67% of you voted for a Democrat...

but it looks like you're about to pass a measure banning gay marriage, and also pass a measure putting more restrictions on abortions?

I don't get you sometimes.

11/5/2008 8:41:19 AM

They like blacks but hate gays.

11/5/2008 8:45:17 AM

Obama opposed Gay Marriage. Voting for him is no indicator of tolerance towards gays.

11/5/2008 8:49:38 AM

I'm going to laugh when some 14 year old girl has something horrible happen to her because she goes to Mexico to get an abortion.

11/5/2008 8:50:25 AM

Quote :

"I don't get you sometimes. "

I dont know what there is to "get" besides the fact that people can't be lumped into 2 large political groups and that voting for either doesn't mean you agree with everything that candidate stands for. Heck I know several people who voted for Obama who couldn't even tell me what his stance is on those issues if I asked them today.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 9:03:47 AM

Yeah, both gay bashing props in CA and FL passed. On the bright side, possession of small amounts of marijuana is no longer a felony in MA!

11/5/2008 9:08:25 AM

One step forward, Two steps back. Well, Obama got elected so we can take two more steps forward.

And in before someone redoes this to read:

Quote :

"One step forward, Two steps back. Well, Obama got elected so we can take two more steps forward backwards."

11/5/2008 9:12:24 AM

Quote :

"I'm going to laugh when some 14 year old girl has something horrible happen to her because she goes to Mexico to get an abortion."

really? laugh?

11/5/2008 9:16:04 AM

Sorry fags, your efforts to get out the minority vote backfired.

All the blacks and mexicans voted for these propositions.

11/5/2008 9:17:27 AM

"sorry fags"

now that made me laugh.

11/5/2008 9:21:58 AM

yeah blacks and mexicans dont like gays.

11/5/2008 9:25:13 AM

Quote :

"All the blacks and mexicans voted for these propositions."

All of them? I'd like to see some numbers.

11/5/2008 10:07:43 AM

so i guess it's gonna take a Supreme Court decision to finalize all this bullshit. But that will take a long time......

So what do the pundits say - something like gays are now where blacks were 40 years ago? So, i guess that would mean some important supreme court decisions in the next decade, then first gay President in 2050? heh

11/5/2008 10:18:22 AM

Quote :

"So, i guess that would mean some important supreme court decisions in the next decade, then first openly gay President in 2050? heh"

Hehe, lets face it, I'm sure at least one of them was gay by now

11/5/2008 10:23:59 AM

maybe true, just like we're almost certainly had a atheist president or two by now also!

11/5/2008 10:27:08 AM

Can't believe FL, AZ, AND CA banned gay marriage, and gay adoption was banned in AK, too. WTF is with Arkansas? That place must be AWFUL. Looks to me like gays in California now have to work to be equal to chickens. Not good news.

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2008 10:36:06 AM

can anyone summarize what was passed?
was it a state constitutional amendment?

11/5/2008 10:37:46 AM

if gay people would take the word MARRIAGE out of it and simply campaign for a 'union' or some similar verbage giving them the exact same legal rights and penalties of marriage they could get it passed no problem.

too bad they are being stubborn about a stupid word. religious people will fight like hell against gay 'marriage' because of the roots in religion that the word has.

11/5/2008 10:39:23 AM

Quote :

"if gay people would take the word MARRIAGE out of it and simply campaign for a 'union' or some similar verbage giving them the exact same legal rights and penalties of marriage they could get it passed no problem. too bad they are being stubborn about a stupid word. religious people will fight like hell against gay 'marriage' because of the roots in religion that the word has."

Sad, but more than likely true.

11/5/2008 10:58:59 AM

Quote :

"Can't believe FL, AZ, AND CA banned gay marriage, and gay adoption was banned in AK, too"

i really dont care what you do as a couple, but kids shouldn't be with two dads - that's just fucked

11/5/2008 11:35:52 AM

up

11/5/2008 11:38:20 AM

Quote :

"i really dont care what you do as a couple, but kids shouldn't be with two dads - that's just fucked"

11/5/2008 11:39:12 AM

Quote :

"if gay people would take the word MARRIAGE out of it and simply campaign for a 'union' or some similar verbage giving them the exact same legal rights and penalties of marriage they could get it passed no problem."

California already has civil unions (we call them domestic partnerships) that are basically equivalent to marriage. Also the ballot measure was to eliminate same-sex marriage which was already legal, not to allow it. In Florida and Arizona the measures were to ban same-sex marriage and were a campaign by the religious right wing, not "gay people."

On the broader point -- Separate but Equal wasn't acceptable for black people; I see no reason why it's acceptable for gay people.

Quote :

" So what do the pundits say - something like gays are now where blacks were 40 years ago? So, i guess that would mean some important supreme court decisions in the next decade, then first gay President in 2050? heh"

Well given that presently there are gay people at all levels of the private and public sector, billionaires, etc. I'd say the comparison is not so apt. As a group black people were denied access to basic infrastructure.

If you look at the exit polls in California and Arizona, the striking figure to me was that among Republicans some 81% went for eliminating same-sex marriage. People who identify as conservative oppose marriage equality by vast margins.

These people are basically under-educated rural voters -- in fact among exit polls in California the lower your education, the more likely you were to vote against equality.

So it wasn't as if principled democratic conservatism turned out for prop 8; it was Original Classic Bigotry. And getting back to the blacks/gays comparison -- today it is precisely the opposite situation. Forty years ago, Society held back the poorest and most uneducated. Today, on marriage, the poorest and most uneducated hold back Society.

Being completely frank, then -- there's a small miracle that has to happen for social progress to be made in this country. Barack Obama somehow pulled it off in spite of his race. You have to appeal to or overrule the uneducated, backwater, frothing-at-the-mouth element of our society. That's not an elitist sentiment; I grew up in small town and rural NC, I've seen it first-hand. These are very ignorant people whose mindset is very much set back from modern society. They live in California as well as Arkansas, etc. As an ideological conservative I have perhaps more contempt for them than the extremist left wing for the simple reason that they set back what is in my view a principled movement.

I don't think there's one single strategy or direction for overcoming that element of society. We've had to fight wars in the past to do it; just granting basic social access to black people required centuries of see-sawing on the courts. It's not about religion either; the vast majority of these people can't explain in basic theological terms why civil same-sex marriage is a problem.

The reality is there's a fluid and on-going struggle. If Prop 8 had failed in California it would be back on the ballot in two years. And then two years after that. And so on. If the end result is a gay president or the status quo or worse, I have no idea. What I do know is that, as of yesterday, the reactionary social wing of this country has been beaten by a man who is the product of miscegenation; progress can be made, how soon is more difficult to tell.

11/5/2008 12:58:08 PM

(in other news this re-affirms my view that NorCal and SoCal ought to be separate states ...)

11/5/2008 1:07:13 PM

Quote :

"On the broader point -- Separate but Equal wasn't acceptable for black people; I see no reason why it's acceptable for gay people. "

we are not talking about seperate venues, water fountains or rights.

we are talking the same rights for TWO different things.

one involves people of different sexes and is rooted in religious teachings.
the other involves people of the same sex is not.

it is very easy to see why people shoot it down. they see it as a slap in the face to their religion.

we dont print caricatures (sp?) of Mohamed for the same reason.

11/5/2008 1:20:41 PM

^

Civil marriage is the same for everyone regardless of their religious values, except on the basis of gender and the number of people involved.

Idolatry is a sin under Christian religious teaching but if a couple wants to engage in a marriage ceremony that is sanctified under law while worshiping a golden calf, that is allowed and nobody opposes it.

So can you please explain to me how an institution that is plainly and obviously secular is religious in nature, or why changing the so-called "definition" is a slap in the face to anyone's religion?

11/5/2008 1:33:06 PM

The winners of this vote:

11/5/2008 3:52:42 PM

Quote :

" we are not talking about seperate venues, water fountains or rights. we are talking the same rights for TWO different things. "

There should be no legal difference at all for marriage and a civil union. There should be only one word, who cares what it is?

11/5/2008 4:00:16 PM

Quote :

"There should be no legal difference at all for marriage and a civil union. There should be only one word, who cares what it is?"

I agree there should be no legal difference and personally couldnt care less if two gay people want to be married and miserable like everyone else. however, you cannot argue that marriage is rooted in religion and people feel strongly about that.

all I am saying is that if they leave the religious aspect of the union out of it, the 'marriage' they would have a lot easier time getting it passed.

11/5/2008 4:32:26 PM

I agree, my beef is with why the government has the difference. I don't think anyone is looking to force a church to perform marriages on homosexuals against the churches will, which is what some anti-gay extremists are trying to hint at.

11/5/2008 4:41:29 PM

^^I agree. I'm pretty religious and feel like "marriage" should be between a woman and man.

But a civil union and the same damn rights for same sex couples? I have no problem with that. I would vote against gay "marriage" but I would vote for civil unions, so that they can have the same legal rights as any other man/woman couple.

And we shouldn't be surprised. They have a big Latino population who are VERY Catholic and oppose anything like this. If they were already getting out to vote for Obama, why not vote against Prop 8?

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 4:43:19 PM

Quote :

"If they were already getting out to vote for Obama, why not vote against Prop 8?"

i agree, problem is they voted for prop 8 - to amend the state constitution and take away a right

11/5/2008 7:44:47 PM

Yeah.... I don't know how that happened. Given, I know little about Prop 8 because I didn't actually care and didn't feel like sorting through the spin-ridden explanations on both sides so I believe it basically made same-sex marriages illegal.....

I can't tell you how many people were running around this city saying 'NO TO PROP 8' I don't think I saw a single one for the opposite side...maybe because they were too scared in this town to publicly say it, but regardless...I saw more NO ON PROP 8 signs yesterday than Obama/Biden ones.

11/5/2008 8:12:05 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/state.laws/index.html

Quote :

"Los Angeles stops issuing marriage licenses to gay couples # Story Highlights # NEW: Decision based on semi-official results on measure to ban same-sex unions # NEW: As of 7:30 p.m. ET, 52 percent of voters had approved Proposition 8"

11/5/2008 8:12:14 PM

I dont understand how ya'll think this is hard to figure out. The majority of democrats aren't the people like the democrats on here. They are hard-working, religious people with common sense. They voted for Obama because he was the democratic candidate. There are several different kinds of democrats and the vast majority don't want gay marriage of any kind.

11/5/2008 8:40:33 PM

Black people overwhelmingly voted for proposition 8.

So...is it worse for someone to be a racist, or a homophobe?

11/5/2008 8:46:33 PM

The churches where I live in California were very active in promoting Prop 8. For every "No on Prop 8" sign I see there are on the order of 10 pro-8 signs. And I live in a blue part of the state. In the conservative Central Valley I saw a similar level of activism. The religious nuts had a very well funded & organized campaign for this proposition.

11/5/2008 8:48:25 PM

why does one type of prejudice have to be worse than another?

any prejudice is deplorable

11/5/2008 8:48:51 PM

Mormon's poured $texas into the Yes on Prop 8 movement.

11/5/2008 8:53:58 PM

most black people are not members of http://www.gnaa.com

11/5/2008 9:00:30 PM

Im ready for that san andreas fault to do its thing

11/5/2008 10:02:00 PM

it makes no sense to me either, I don't understand how someone could go in and vote for Obama, the tolerance ticket, and at the same time vote yes to prop bullshit

11/5/2008 11:01:06 PM

It wasn't very surprising that this passed to me, based on what I saw from where I live. There were far more people fanatically against gay marriage than for it...

I voted against the prop... mainly because gay marriage doesn't make my life any different one bit... if they want to do it, that's their business to me...

Quote :

"The churches where I live in California were very active in promoting Prop 8. For every "No on Prop 8" sign I see there are on the order of 10 pro-8 signs. And I live in a blue part of the state. In the conservative Central Valley I saw a similar level of activism. The religious nuts had a very well funded & organized campaign for this proposition."

Very true here as well. I'm not sure where you live but I'm in the Bay Area, though my zip and the zip's around us are far more conservative than the general region...

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : x]

11/5/2008 11:11:21 PM

I'm surprised it failed from a purely political standpoint. They spent so much money; I was in Southern California last week, and there were anti-Prop 8 folks on practically every street corner. Nearly every commercial on television was about saying no to Prop 8 (of course, it was interesting that almost all those commercials never mentioned the words gay marriage, simply talked about equality and showed pictures of Japanese internment camps).

11/6/2008 1:37:34 AM

Quote :

"I'm going to laugh when some 14 year old girl has something horrible happen to her because she goes to Mexico to get an abortion."

Yeah that will be hilarious.

Godless heathens.

11/6/2008 2:08:45 AM

Quote :

"What the fuck, California?"

Quote :

"but it looks like you're about to pass a measure banning gay marriage. . . ."

God

This makes you sound rather uninformed. The mainstream media and other left-wingers like to bash conservatives about this issue, but the truth is Obama didn't support this--nor did Kerry, Gore, the Clintons, Dukakis, and so on.

Also, since there is apparently no provision in Proposition 8 to overturn previous gay marriages and constitutional amendments generally aren't retroactive, the couples that are now married probably don't have anything to worry about. Gay couples are just out of luck when it comes to future marriages, though.

11/6/2008 2:12:06 AM

Quote :

"I'm surprised it failed from a purely political standpoint."

I am not. The NO campaign was very badly run. I had given quite a bit to it and was weighing whether to give more -- ultimately I didn't because, honestly, I was put off by the overall tone and strategy. One consolation of the loss is ironically that I made the right decision there and saved myself time and money.

The other side was very well organized from the top down to the grassroots. Some of that has to do with the fact that a lot of unthinking toadies did whatever Daddy Mormon (or whichever wizard lives behind their particular curtain) told them to. Mormon families individually gave in the tens of thousands of dollars to protect 'traditional marriage' (as you may know, Mormons have long been the defenders of 'traditional marriage').

But beyond the annoying intervention of the Mormons and Dobson -- the fact is that ordinary Californians are pretty cautious, moderate individuals. People seem to think that the state is homogeneously far left-liberal; in reality it's more left-of-center and typical people think hard about these propositions before they vote.

The NO campaign just pretended that gay marriage always existed since the beginning of time and these guys were taking it away. So they discussed the issue in the abstract and dragged in politicians to talk down to people. What kind of media and grassroots strategy is that?

Personally I think the way to deal with gay marriage is simply to show people that it's boring. It's two people getting married and living in a house with a fence. Yawn. Boring is safe. Barack Obama understood that well -- he made it a point to appear as boring and safe as possible. It was genius media strategy. More people would have understood this basic point about gay marriage at the grassroots level if the court hadn't ruled so close to the elections.

The NO campaign lost the middle; and they really had no excuse for that. Yes, some minority groups turned out and voted for it. But some 46% of independents and 36% of democrats -- a huge chunk of the big political middle -- did too. How many of those people were simply put off by the Gavin Newsom presence and the scare tactics, and rightfully unconvinced by the abstract arguments about "rights?"

It is a case study in bad campaign strategy and management. The most telling aspect is that the NO campaign was based out of West Hollywood and still managed to lose every county in SoCal except Santa Barbara while NorCal rallied. One wonders if they ever left their offices to smell the roses.

11/6/2008 3:25:52 AM

while im very proud of the Bay Area for getting out and voting against this crock of shit, i still blame Socal and central valley hucklebucks for this nightmare. They can all go to hell and eat shit

11/6/2008 5:55:51 AM

I wonder if this will mark a shift to the North East as the main center of gay rights in the US. I mean the whole east coast seems a little more left leaning with NC possibly going blue for the pres & definitely going blue on the senate, with VA going blue for the first time in over half a century, FL going blue, and even GA being close coming within 5% points of going blue. But MA is now the only steady rock of marriage equality (& will reap the financial benefits of ppl traveling there), their neighbor CT just started recognizing gay marriage, another neighbor NY city has the largest gay population of any city in the US, and much of the North East has favorable gay rights laws on the books. Heck, NC is now more progressive on gay rights (in terms of not amending its constitution, every time the issue comes up for debate it gets put down) than California and several other states who have amended their constitutions (& we elected most, 50 of 59, of the candidates endorsed by Equality NC). Maybe that is more out of respect for our state constitution and not wanting to change it lightly like other states, rather than a true support for gay rights, but the east coast definitely seems to be shifting a little left.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2008 11:53:41 AM

Quote :

"The most telling aspect is that the NO campaign was based out of West Hollywood and still managed to lose every county in SoCal except Santa Barbara while NorCal rallied. One wonders if they ever left their offices to smell the roses."

to be fair, LA county is huge and the 2.7 million votes cast there alone blows NorCal out of the water by sheer numbers (and the vote was within 1% on prop 8)

not at all surprised about orange country (it can fall off into the ocean, as far as i'm concerned - i think it's only redeeming quality is the rainbow factory), but i thought san diego county would be closer to even (though probably still 'for' as it's quite conservative)

i completely agree with you though on how poorly the campaign was run and am really upset by the outcome

i'm quite surprised about the vote on prop 4 compared to prop 8, i would've thought the same people to vote yes on one would do yes on both...

------

Quote :

"and also pass a measure putting more restrictions on abortions?"

this didn't happen, prop 4 didn't pass

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason : prop 4]

11/6/2008 12:16:57 PM