Skip to main content

Yes, I am ELATED about Obama!  

However, Californians have chosen to take aways rights from us, but animals get more protection.............

UPDATE from the comments: I don't mean to take a "win from the animals" at all, and I apologize if my title was taken that way.  The absurdity that the seriousness of both of these two Propositions was not upheld by enough in California is really disturbing.

(For those not in California: Proposition 2 gives more protection to feed animals and is passing, but Proposition 8 which removes the rights for gay people to marry is passing too...)

I am TIRED of this double standard.  It's very simple, do we really believe in "liberty and justice for ALL"?  We still have a very long way to go to equality.

My condolences to our fellow LGBT community in Arizona on Proposition 102 as well.  

We will refuse to give up our marriage license, and fight it in court as far as we have to.

Sorry for the bummer diary on a very positive night.  It's tough to be overly happy when we've just had rights taken away.  Bittersweet is a good word, and we'll keep on fighting.  I'm just really tired of fighting.  

Originally posted to Savvy813 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:38 PM PST.

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

  •  This was a big buzzkill on my night (15+ / 0-)

    Obama says we have a steep climb and propositions like this passing proves he is right.

    Get free Dove Peace magnets here. No act of peace is ever wasted.

    by peacepositivemike on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM PST

  •  Taking a win away from animals... (13+ / 0-)

    ...won't help our cause. I'm still happy people voted to protect animals.

    (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH JAIL HAGUE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯) It's not too late!

    by nehark on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:42:42 PM PST

    •  same here. (6+ / 0-)

      by GlowNZ on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:43:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I know (7+ / 0-)

      That wasn't my point, just emphasizing the absurdness of it all

      No one should be a politician if they've never lived paycheck to paycheck.

      by Savvy813 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:44:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know the point you were trying to make... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but I feel very strongly that it's a bad comparison. Cruelty to animals is unacceptable regardless of how me and my partner are treated. Let's just continue to try to work our asses off for our rights, our environment and thoughtful treatment of all sentient beings on earth.

        I understood your point. I really did, but I hate the comparison. Whenever animals score a little protection I rejoice. They are truly the innocents of the world. I hate the comparison that is always made between humans and animals. Of course we assume that humans are much more important and worthy of consideration. I'm just not sure I share that view. It's one planet. Everything dependent on everything else. Defeating cruelty in the world will bring us to true enligtenment and stupid things like Prop 8 won't even be considered.

        We'll get there. We will.

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH JAIL HAGUE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯) It's not too late!

        by nehark on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:33:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't read that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shiobhan, alkalinesky, GlowNZ, de porres

      in the diarist's comment.  No win was taken away, but a pretty good point was made.

      •  The implicit suggestion was that... (0+ / 0-)

        ...there was a choice to be made. The implication was that the animal protection amendment is frivolous when compared to that "marriage" idiocy. I just don't think that's a good comparison. The two are completely unrelated. I am so thankful that there are people who will speak for those who cannot defend themselves. We must continue to fight for our rights. We will win.

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH JAIL HAGUE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯) It's not too late!

        by nehark on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:38:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  We also lost in Florida! (8+ / 0-)

    We need to mobilize our team of stars of stage and screen, wonderful college professors and the media to educate people on our fundamental people powered issue of LGBTQ rights.

    People power = LGBTQ marital rights = OBAMA '08!

    by kevinspa on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:43:36 PM PST

  •  Take them to court, Savvy. (6+ / 0-)

    And don't give up the fight. Take the rest of the week off, but don't give up the fight.

    Get free Dove Peace magnets here. No act of peace is ever wasted.

    by peacepositivemike on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:44:21 PM PST

  •  That's what happens when you govern by referenda (6+ / 0-)

    Not all the "reforms" of the Progressive Era were great.

  •  Not going to be popular (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    2lucky, tnproud2b, MarianLibrarian

    But comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.   Prop 8 is a civil liberties issue while the other is about cruelty to animals.  

    Though I'm against Prop 8, I do se the other side (I'm an athiest so I'm not all that sympathetic to the other side but I do see why people would vote for it).  

    I really don't see the other side of Prop 2.

  •  Meteor Blades quoted Douglass on this (9+ / 0-)

    just the other day:

    A discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far more complacency by many of what are called the wise and the good of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of woman.

    So there you go.  Plus ça change...

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM PST

  •  Take it to the Supreme Court (10+ / 0-)

    Don't give up the fight. I remember feeling similar when Amendment 2 passed in Colorado. But it was overturned. I have hope that the same outcome will happen with this abomination.

    I still root for the dreamer. I thank God for the dreamer ~ Mos Def, Lifetime

    by alkalinesky on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:46:48 PM PST

  •  Don't think if it this way. (3+ / 0-)

    I know you're very disappointed.  We are all very disappointed too.  But, I'm sure you would be very unhappy too if people voted in a way that would allow animals to still be tortured.  They are innocent too.

  •  A bittersweet night... (6+ / 0-)

    My partner and I were planning a trip to CA next year to get married.  I really thought it wouldn't pass in California.  An Obama victory, a likely blue NC (my home), and Kay Hagan is my new Senator.  What a terrible letdown to cap off an exhilarating evening.  Change is coming, but obviously work remains.

  •  Off to court (7+ / 0-)

    Because that's our only next choice now.  We'll fight and maybe win because of the State Supreme Court's earlier decision that gays and lesbians have equal rights.  And because the state Constitution cannot be reconciled with two conflicting amendments; one saying we are equal and another saying we are not.  

    I think we'll win, but it's still devastating to have this decision tonight.

  •  Pissed Off At My LA County (4+ / 0-)

    Yes is winning here. I'm ashamed.

  •  Got into a big fight about this today at lunch (9+ / 0-)

    Me against practically the whole table of about twelve or so of my so-called happily married co-workers.  They even brought the slippery-slope argument about legalizing marriage to dogs.  And thing is, I'd rather marry a dog than a human being who has to use that argument.

    •  Yeah, there's a little thing called "consent" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Techie, alkalinesky

      that they seem to be forgetting in their rush to demonize.

    •  actually the thing that annoys me most about that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is that it seems to have pushed some of my fellow social liberals into rushing to bigoted conservative viewpoints in their attempt to argue "no no there's no slippery slope at all!". For example, polyamorists used to be part of the LGBTQ sexual-revolution movement, but have mostly been thrown under the bus in a rush to seem "respectable" and argue that look, all we want is same-sex marriage, otherwise we're upstanding, conservative, monogamous citizens, not associated with any of those radical liberal freaks.

      "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

      by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One argument at a time, one victory at a time (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        decafdyke, Delirium, alkalinesky

        Seems you're full o' concern for the polyamorist agenda, and that's all fine and good, but Prop 8 focuses on the definition of marriage.  And I, for one, am perfectly capable of maintaining a rebuttal of such a weak an argument as the slippery slope without resorting to marginalizing another minority position.  Bus-throwing is for people who are losing.  (I only mentioned dogs because of the diary.)

        •  true, but I do think it sets back further reform (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's sort of the old reformist versus revolutionary socialist debate. Marx thought that things like labor laws and minimum wages were actually counterproductive because, by making capitalism a little better, they actually strengthened it, making socialist revolution less likely.

          I think that similarly, same-sex marriage probably does actually strengthen traditional marriage, contrary to what conservatives argue. It's got a nice rhetorical angle along those lines: exactly like traditional marriage in every single way, except for the small change that we don't inquire as to whether the sexes of the two people match or not. Were I a conservative interested in shoring up the somewhat creaky old institution of government-sanctioned marriage, this would seem to me like a reasonably good way of doing it: it brings inside the marriage fold the largest and most politically powerful excluded group, thereby delaying any more fundamental reform for at least a generation.

          That said, voting yes on Prop 8 wouldn't have helped any of this--- just as the Marxists discovered, although they could argue that minimum wages/etc. were barking up the wrong tree, actually voting to abolish them wasn't going to help their cause.

          "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

          by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  and actually re: polyamory (0+ / 0-)

          It's just the most obvious example of a liberal group that people seem to be tripping over themselves to disassociate themselves from, and which is totally left out of the new progressive arrangement that would result after same-sex marriage is entrenched. It's not inherently my main interest, though.

          In terms of people I know, anti-marriage monogamous couples are probably the more numerous. I suppose I know a number of old-school feminists who have purposely avoided getting married because they consider marriage an inherently conservative/oppressive institution. Many people in my social circle also purposely avoid using marriage-related terminology like "spouse", "wife", "husband", etc., in favor of terms like "partner". This both helps de-emphasize the tradition of marriage in people's free choice of relationships, and avoids treating long-term couples who choose not to be married as somehow second-class, by just not using the marriage-related words for anyone, even people who are technically married in the eyes of the state.

          So from that perspective, that other people want to sign up to it seems like someone is running towards the fire that we've all been trying to run away from for a few decades. There even seems to be a bit of an uptick in radical-social-liberal circles in proudly using words like "marriage" among recently married same-sex couples, whereas no upstanding heterosexual critical-theory prof would refer to their partner as a "wife".

          "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

          by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:08:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The difference for me... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is that gay marriage is a fundamentally conservative choice.  If I want to get gay married, I'm choosing not to have no strings attached sex.  I'm looking for stability, with one other person, in roughly the arrangement that our businesses and governments expect.  I might like to have kids, and if I did, I'd want all the protection for my family unit that I could possibly get.  What's more conservative than that?

            Triads?  Those are not a conservative choice.  I experimented with three-way relationships in college; I love the idea, but it was hard to work out.  If I were pursuing a triad relationship, I don't think I'd be looking for marriage...marriage is and never will be radical enough to do that justice.

            •  that's more or less my point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is a conservative institution, and I'm opposed to government sanctioning of conservative institutions. Now of course if people (hetero or non) want to have committed life partnerships, that's perfectly fine. But I'd prefer it if there wasn't this bundle of government-sanctioned things you had to choose to sign up to or not--- i.e. I don't think there should be "roughly [an] arrangement that our businesses and governments expect", but rather a much more decoupled set of things.

              There has been a little progress on that separately from the same-sex marriage debate, so I suppose they aren't mutually exclusive. For example, many businesses will now give partner benefits to any partners, including unmarried couples. I hope that isn't rolled back in states where same-sex marriage is legalized, so people in partnerships who choose not to marry can still receive benefits.

              My worry basically is that same-sex marriage is creating a new group of gay conservatives who are traditional in basically every respect except being gay, which basically adds a new group of people opposing my agenda. =]

              "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

              by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:27:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  So fucking bittersweet (11+ / 0-)

    We went out to dinner.  I'd been up since 4:40 AM to work polling stations for No on 8.  When we left the house, it was 54% yes, with 11% reporting.  As we got our dinner in the restaurant, which was strangely half empty, more results came in but the numbers didn't budge.

    I was crying into my beer.

    Yet many more people want chickens, who are not reflexive thinkers, to enjoy some sort of fairy tale life before they're slaughtered.

    Sign me up to be a fucking chicken.

    Or maybe I'll just buy some chickens, so at least as their caretakers I'll have some new rights.

    This is so bittersweet.

    There are lots of black people in my neighborhood.  They are fucking thrilled.  I'm happy for them.  I'm so glad Obama won and not Bible Spice and her sidekick zombie.  But my have a fundamental right, and then to have it taken away by a tyrannical majority?  At least the old black folks in my neighborhood have been on the right trajectory their whole lives...this just hurts so much.  One day you're a person, the next you're less than a FUCKING CHICKEN.

    •  hmm (3+ / 0-)

      im really tempted to h'r rate that comment just based on stupidity.  

      Chickens deserve to be treated decently.

      just because they are not as "intelligent" as others does not mean they should be locked up in fucking battery farms.  Have you seen theM>

      by GlowNZ on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This comment has all the moral authority (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        decafdyke, steve04, shiobhan, tnproud2b

        of "hate the sin and love the sinner".

        Can you not even understand how we hurt?  Why are you attacking us?

        I guess we matter not in your world either.

        God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

        by Othniel on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:59:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Chickens are more deserving than people (0+ / 0-)

          of any stripe. Unlike people, they are innocent.

          Why are you attacking chickens? How can you compare your suffering to that of a chicken? Is anyone trying to kill you and eat you?

          "Lies return." - African proverb

          by Night Train on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:05:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unlike people, chicken don't vote (0+ / 0-)

            is this snark?  really, what's going on here?  until we outlaw eating chickens, what's the point of acting like chickens will be happy in the end, when they're slaughtered?

            what I come away with here is that people who are democrats in california and volunteered for obama to call swing states when the polls were so strongly in their favor, but took for granted all of their gay friends, really have set back civil rights in the most depressing way.

            •  No slaughter (0+ / 0-)

              until we outlaw eating chickens, what's the point of acting like chickens will be happy in the end, when they're slaughtered?

              Chickens should not be slaughtered, period. So what if they don't vote? That doesn't mean they don't suffer. What the fuck does being able to vote have to do with having rights? Human children don't vote either.

              Anyway, treating chickens (or any animals) humanely is not "acting like [they] will be happy in the end." It's about being happy now, during life. After all, none of us humans will be happy "in the end" either, will we? We are all on death row.

              what I come away with here is that people who are democrats in california and volunteered for obama to call swing states when the polls were so strongly in their favor, but took for granted all of their gay friends, really have set back civil rights in the most depressing way.

              There were a lot of worthy issues in this election. Realistically, people have to make choices about where to put their energy. You can't expect everyone to make the same choices you do.

              Anyway, no ban to same-sex marriage will stand for very long. The right-wingers are fighting a losing battle.

              To me, the rights of chickens are a higher priority because (1) it's an issue of violence and survival, (2) chickens can't vote or do long division, but they can feel pain and suffering just as vividly and strongly as you or I.

              The idea, predominant in the West ever since Plato, that there is a fundamental difference of awareness and cognition between humans and all other animals, is fundamentally wrong and I reject it. Animals should not be eaten any more than people should be eaten.

              "Lies return." - African proverb

              by Night Train on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:42:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Othniel, 99.9% of the time I agree with you, but this is a big overreaction. GlowNZ did not say anything about gay people, love, hate, or sin. He/she said don't be mean to chickens. That is not an anti-gay comment. I'm sure GlowNZ is on the side of gay rights, but he/she is also on the side of animal rights, as am I. I'm glad Prop 2 passed. That doesn't mean I think that chickens should have more rights than you do. Hell, if someone was trying to keep gay people--or any other kind of people--in tiny cages witout ever--ever--being allowed out, I would die to stop it. I'm just offering support and money to stop it from happening to chickens.

          Next step: Get prop 8 overturned. You with me?

          •  look at the context (4+ / 0-)

            that comment didn't happen in a vacuum

            babycakes, prop 8 can't be overturned.  it's legit.  we have to have a new constututional amendment to get rid of it.

            and you know what? the next step for those fuckers is this...and it's so depressing.

            1. in 2009 have an amendment on the ballot to reduce this crazy amendment process, and make constitutional amendments require a super majority

                  seems innocuous, yes?  it'll probably pass.  Californians are tired of initiatives.  They would look at this as reining in the problem

            1. then we're up a creek.  it's going to be really hard to paddle against the current and get 60% to restore civil rights
            •  I see the context. I'm not seeing what you see. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              decafdyke, Othniel

              And please don't call me "babycakes." Ever. But that's not important.  The important thing is, what next? The chickens won their fight. Now how do the humans win? There has to be a way. It is not time to give up.

              •  no it's not time to give up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                which is why I've now been up for 20 hours straight.

                I'm so crushed.

                And the next step for civil rights is really hard, and is going to take a long ass time.  

                It's really going to take a long time because we can't count on people who count on us: democrats.

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

                  It's really going to take a long time because we can't count on people who count on us: democrats.

                  The main reason why I am not a member of the party. Time to really start putting the pressure on.

                  •  And we can't recruit... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    My "people" will always be less than 10% of the population, giving a generous account to Kinsey's work.  As long as the majority is happy to tyrannically oppress a minority, it ain't happening.  It just got way harder.

                  •  I guess my GBCW will come soon (0+ / 0-)

                    This is just so over the top ridiculous for chickens to get a 20 point margin, but human rights to lose by a slim margin.

                    Where were the volunteers?  Every volunteer at all 3 poling places I worked was gay/lesbian/trans/queer but two, who had an unclear relationship.

                    Instead, I got a ration of shit on the phone from an Obama volunteer who didn't like that I wouldn't call swing states, and would be instead working on No on 8.  

          •  Marian, I do respect you so much. (4+ / 0-)

            I have been singing the Wells Fargo Wagon (with which any Marion Librian is perhaps familiar) all day in order to dare to hope and to dare to believe I might belong to America and it to me at last.  I have celebrated with my three sons, each of whom is straight and voted for Obama.  And the statement

            im really tempted to h'r rate that comment just based on stupidity.  

            just really really offended me.  I never h/r except when there is an obvious troll.  And the h/r statement made me feel so excluded and so hurt that I could not find grace for a moment.

            I'll go sleep now and maybe try again tomorrow once more to believe and to belong and to hope, at least for my children's sake, and for the sake of their generation.  Perchance I might have something to offer again.

            God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

            by Othniel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:26:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry. I guess I can see that now. I just (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              decafdyke, Othniel

              feel very strongly about animal rights, too, and I did find the original comment a bit unfeeling towards animals. But everyone is feeling really emotional right now, and our nerves are frayed. I hope you feel better tomorrow. And hey, Obama won! The country is changing, and things will start to get better.

              •  Prop 2 just increases green house gases (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                it doesn't outlaw inhumanely raised eggs or veal or whatever from being sold in state.  it just outlaws raising those products in state.  If I were a betting man, I'd find companies with egg factories of the worst sort in states near California, and put my money in them.  They'll have a bonanza, california farmers will lose out, and consumers who are already ridiculously stretched will pay a fuel surcharge for their eggs, but still be glad they're cheaper than free range.

                Me?  I pay $8 a dozen for the most beautiful eggs from the happiest chickens my money can buy.  But I'm not about to try to legislate the food choices of the poor before I make sure they have access to food, shelter, and a decent job.

      •  Go fuck yourself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        no really

        this prop that gave californian chickens rights, but didn't limit what can be sold in state does nothing for the well being of chickens.

        If you can show me a chicken that knows good from bad, right from wrong, love from hate, I'll be right there with you.

        Are you fucking kidding me?? troll rate that?  When are people less than animals?  

  •  Love to you from Maryland... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shiobhan, de porres

    We were routing for you. I had a bottle of Champagne ready to open. I wanted us all to celebrate together. We gave what we could to the fight for equality. We will get there. Take courage from what we saw tonight. We need to help banish ignorance and bigotry. It can and WILL happen, even if it doesn't happen tonight. I'm very sad, but again, my family sends all our love and support for your cause, which us the great cause of America, that everyone is created EQUAL. Best wishes to you and all Californians.


    •  BTW now i hate Mormons WAY more than... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Scientologists. Tom Cruise is a fuckin' saint compared to those polygamist freaks.

      •  interesting that in diary about marriage bigotry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        you bring up a different kind of marriage bigotry. Why should you be able to enforce your conservative pro-monogamy personal moral beliefs via the government?

        (I don't say this as a straw man either; though I don't personally know any polygamous Mormons, I do know plenty of people in the poly community, who don't really like how they've been thrown under the bus by their former LGBT allies.)

        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

        by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:07:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  go fuck your 10 wives (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:

          (as opposed to yourself)

          •  fuck you, bigot (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:

            Go back to your Klan rally.

            "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

            by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:11:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There (0+ / 0-)

              Ain't nothin bigoted about calling a power hungry dangerous cult a power hungry dangerous cult.

              •  he was attacking polyamorists as well (0+ / 0-)

                at least if he read my post which he responded profanely to, who are a pretty solid, if small, part of the progressive LGBTQ movement

                "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:15:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  history moves in steps (0+ / 0-)

                  right now, I'm focused on preserving a right that gay couples had.

                  gay triads did not have that right.  at present, no triads have that right.

                  do you understand what happened today?

                  I had a right, under the law, and it was taken away.


                  •  true, hence why I'd vote no on this (0+ / 0-)

                    I do think gay marriage is the wrong solution to the problem though. Instead of just fixing the problem for the most politically powerful group (monogamous same-sex couples) and leaving everyone else out in the cold, I would've preferred a coalition that tried to secure rights for everyone by allowing more flexible civil-union type arrangements with fewer restrictions.

                    (Yes, I'm one of those scary liberals the talk-show hosts tell ghost stories about who want to "abolish marriage".)

                    "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                    by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:27:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it ain't happening (0+ / 0-)

                      our legal system puts huge precedent in precedent.  which means the word marriage is here to stay.  you know english common law?  the magna carta?  yeah...modern civilization is built on it, and we're not going to get to start picking and choosing what we keep.  I'd love for government to not use any words that show up too often in the bible, but this is the life we live, the real politik, if you will.  Chickens got more votes today than I did.  It doesn't feel good.

            •  yeah ok i'll tell David Duke you said hi (0+ / 0-)

              bringing up polygamy in the same sentence as gay marriage is heinously offensive. you aren't born polygamous. two people spending their lives together deserve equal protection. i could care less about polygamists or furries or bestiality freaks. i'll gladly throw them all under the bus. could care less. sorry if you and your orgy loving friends are offended.

              •  thanks for confirming your bigotry (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I think you're on the wrong site; this isn't the place for social conservative morons.

                "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:18:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  and sorry if the fact that i'm pissed about this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                is causing me to lash out at ppl. i couldn't hold my tongue, apologies.

                •  all i was trying to say was (0+ / 0-)

                  i HATE MORMONISM.

                  •  that doesn't even seem particularly on topic (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    The single biggest demographic/religious group to vote in favor of 8 were not Mormons, but black evangelicals. Blacks as a whole voted 70-30 in favor; so do you hate blacks too?

                    "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                    by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:22:14 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  give me a citation (0+ / 0-)

                      you racist mo-fo.

                      I'm white.  I spent all day outside of polling places.  You know who gave me thumbs up more often than not? Black dads, picking up their friends from school.

                      You know who was most outspoken in telling me there was no way in HELL they would vote no on 8?  White people.    They even littered the handouts we gave them...apparently Jesus says we should litter if we don't like what a piece of paper says.  We spent time after the polls close just picking up their fucking litter.

                      •  *shrug* blame CNN if you want (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Here's their data:

                        • White: 47% yes, 53% no
                        • African-American: 70% yes, 30% no
                        • Latino: 51% yes, 49% no
                        • Asian: 47% yes, 53% no
                        • Other: 50% yes, 50% no

                        If it were only white people in favor, the measure wouldn't be passing in LA County, which is 30% white.

                        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                        by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:33:21 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh wow (0+ / 0-)

                          This data is amazing, thanks for posting this.  A bit of a surprise.

                          No one should be a politician if they've never lived paycheck to paycheck.

                          by Savvy813 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:35:38 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the good part for getting it repealed (0+ / 0-)

                            is looking at those age-related numbers

                            "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

                            by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:37:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  come now...think for yourself (0+ / 0-)

                            follow the link, look for margin o' error (MOE).  Oh, it's missing?  What's the sample size?

                            Don't get me wrong...I think the polls that show a majority of black people aren't in favor of gay rights are probably true, but a 70/30 split is just extraordinarily inflammatory and does not contribute to any sane rational fact based conversation.

                          •  "think for yourself" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            You have got to be kidding me.  Data is as data does.  Geesh

                            No one should be a politician if they've never lived paycheck to paycheck.

                            by Savvy813 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:14:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bah (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Never mind my previous comment.  Sorry, I just saw your point.  However, "think for yourself" has a particularly derogatory connotation in my family that you wouldn't know about, and today has been ROUGH trying to move beyond this loss at the polls.

                            Instead, I am reaching out to a lot of LGBT friends and groups, and we're organizing our efforts on this.  These last two days have been an emotional roller coaster in a nasty way I wasn't expecting.

                            No one should be a politician if they've never lived paycheck to paycheck.

                            by Savvy813 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:20:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, sorry here too (0+ / 0-)

                            I've been on the roller coaster from hell.  Pure bliss as I drove through the Castro just after listening to McCain conceed, laying on the horn, waving my No on Prop 8 sign out the window (no, I wasn't a safe driver, bawling tears of happiness and honking and all while actually driving)...then I got home, 10% of precincts reporting, Prop 8 winning.  SHIT.

                        •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                          Do you see how many of their respondents were in that slice?

                          They didn't even break out black males, because it was so statistically insignificant.  They shouldn't have broken out black females either....a whopping 6% of respondents to a small exit poll.

                          70/30 is way in excess of any sort of legitimate black anti-gay sentiment I've ever seen.

                          Today, I really felt positive about what Obama has done to bring black people around...I'm sorry, but I just can't believe a 70/30 split until I see a legitimate poll (decently sized).

                      •  wow that's interesting (0+ / 0-)

                        i was referring to the blog post mentioned. guess we have to wait for actual polls, not exit polls. thanks for the info.

                    •  Then let's correct that statement... (0+ / 0-)


                      No bigotry there, right? It's a well-funded and massive worldwide organization's concerted efforts  to hurt people that we hate. It just happens to be a church, so they get to call us intolerant when we don't tolerate their hate.

  •  Mormons (4+ / 0-)

    Shouldn't the Mormon Church lose their tax exemption since they were so heavily involved in this?  I'm not sure of how this works but someone should look into it.  Besides aren't most of them in Utah - why did they get involved in California?

    In what respect Charlie?

    by Renie57 on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:57:35 PM PST

  •  If Mormons could... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille

    ...they would ban Jewish marriage too.

    Get free Dove Peace magnets here. No act of peace is ever wasted.

    by peacepositivemike on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:58:49 PM PST

  •  Never forget - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mpayson, justalittlebitcrazy

    The Mormons donated half a million dollars to the victims of Hurricane Ike and nearly 20 million dollars to take marriage rights from hundreds of thousands of Californians.

    They're a smiley sort of bigots.  They think they're "nice people" because they don't burn crosses on lawns.

    Well, they just took their first big step toward turning California into Utah.  It won't be their last.

    Some hatemongers wear smiles... google Stuart Matis if you want to know what Mormons are really about and why they funded this.

    Hell google "Elder Packer".  They think God talks to a guy who advocated gay-bashing.

    One of the boys who murdered Mathew Shepard was Mormon, BTW.

  •  FIGHT BY THEIR RULES (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThisIsTom, MarianLibrarian

    Ok, so now we go out and put it back on the ballot--AGAIN!!   And we keep at it until the bigots give up or die off!  Period!

    •  Can't this just be overturned by the courts? (0+ / 0-)

      It's not right to put civil rights up to popular vote. I for one want to see it be overturned every time they waste money and effort trying to get this cruelty passed.

      •  I don't believe it can be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I don't know how the courts could overturn it because it is now an amendment to the constitution.  Therefore, by definition, it can't be found to be unconstitutional!  We would have to overturn it by amending the constitution to restore the right.

        •  Hmm. OK, then. We need a plan of action fast. (0+ / 0-)

          Who do we contact to find out what to do next? Anybody know?

          •  well, the medium-term route (0+ / 0-)

            Is bring up another intiative repealing it, like what happened to Prohibition.

            At this point it's only a matter of time; the demographics in terms of youth support versus elderly support don't favor the anti-marriage side.

            "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

            by Delirium on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:23:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Such sweet sentiment (0+ / 0-)

              Do you think the opposition is dumb?  next year they'll make it harder for us to prevail.  they'll require a supermajority for a constitutional amendment.

              Get real, get smart, think seriously about this issue. It was really on the line this time, and we blew it, because people in california were worrying about Obama in Colorado and the rights of chickens.

    •  I'm so sorry to be depressing (0+ / 0-)

      you know where they'll go next year?

      the seemingly sensible step of reining in this crazy proposition process that only requires a simple majority for constitutional amendments.

      They'll put something on the ballot to say a constitutional amendment requires a super majority.  It should anyway...but obviously after this year it should only happen once we restore civil rights, but good luck communicating that level of nuance...

      Do you know where we'll be then?  SUPER FUCKED.  F-U-C-K-E-D.

      They'll win with the super majority argument, by a larger margin than we'll win when we try to get gay marriage legalized again.  So the gay marriage proposition will be thrown out, because a competing proposition (competing on a legal basis) gets more votes.

  •  People are cruel. (0+ / 0-)

    How can they live with the idea of tearing families apart? Preventing people from marrying is bad enough, but this could possibly end thousands of existing marriages. The people who voted for this are cruel, horrible, heartless, mean, mean, mean.

    •  Mormons (0+ / 0-)

      Are generally mean, nasty, self-righteous people convinced (FIRMLY) that they are chosen, set apart, and responsible for telling the rest of us what's right and what's wrong.

      Take one look at Utahs insane liquour laws, and understand how they try to control others whenever they achieve any political power.

      These are a people who untill 1978 taught that "Negroes are the Seed are of Cain through the Seed of Ham and are cursed to be servants unto servants".

      Gullible people who didn't understand their lies got scared and fell for a lot of essentially decent Germans fell for propoganda and agreed to start down the same road once upon a time...

  •  In the overall scheme of things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delirium, peacepositivemike

    it's a setback. Prop 8 is not the final word on this and the war is far from over. It will be challenged in court and it could even be good news for us because this will likely be the case that the SCOTUS takes after avoiding the issue for the better part of the past two decades. I suspect the reason why is because of Loving v. Virginia where they struck down all the laws banning interracial marriage, which was hugely unpopular with the general public, but they will have to rule the same way on same-sex marriage for the same reasons even though some on the court find it abhorrent.

    Just like the last case that got us to this point, this case will take several years to wend its way through the court system. Meanwhile same-sex marriages will continue to happen and President Obama will more than likely have an opportunity to appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court.

    So many impeachable offenses, so little time... -6.0 -5.33

    by Cali Techie on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM PST

  •  If Obama's victory tonight says anything, (0+ / 0-)

    it is:
    We Shall Overcome

  •  Particularly Vicious is how (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThisIsTom, tnproud2b

    so many black Americans are celebrating when it was largely black Americans who took away rights from fellow Americans. man i'm bitter right now.

    •  If you're claiming the majority of yes on votes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      were from AA's you better be pulling some numbers out of your ass to back that up.

      Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

      by evilene689 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:45:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site