Repeal California Prop 8 (Repeal Ban on Gay Marriage)

[robert]

An e-mail from one of our forum members to me:

 

Hi,

 

I just signed a pledge to repeal Prop 8 and I thought you might be interested in joining me and over 100,000 Courage Campaign members across California.

 

We have to come together right now to say that we refuse to accept a California where discrimination is enshrined in our state constitution.

 

Please sign the "Repeal Prop 8" pledge now and forward this to your friends as soon as possible:

 

http://www.couragecampaign.org/RepealProp8

 

Thanks!

[BodhiDave85]

Signed and fowarded....Its so sad that the high African-american turnout for Barack Obama caused this! I predict this will be swiftly overturned in the next 6-9 months

[Richard]

Woop

[Vegan Joe]

Contact information for California Legistators

 

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/legislators/your_legislator.html

 

 

Courage Campaign structure and status

The Courage Campaign is a tax-exempt organization registered under Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to the Courage Campaign are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. The Courage Campaign does not make contributions to or expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for public office.

 

Please consider making a contribution to the Courage Campaign to help us build progressive infrastructure, empowering grassroots and netroots activists to create a new era for progressive politics in California.

[VeganDeVil]

Thank you for posting this, Robert.

[VeganDeVil]

The only issue I've ever had against the government recognizing same-gender marriages is the fact that same-gender partnerships don't have the responsibilities, risks, and burdens of an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy.

 

I wish there was somekind of standard and distinction between fertile heterosexual marriages, infertile marriages, and singles so that good loving same-gendered or infertile opposite gendered partnerships (regardless of whether they have sex or not) are encouraged too.

 

I guess I'm for the "domestic partnership" compromise moderate camp.

 

If people who want gay marriage to be recognized by the state would advocate for that standard, maybe I'd go out of my way to join this campaign, but I have a hard time following where any gay rights advocates genuinely agree that an endeavor to be a good biological father and mother having custody over children is ideal and deserves the best breaks in life from society.

 

Are you then saying that fertile heterosexual couples have more of a right to marry than infertile heterosexual couples? Or fertile couples who don't want children and take precautions (ie: getting fixed)?

 

And how do the "responsibilities, risks, and burdens of an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy" have anything to do with the right to a legal marriage? Two people wanting to partake in each others life and holdings, as recognized by the state and IRS?

[veginator]

Signed and fowarded....Its so sad that the high African-american turnout for Barack Obama caused this!

 

What? Why are you blaming African-Americans for it passing? They're less than 10% of California's population. According to the exit polls, Prop 8 was supported by 69% of African-Americans, 53% of Hispanic voters, 48% of white voters, and I forget the figure for Asians but it was somewhere around 50% also. Even if we assume that the 69% figure from the exit polls was accurate--and even if there was a random sample of voters in the exit polls, the margin of error is still several percent--that still means only about 13% of the votes for Prop 8 were by African-Americans. And, of course, so were about 6% of the votes against it.

 

But why focus on the racial breakdown of the vote anyway? What's up with that? Break it down by sexual orientation, and I'm sure you'll find that well over 50% of straight people voted for Prop 8 and almost nobody who was GLBT did. Break it down by age--as some poll did, although I can't find it--and you'll find that older people voted overwhelmingly for it while younger voters were largely against it. As gay columnist Dan Savage put it recently in a pretty hilarious appearance on the Colbert Report (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210299/november-11-2008/proposition-8-protests---dan-savage), "Old people are the real villains in the piece, and they're dying, which is some comfort."

 

But why make a big deal about the demographic breakdown at all? The bottom line is, it's individuals who are for or against this or other aspects of gay rights and/or have negative attitudes toward homosexuality. It doesn't matter what color or age or whatever they are.

[CollegeB]

You guys shouldn't just repeal the ban, deny government any permission in being involved in marriage then you cant have some block of voters telling you what you can do for marriage. It's none of anyone's business!

[Vegan Joe]

It doesn't matter what color or age or whatever they are.

Apparently it does.

[Bill]

Clearly, there's been a lot in the press about black votes and Prop 8. This NPR piece is pretty interesting. Basically, Jasmyne Cannick, a person who is a black lesbian, discusses some of the reasons why the outreach efforts to the black community were insufficient, and need to be re-thought.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96817462

[Vegan Joe]

 

No see, like you, the majority of people here are white males... and none of us agree with much of anything you have to say about anything, ever. This has nothing to do with the fact that we're white.

Simple statements for simple minds. Alway looking for a reason to share your hatred and name calling.

[blabbate]

No see, like you, the majority of people here are white males... and none of us agree with much of anything you have to say about anything, ever. This has nothing to do with the fact that we're white.

Simple statements for simple minds. Alway looking for a reason to share your hatred and name calling.

Agreed, and I rarely agree with you on anything.

[VeganDeVil]

Clearly, there's been a lot in the press about black votes and Prop 8. This NPR piece is pretty interesting. Basically, Jasmyne Cannick, a person who is a black lesbian, discusses some of the reasons why the outreach efforts to the black community were insufficient, and need to be re-thought.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96817462

Thanks for that, I enjoyed seeing the issue from that perspective. For anyone interested, here is the full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3669070.story

But I agree that it's not fair to single out one community, there are many communities in which we failed to reach out to..... the last statistics I read were that 49% of Asians, 53% of Latinos, and nearly 50% percent of Whites (who represent 63% of California voters) voted in favor of Prop 8.

 

EDIT: Ha, sorry, didn't realize veginator had already posted the same statistics.

Edited November 17, 2008 by VeganDeVil

[vivalasvegans]

No, Jaleel's post isn't simple minded at all.

 

He's saying that just when share the same race/ethnicity and gender, they don't necessarily share the same outlook. That's actually a statement that it would do a lot of people a lot of good to take to heart.

 

Blaming high black voter turnout on the passage of anti-gay marriage is scapegoating, pure and simple. The loudest political voices in the GLBT movement for a long time have largely been the voices of white people. And it's been documented a gazillion times that the loudest, most commonly heard voices in politics in general are white voices. Now when you combine that with the knowledge that most people act in their own self-interest, and self interest does include shifting the blame from your own self and your own people to others, it makes sense that Black voters would be blamed for pro 8 passing by some, fairly or unfairly.

 

What? Why are you blaming African-Americans for it passing? They're less than 10% of California's population. According to the exit polls, Prop 8 was supported by 69% of African-Americans, 53% of Hispanic voters, 48% of white voters, and I forget the figure for Asians but it was somewhere around 50% also. Even if we assume that the 69% figure from the exit polls was accurate--and even if there was a random sample of voters in the exit polls, the margin of error is still several percent--that still means only about 13% of the votes for Prop 8 were by African-Americans. And, of course, so were about 6% of the votes against it.

Right on.

[Guest]

An e-mail from one of our forum members to me:

 

Hi,

 

I just signed a pledge to repeal Prop 8 and I thought you might be interested in joining me and over 100,000 Courage Campaign members across California.

 

We have to come together right now to say that we refuse to accept a California where discrimination is enshrined in our state constitution.

 

Please sign the "Repeal Prop 8" pledge now and forward this to your friends as soon as possible:

 

http://www.couragecampaign.org/RepealProp8

 

Thanks!

 

done ~ till there are equal rights for all...

[veginator]

In fact, the margin was sufficient that it still would have passed even if every single African-american who voted on it had voted against it. So much for it being African-Americans' fault that Prop 8 passed.

 

Hey, did anybody go to any anti-Prop 8 demonstrations this weekend? I spaced out the one that took place here, but I understand that about 200 attended, in a community of only maybe 100,000.

 

But I agree that it's not fair to single out one community, there are many communities in which we failed to reach out to..... the last statistics I read were that 49% of Asians, 53% of Latinos, and nearly 50% percent of Whites (who represent 63% of California voters) voted in favor of Prop 8.

 

EDIT: Ha, sorry, didn't realize veginator had already posted the same statistics.

[VeganDeVil]

No, I haven't been to one yet, been working hella hard for x-mas season. But I'd like to start going to them soon. I'm definitely joining the efforts to boycott businesses that supported Prop 8 here in Cali.

 

For anyone interested, here is the list I've been able to amass thus far:

Cinemark movie chain, which voted almost $10,000 to 'Yes on 8'

The PF Chang's in San Diego (owned by Michael O'Grady)

 

* C&L Restaurant Group - Largest franchisee of Burger King locations in So Cal; Richard Cross, restaurant operator, donated $4,000 to the campaign. Donation verified on LA Times.

* T-Bird Restaurant Group - Exclusive rights to franchise Outback Steakhouse in California. CFO Mikkel Christensen donated $2,000. Donation verified on LA Times.

* WKS Restaurant Corporation, company with franchise rights for El Pollo Loco. Roland Spongberg, President, donated $6,000 to Yes on 8. Donation verified on LA Times. On their website Denny's and Corner Bakery Cafe were also listed.

* Yard House - Restaurant Partner ("Owner"), Executive Chef Carlito Jocson donated $100. Donation verified on LA Times.

* Real Mex Restaurants - Steven Tanner, CFO, donated $500.00 Restaurants under their belt include all: El Torito, Chevy's and Acapulco, as well as smaller concepts Las Brisas, Casa Gallardo, Who Song & Larry's, and El Paso Cantina. Donation verified on LA Times.

 

There are smaller LA businesses that are being targeted as well for donating smaller sums, like El Coyote.

 

Not that many of these are exactly vegan-friendly establishments that I would ever go to anyway, but just as they exercised their right to donate and support, and I'll exercise my right to take my money elsewhere!

[CollegeB]

Cinemark...haha my bro worked for them for a long time and he's against the prop 8 thing. It makes no sense why any eatery would support this. I think some Regional guys need to lose their jobs. Especially a high end place like PF Chang's. I'm sure they profit immensely from a group of people that generally don't have children to spend money on. Some auto companies (like ford) are taking advantage of this notion and marketing specifically for this group as well and now are facing protest from christian conservative folks. I guess though that if PF Changs gave out food to sway people to vote a certain, this could have been a factor. Though their food has not been great the last 2 times I have been.

[Vegan Joe]

I quess we should just blame it on the minority.

Non-Black Votes in Favor of Proposition 8:

 

White Men: 51% of 31% of 10,325,615 votes: 1,632,480 Yes

 

White Women: 47% of 32% of 10,325,615 votes: 1,552,972 Yes

 

Latino Men: 54% of 8% of 10,325,615 votes: 446,067 Yes

 

Latino Women: 52% of 11% of 10,325,615 votes: 592,170 Yes

 

Asian/Native: 51% of 9% of 10,325,615 votes: 473,946 Yes

Total: 4,697,635 (9.3 times the maximum TOTAL number of Black votes in California.)

 

 

Black Votes if We'd Voted Like Other People Did:

Black Women Voting Like White Women:: 47% of 6% of 10,325,615: 291,182 Yes (a reduction of only 86,816 votes for Proposition 8 from our hypothetical maximum of Black votes cast)

Black Men Voting Like White Men:: 51% of 4% of 10,325,615: 210,643 Yes (an INCREASE, if you believe CNN's poll even though Black men were reduced to a pitiful "N/A", of 84,643 votes, almost cancelling out the change in Black women entirely)

Black People Voting Like Asians/Natives: 49% of 10% of 10,325,615: 505,955 Yes

 

Adding the "enlightened" Black vote to the exising totals above for everyone else we get 5,203,590 Yes votes.

 

 

Out of 10,325,615 votes.

 

 

In other words, Proposition 8 would have still passed by 81,565 votes, if Black voters had done no more than reflect the rest of the state's will on the matter.

 

 

 

Here are some of the other blog postings you can read on this issue:

[VeganDeVil]

If people who want gay marriage to be recognized by the state would advocate for that standard, maybe I'd go out of my way to join this campaign, but I have a hard time following where any gay rights advocates genuinely agree that an endeavor to be a good biological father and mother having custody over children is ideal and deserves the best breaks in life from society.

 

Your original argument states that 'gay rights advocates' agree that a biological father and mother is ideal..... what advocates are you referring to specifically?

 

There will always be children, gay people getting married will not change that! There will always be heterosexual couples that procreate, there will always be gay men and women who procreate through whatever means feels most comfortable for them.... and there will always be unwanted babies and children in need of loving homes. Only the 'Yes on 8' advocates would say that a child needs a biological mother and father to be happy and healthy. Children need love and support, whether from two biological parents, two adopted hetero parents, a single parent, or two same sex parents.

[VeganDeVil]

Only the 'Yes on 8' advocates would say that a child needs a biological mother and father to be happy and healthy

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary for a child to be healthy, but I think it is the priority and ideal to encourage the biological mother and father to take that responsibility and to be accountable above anyone else since it's a direct result of their mutual decision.

 

Maybe when queer right advocates can admit to this distinction, I'll be all about supporting their right to have a marriage recognized by the State.

 

Your original argument states that 'gay rights advocates' agree that a biological father and mother is ideal..... what advocates are you referring to specifically?

 

None that I know of. They all seem to just want marriage licenses with the exact same benefits as though they have the same responsibilities of breeders across the board no distinctions. Where has there ever been a counter ballot initiative produced in any state in the USA where they propose that the marriage laws distinguish between non-breeders?

Where does adoption figure in to all of this?

 

And what about gay people who do have their own children? IE: A lesbian that chooses to get artificially inseminated?

Edited November 19, 2008 by VeganDeVil

[vivalasvegans]

*edit: sorry, I didn't see the cross post with VeganDevil, who said the same thing i said, except better. *

...but I am saying the government should give more breaks to those who register to the government they can breed and can potentially have children.

But not all hetero couples who set out to have children can get pregnant. Not all hetero couples who do procreate end up being fit to keep the kids. Sometimes fit hetero parents die and create orphan kids. Sometimes people in straight relationships have children, break up, and end up in gay or lesbian relationships. Sometimes gay and lesbian parents adopt. Sometimes single parents decide to adopt or birth their own kids. Sometimes gay and lesbian parents decide to do what some straight couples do, and have their kids with the assistance of reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization, etc.

 

Not to mention the fact that many straight couples marry with no intention of ever having kids.

 

Conan, your plan wouldnt work.

 

Gays already have "the right to marry". The government doesn't prosecute anyone for having their private marriage ceremonies, nor any spouses calling themselves spouses, husbands or wives, but gay marriage isn't recognized by the government.

 

If the government is going to recognize same-gendered marriages, since they don't produce children, the kind of benefits these partnerships deserve is not the same as if they could.

Right now, straight married couples who plan on never, ever having any kids, by birth or adoption, automatically get rights and privileges that gays and lesbians in long term, committed relationships with kids, (their own or adopted) are unable to access.

[auburnoutlook]

i cant even believe what i read above. made me laugh out loud at work.... and now my boss knows i wasnt paying attention.

 

"Fertile heterosexual marriage license" should expire and require renewal after failing to breed after a certain amount of time.

 

seriously...funniest thing ive EVER read on this forum.

[Im Your Man]

In the past there were some awards and money compentions, at least in Quebec, for every baby you had, like 50$ each. It was before war and the birth rate was low. Now with overpopulation and pollution, it's different and I don't think it would be a great idea to have families of 15 kids like before.

[veginator]

There were also forced sterilizations in Canada

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Canada

 

I also recall reading about forced sterilizations in Quebec as late as 1979.

 

The US was actually the first country to undertake forced sterilizations. (See theWikipedia article jaleel cites above.) Common targets included the mentally ill, the mentally retarded (or those thought to be so), and Native Americans. My present state of Indiana was the first to enact sterilization laws.