.

    Fucking Mormon leadership.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

    by Gangster Octopus on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:16 AM PST

  •  Why Have the Kids Hold Signs? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico, dotalbon, CajunBoyLgb
    They don't want kids to know anything about gay marriage so they put them on street corners with Yes on 8 signs.  I guess that makes sense...
    Of course the kids wouldn't know anything about what Prop 8 (or any other prop) is about unless their parents informed them.
  •  Tomorrow I donate my day (6+ / 0-)

    I've donated thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to the NO on 8 campaign...

    tomororrow I am GOTV to keep our marriage.

    Please help us!

    Daddy, Papa & Me: Two dads, a daughter & the politics of it all.

    by wclathe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:48 AM PST

    •  Me too. (0+ / 0-)

      I've donated thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to the NO on 8 campaign...

      tomororrow I am GOTV to keep our marriage.

      Same here.

      Well, not the "keep our marriage" part, since I'm a straight guy and will keep my marriage either way, but I've also donated thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to No on 8, and will be doing GOTV all day tomorrow as well.

      See you out there,

      Patrick Meighan
      Culver City, CA

  •  We need to destroy this as an issue (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vacuumslayer, dotalbon, LaKathie, Eddie L

    To many on the right, this is their last stand-- it's more important to them than the presidential election.  And that extends to many outside of California.  We need to exterminate homophobia as a defining issue that has any lifeblood to it.  I truly believe we can not only preserve and enforce a fundamental right, but that this is a force for changing the way politics works moving forward.

    Did I forget to say how FIRED UP I am over this issue?

  •  For the record. (8+ / 0-)

    As a PFLAG parent, I haven't appreciated being told to shut up about the rights of my daughter and her partner in California.  In fact, I have been fairly disgusted.

  •  Anti-Prop 8 Vigil in Salt Lake City (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wclathe, pico, dotalbon, Eddie L
  •  My Favorite No on 8 video (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimberley, MahFellaMerkins, pico, dotalbon

    Adopt a homeless cat and have a friend for life

    by dave1042 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:44:55 AM PST

  •  I would say this is an assault on civil rights (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon

    not human rights.  

    (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

    by dancewater on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM PST

    •  Care to explain the distinction? nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  human rights violations (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shann

        involve physical injury or death to a person or group, civil rights violations are when routine events are denied to a person or group without justification.

        Lynching someone is a human rights violations, as is torture.  Denying them the vote, right to marry, right to study at a public school, right to live in a neighborhood of their choice is a civil rights violation.  

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

        by dancewater on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:13:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mormons suffered discrimination (6+ / 0-)

    in their history.  I don't understand how they can now stand in support of discrimination.  

    Until 1982, Idaho's Constitution prohibited Mormons from voting, serving as jurors or holding office.  The people of Idaho had to vote to amend this out of our Constitution.  There were tens of thousands of votes against the amendment.  You'd think the Mormons would remember how that stung, and think twice about using a state Constitution to marginalize another minority.  

    Now they support a Constitutional amendment to deprive others of basic equality.

    What the fuck are they thinking?

    My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM PST

    •  They aren't, they're just reacting to what they (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martydd

      ... have been told to do.  Obedience.

      uh huh, a bit of convenient "amnesia" there.

      The hierarchy was thinking that this would give McCain and Romney the state of California.  Whoopsie.

      "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

      by AmericanRiverCanyon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  With all due respect to any evangelicals here (5+ / 0-)

    I think only when you are able to understand how someone can dedicate their life to something they cannot prove, can you begin to understand the mentality of human beings obsessed with what other human beings do in the bedroom or at the altar.  If I ever get to that point, I'll kill myself for the good of humanity.  Every single person voting to ban gay marriage is an obsessed psycopath with a tiny little brain.  There I said it.

    •  Not everybody, no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanRiverCanyon

      There are decent people (I happen to know one) who've had it drummed into their heads by their ministers that gay marriage is anti-Bible.  A lot of them are African-American (and yes, of all people they should know better).

      Undoubtedly these people know gays themselves but don't realize it, because in the AA community (and the Hispanic community as well) the penalties for coming out are much more severe than among Anglos.  

      I save my vitriol for the leaders of churches who use the Bible to bludgeon, punish and spread the message of bigotry.  They have always been with us, and America can't be truly free until their influence disappears.  

      Electing a Republican is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

      by dotalbon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:54:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  All the "proof" they need is in "The Good Book" (0+ / 0-)

      ...or whatever their preacher says is in the bible.

      The Fundamentalist mind does not trust human reason and judgement. That's what got A & E tossed out of the Garden, remember? For them, there is only one source of truth: Written scripture. period.

      I have neighbors who are bright, accomplished people - one a doctor, the other a lawyer. Not psychopaths. No tiny brains. They both have YES-8 yard signs out (and McCain/Palin too).

      They really believe that all they are doing is "protecting marriage". They feel that THEY are the victims, of progress run amok, just they way white segregationists used to feel.

      We need to talk to these people, listen to them, and really figure them out if we are to stop their misguided efforts.

      BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

      by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Close?!? How is it possible that this piece of (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimberley, Pender, dotalbon, KentuckyKat

    offal will have a close margin?  This is California; can't we send the bigots to the Mug Shot in Wasilla?

  •  Are people who hate gays and call (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotalbon, LRLine

    abortion murder ever going to die off? They really tire me out. It's like they WON'T GO AWAY. Somebody hand me a can of Raid. Geez.

    I'm just here to give DK hipster cred. "Vote" McCain

    by vacuumslayer on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:48:21 AM PST

    •  I am handing you a can of Raid. (3+ / 0-)

      I feel exactly the same way. It's 2008. These "definitions" wear me out. I'm not gay, in fact there are days when I wonder if I even remember what sex was (I'm 59), and I don't give a flip if two people are purple with green stripes. If they love and cherish each other they should be allowed to be married, with ceremony, legal stuff, and the whole nine yards.

      I don't buy into precast definitions of an institution that has its roots in somebody's wild idea of a shared belief system, not at all. It's not far to people who identify "gay" or whatever you want to call what their DNA/hypothalamus/nurture/nature (insert reason here) to exclude them from something they want, something wonderful, to help celebrate the joy of who they are.

      As for the abortion = murder crowd, I'm pro-abortion. To me it's a medical procedure that should happen in safe surroundings if its going to happen, and again, there is no proof that the "soul" hits the fetal cells at the moment of conception or any other time. That vehicle grows over nine months, and will neurologically begin to display characteristics of what that physicality will be like outside the womb sure enough, but that doesn't mean it's conscious...whatever "conscious" means.

      I'm so tired of living in fairy tales, and seeing people hurt because of them.

      (sorry for the rant, but today I'm remembering my late brother, who died in 1989 of AIDs. He was gay, and gave the world the benefit of his great voice, singing with the Chicago Symphony, and running a singing telegram service there. He was a magnificent talent, a countertenor of no small skill, a major in Opera Theatre, and I miss him terribly.)

      Expressions of the form "a=b" are mere representational devices. They state nothing about the meanings of signs "a" and "b".

      by LRLine on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:58:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My Uncle Art--whom I never got to meet--died (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LRLine

        of AIDS.

        Your reply is so spot-on. I just don't think I could agree more with every word of it.

        I really think people are going to have to start looking at the world through more adult, less absolutist eyes. Until everyone evolves a bit I guess we will have to bear these hateful, judgemental, intolerant, willfully ignorant creatures.

        I'm just here to give DK hipster cred. "Vote" McCain

        by vacuumslayer on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Protection" of matrinomial beds (0+ / 0-)

    Gay people should not be allowed to sleep in matrimonial beds because the very name implies that...

    Barack the Blessed, McCain the Depressed

    by vanguardia on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM PST

  •  Simple solution (0+ / 0-)

    Have all State issued 'marriage contracts' renamed to 'civil union contracts' regardless of sexual orientation.

    Leave the word "marriage" to refer to the religious sacrament, and allow individual churches to confer this sacrament on those who qualify per their religious tenets.

    We're all equal and happy again.

    "Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies."

    by Dread972 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:50:00 AM PST

    •  We went through this debate four years ago (2+ / 0-)

      The Fundies want to hold the exclusive trademark on Marriage<SMALL>TM</SMALL>
      ... and they want the state to enforce it for them.

      This is going to be a long battle.

      BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

      by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WRONG (5+ / 0-)

      Straights won't go for it.

      How about all the people who DON'T get married in churches?

      And who's going to do the global "Find/Replace" on hundreds of thousands of lines of state (and, eventually, Federal) laws and tax code?

      This would be a surefire way to pass Prop 8.

      Better: Hammer into people's heads that CIVIL marriage is what we're talking about here. Religious marriage is fun, but has NO legal standing in the State unless the officiant has been granted notary duties vis-à-vis marriage paperwork BY THE STATE. The STATE governs the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage; the CHURCH can prattle on about what is OK or not in the marriages they perform, but they have NOTHING to say in the matter of weddings NOT performed within their walls. After all, are Mormons barging into synagogues, demanding the rabbi marry them?!

      Let's get real here: This is all about discrimination against homosexuals. If this passes, the Right Wing will feel free to enshrine MORE discrimination into the Constitution. Like, say, removing employment protections. Or, say, recriminalizing homosexuality. Which is the final goal of many Fundamentalists.

      NO on CA Prop 8! NO on FL Amendment 2! NO on AZ Prop 102!!

      Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we CAN. Because we MUST. NO ON PROP 8!! No on Hate. No on 8!

      by CajunBoyLgb on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)

        Straights won't go for it.

        I'm straight and one of those Christians, and I'm in favor of it. :)

        How about all the people who DON'T get married in churches?

        As it stands now, everyone has to fill out a contract with the State that stands separately from the ceremony.

        All I'm suggesting is we finish that divide. The State issues civil union contracts to all couples (regardless of orientation/preference/whatever) that want the legal rights the State gives to married couples now.

        What you do from that point is up to you. Whether you want a secular commemoration ceremony or you want to find a church that will unite you and your partner before God in holy marriage is your choice (and the choice of the church in question.)

        "Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies."

        by Dread972 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I've called 10 friends in California (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pender, m4gill4, TichMarie

    to remind them that they MUST vote no matter what, even if McCain or Obama pull a Jimmy Carter (conceding while the polls are still open in the West).

    The Supreme Court is the real prize.

    by Golani on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM PST

  •  In my West Hollywood neighborhood (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m4gill4

    You can't go ten feet without seeing a No on 8 bumper sticker or lawn sign. Hopefully, we can run up the score in LA and SF areas, since I think places like OC and San Diego and the farm lands around Fresno/Bakersfield will go big on the Yes side. The $100,000 each that Brad Pitt, Spielberg, and Steve Jobs donated to the No cause has helped greatly in opening offices and getting organized.

  •  I'll admit it (0+ / 0-)
    My district is quite safe so if it weren't for prop 8, I probably would've skipped voting.

    Ironic, in a way, that for once conservatives are increasing turnout.

  •  Maybe opponents should have referred to it... (0+ / 0-)

    as Proposition Hate.  Because that's all it's about - hating and fearing gay people and using that as justification to prevent them from having equal rights.

    •  It simply does not resonate... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pender

      The Pro-8 appeals appear to be measured and reasonable - despite being full of lies. "Bashing" them as "haters" would have backfired badly among the undecideds.

      The hate/fear is there alright... but it's deeply buried and hard to reach. The Pro-8s really do thinkg of themselves as good people, doing a good thing.

      BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

      by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you have Jewish friends/family in CA show them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pender, No Credentials

    this video

    No person with a heart can vote for this proposition after watching it. (Too bad there are too many heartless people...)

  •  guerilla visability (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico, AmericanRiverCanyon, Pender

    hung out on a corner in San Mateo saturday with a bunch of soggy musicians friends singing in peace and love against hate...and had some happiness in my time of anxiety and despair.

    couldn't get to any "official" activities yesterday, but couldn't NOT do anything.  so ended up doing some of my own visibility efforts here in my own town...which ended up being a lot harder than i thought it would be.

    standing on a corner with a crowd waiving signs is a lot easier than walking up and down the streets of downtown (lots of pedestrians) looking people in the eyes, making sure customers in all the stores & restaurants with window seating could read, or standing on the corner alone with my own sign.

    don't know if it can really help the campaign, but it helped me.

    "If I can't change the world, I'll change the world within my reach"
    Mark Erelli & Catie Curtis

    by Heather in SFBay on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM PST

  •  Someone from CA please answer this for me (0+ / 0-)

    I'm from MN.  Does the Governator seem to be a better fit in the Dem party or GOP?  See seems progressive on some social issues.  
    \
    I've been out of touch with CA politics since he got into office.  

    •  Ahnold is a social liberal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanRiverCanyon

      Which makes sense with all the crap he's done over the years. But a fiscal conservative. He hates unions (ironic, since he belongs to 3 of them) and taxes, even though he's planning to raise them after the election.

      But every time I think he could be an independent, he freaking shows up in Ohio to shill for Bush-McCain with his "girly man" taunts. Uh, Arnold, that "girly  man" thing is so 1995.

  •  On my way to work in Sac this morning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanRiverCanyon
    I drove past 'Yes on 8' groups at 3 different locations.  Including kids...why weren't they in school?!  I gave them the thumb down each time. I did get some small satisfaction watching the CHP escort a group off the freeway overpass.
  •  When I lived in CA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanRiverCanyon

    a teacher, a lawyer teaching business law said Just vote No on all props in CA.

  •  Yeah... Arnie is a Hybrid (0+ / 0-)

    He was elected during the recall of the former Governor, Gray Davis, whose only crime was to go after Enron an the other energy traders who ripped off the state for 9 billion dollars in the 2001 electricity "crisis".

    Arnie prevented that from ever happening. Mission Accomplished.

    His other mission was to morph is fading acting career into a political gig. So, he's been a fiscal conservative and social/environmental liberal.

    You have to be that kind of schizo to get elected here. It's insane that our recall rules permit the election of a new governor - rather than just handing the job to the Lieutenant Gov - it's a recipe for coupe-de-ta by paid signature gatherers!

    BushCheney Inc. - They lied to me, they lied to you, they lied to our troops.

    by jjohnjj on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:40:48 AM PST

  •  "YES on 8" is spamming with Google AdSense today (0+ / 0-)

    You may be treated to many "YES on 8" banner ads today on a number of different websites.

    They are being pushed by Google's "AdSense" service.

    If you see one, feel free to contact the site administrator to request that they be removed. It takes an IT person about 30 seconds to block them at their end.

    "Some people pay for what others pay to avoid." -- Howard Devoto

    by droopyd on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM PST

  •  Can someone please explain to me how (0+ / 0-)

    this doesn't get overturned by the Supreme Court of CA?  

    Someone once explained to me that the CA State Constitution can only be amended in this manner for legislative issues.  If same-sex marriage is a human rights issue then it seems that the courts will just overturn this amendment once it is protested in court with a lawsuit.  The thing that worries me is that if this was the case, it seems that the lawsuits which attempted to take this amendment off the ballot should have succeeded.

    Does anyone here know the legality of this amendment?

  •  Let the queers marry... (0+ / 0-)

    I am voting NO on 8 tomorrow, because, hey, if the rump rangers want to marry, let them. they can go through all of the heartache and drama (as well as joy and happiness) like us normal folks.

    http://tufdaawg.wordpress.com

    by tufdaawg on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM PST

  •  This site drips with venom (0+ / 0-)

    I've read through about half the comments on this page and there appears to be some common sentiments:
    hate Republicans
    hate Mormons
    hate Prop 8 supporters
    hate Mormon leadership
    hate Catholic church
    hate heterosexuals
    hate traditional families
    I don't even know where to begin to correct the falsehoods, unsubstantiated "facts", rumors, and illogically resentful sentiments that this crowd spews out on a daily basis.
    You get yourself all worked up into a frenzy to the point of jettisonning all logical and reasonable discussion.  I should have been a doctor to treat all the budding ulcers that will have to be addressed by members of this community.

    I voted Yes on 8 and would do it again and again if I were like many liberals whose actions aren't confined by any hint of a conscience.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site