There are more rallies planed this weekend, but this time across America in response to the vote on Proposition 8 in California.
For more information click here for details or to put together your own local rally.
If you are going to a rally, always bring a camera. It keeps people on their best behavior and helps you record the day. If you send me pictures or videos I will post them. Don't feel bad about calling people to their best behavior. If you see a rude sign, volunteer to give them a new sign. If you see people behaving poorly, call them on it. Of all the No on 8 rallies I went to ranging from a few kids to about 50 people almost everyone was pleasant and having a fun time.
Remember what Emma Goldman said:
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution"
The battle over gay marriage isn't going to end anytime soon, nor should it. Think about what each side believes they are arguing over and then try to convince them to compromise or stop pushing their cause.
1. One side believes that gay people are different and that if we legalize gay marriage again this will teach children that being gay is normal. They also are afraid of churches being sued or gay marriage being taught in schools. For some of them, their religion has given them clear direction and they want that reflected in civil law. For them it isn't about civil rights but about the state recognizing something they don't want it to sanction.
2. Those in favor of gay marriage believe it is a question of basic civil rights. They believe separate is inherently unequal. They believe that marriage is much more than a set of legal protections and that is exactly why civil unions are not enough. They don't see any nonsense slippery slope where polygamy will become legal. They are tired of their family members and friends being treated differently under the law. They want the children to grow up and get married, regardless if they are gay or straight. The are tired of reading articles like this about discrimination that isn't based on reason.
Did I miss a core part of either sides' arguments?
Why would people believe either of these groups will give up anytime soon?
I don't support all of the tactics that other advocates use in pushing their cause, but who does? I know most of us disagree with the tactics are favored candidates or causes use from time to time.
I support marriage equality even though I know it is likely a long path to victory.
If you are planning any local political events, send them to me and I will post them.
I guess I'll be the first one to jump in here, at my own peril, I'm afraid.
I feel that the main reason Prop. 8 won was because more people on the "Yes" side exercised their constitutional right than did those on the "No" side. Bottom line.
Did the Mormon and Catholic Churches contribute big bucks to the "Yes" campaign? You bet they did. Was it within their constitutional right to do this? Absolutely.
And this is also part of the democratic process in the State of California. That's the way it works. The "No" side had the same opportunity to raise money and wage their own campaign. They just weren't as effective as their opponents in turning out the voters.
The same complaint could be made of any number of political races this year, including the presidential election. Obama raised more money and ran a better campaign than McCain. So, it wasn't that surprising to see him win.
I don't believe that many people were duped into voting "yes" on the measure. Voters are smarter and far more discerning than people like to give them credit for.
Your core argument for the YES position is highly correct:
"One side believes that gay people are different and that if we legalize gay marriage again this will teach children that being gay is normal. They also are afraid of churches being sued or gay marriage being taught in schools. For some of them, their religion has given them clear direction and they want that reflected in civil law. For them it isn't about civil rights but about the state recognizing something they don't want it to sanction."
The broader point is that the advocates for this will not state their argument in these direct and accurate terms, despite how true they are.
Another factor that contributed to why the Yes on 8 won was the fact that they used Fear tactis thru the commercial adds they ran. Within those Commercials were Half truths and lies to cause people to be fearful that their rights would be taken away from both themelves, and their churches.
Its sad that they used lies rather then truth to try to convince people to vote yes on 8.
Mongo, would you agree then that if 50%+ of voters chose to do so, that the state could take away a church's tax-exempt status?
Actually, in pure theoretical terms, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If there was ever a force strong enough to gather the signatures and quality a measure like that for the ballot, I'd be willing to see what the voters would say about it.
Is it likely to ever happen? Probably not. Would it survive constitutional scrutiny? Most likely not, because if you took tax-exempt status away from a single church (I assume you're focusing on the Mormon Church here) you would have to take it away from all churches.
I'm going to one in Santa Barbera on Saturday. Join in, everyone! We don't want another long-ass road to civil rights.
I guess for the "No on 8" folks, the theme is: When democracy doesn't work, let's try anarchy.
Some of the brutal attacks I've been hearing and reading about at these so-called "protests" against anyone who dares to speak out against them is absolutely shameful.
Well, I have a message for these folks.
The people run this State. Not the rich and powerful gay alliances backed by the Hollywood elites and the entertainment industry. Not the media. Not the powerful judges. Not the politicians.
And the people have clearly spoken. And they will speak again, if necessary.
2010 is the year that several State Supreme Court Justices are up for reconfirmation. And we will have a repeat of Rose Elizabeth Bird in 1986 if these guys and gals decide to defy the will of the people a second time. Mark my word!
Judges are a part of a functioning democracy. I voted for a governor and a state legislature based on justices issues. Your attempt to put and keep discrimination in the state constitution is a violation of the will of the people expressed through voting for governor and the state legislature.
Do you call everything elitist that you dislike? The gay people in Ventura County are not elitist nor are they pawns for your mythical elitists.
You do agree that eventually your side will lose and marriage will be legal for gay people. We all know that is where history is going. Why not allow freedom now, instead of making people wait?
JJ,
It's not up to me. It's up to the voters of this state and they've already made the call.
It certainly isn't up to 4 activist judges. As I stated previously, the people run this state and no other branch of government (the judicial branch, to be specific) should be allowed to overrule the will of the people. Not without political consequences.
If you're so sure that history is going your way, then let's put it up to another vote in 4 years. Until then, let it lie. The courts should not intervene in the meantime, in my opinion.
Were the judges that made interracial marriage legal "activist judges" when they ordered equal rights in California?
No.
You are trying to have it both ways. The interracial ruling was unpopular at the time and it was legislating from the bench. How does this not fit your definition?
JJ,
Are you referring to the Perez v. Sharp ruling in 1948 by the California Supreme Court striking down the law on interracial marriage? I believe the circumstances were different in that case in that the law it wasn't approved twice by a majority vote of the people. Enlighten me please, if I'm wrong here.
Of course it is a different case but the fact remains it was unpopular with voters and it wasn't done through the legislature. Doesn't that fit your definition of judicial activism? They made a new right from the bench and went overturned the law.
As I said, different times, different circumstances. I am very doubtful, though we'll never really no for sure, that a law in California prohibiting interracial marriage would have passed muster with the voters (twice), even as far back as 1948.
I get it. When you say "activist" judges you really mean court decisions you don't agree with. Interracial marriage was unpopular with voters. That's why the legislature, which usually tries to pander for votes, didn't get involved. They are different court cases but in both the court ruled against popular opinion and in favor of equal treatment under the law.
All I know is the tax payers won't pay to teach gay marriage in the schools. It's on the news everyday they are teaching it now. Jerry Brown is a genius. If we only we could do that with math and science.
Mongo Flamo,
How does gay marriage infringe on your pursuit to happiness?
Catholic priests hate gay marriage for it's honesty. They think if you can't sneak around it's no fun. Takes the mystery out of it.
All I know is the tax payers won't have to pay to teach gay marriage anymore. Gay marriage is on the news everyday. Jerry Brown is a genius. If only we could get the news to teach math and science.
Mongo Flamo,
How does gay marriage infringe on your pursuit to happiness? If you can't answer that question you have no argument. You disagree with gay marriage for reasons other than Constitutional ones.
Jerry Brown is a Class A moron. He realizes he needs the gay vote to help him in his quest for the governorship. That's why he's going partisan on the Prop. 8 issue. Isn't it his responsibility as Attorney General to defend ballot initiatives that pass? Why isn't he doing his job? I wonder. I predict he won't even win his party's nomination, especially if Feinstein runs.
Nobody,
Gay marriage does nothing to infringe on my pursuit of happiness. I've never made anything close to that argument and you know it. What is does do, however, is change the definition of marriage. I believe in preserving marriage as between one man and one woman only. It is an historic institution that even pre-dates religion.
If gays want to co-habitate or enter into civil unions, I have absolutely no problem with that. But, you can't call that a marriage because it's not. To quote a famous American - "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.'