SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 46 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-05-2008, 02:38 PM   #676
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 01:09 PM
__________________

__________________
phanan is online now  
Old 11-05-2008, 02:49 PM   #677
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Read the flipping thread, Martha. Your world is just as narrow.

No, I'm not, and it's your bigotry that assumes I am.
Does one have to be a bigot to believe you are a bigot?
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 02:51 PM   #678
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Does one have to be a bigot to believe you are a bigot?
It's the bigot-standby.

Using their "logic", calling the KKK bigots makes YOU a bigot.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 02:55 PM   #679
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doozer61 View Post
i am too stunned to even comment


__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:00 PM   #680
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Does one have to be a bigot to believe you are a bigot?


i think that nathan is one of the smartest and most eloquent posters in here.

and i think that he's used his smarts and eloquence to convince himself that he isn't prejudiced against gay people.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:02 PM   #681
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 01:09 PM
I am honestly ashamed for and embarrassed on behalf of everyone who voted Yes. Their children and/or grandchildren will be quite embarrassed someday, and I guess we can rest knowing that.

I have a number of gay friends. What any of their activities in the bedroom have to do with my fucked up heterosexual relationships are completely and utterly beyond me. I will never understand the deliberate causation of hurt, sure seems Christian to me.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:06 PM   #682
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think that nathan is one of the smartest and most eloquent posters in here.

and i think that he's used his smarts and eloquence to convince himself that he isn't prejudiced against gay people.
He has taken a tremendous amount of time to figure out a way to explain a rationale for wanting to bar gays from marriage.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:09 PM   #683
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I will never understand the deliberate causation of hurt, sure seems Christian to me.
No, no. They just hate the sin, not the sinner. If the sinner would just reject the sin and leave their deviant lifestyle behind, none of this would ever need to happen!
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:11 PM   #684
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Craziness.

A giant leap forwards and monumental leap backwards all in one day.

In California of all places - go figure.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:16 PM   #685
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:09 PM
not over?

Quote:
Proposition 8 foes refuse to concede
By Aurelio Rojas

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 05, 2008

Opponents of a ballot measure to ban gay marriage refused to concede this morning, despite vote totals that show supporters of Proposition 8 with a 400,000-vote advantage.

Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said 3 million to 4 million ballots remain uncounted statewide.

"The fact is depending on the turnout model we are looking at millions of votes yet to be counted," Kendall said. The race is too close to call. People's fundamental rights hang in the balance."

Secretary of State Debra Bowen is expected to issue an estimate of the number of uncounted ballots late today or Thursday. It could take days to process all of them. Proposition 8 supporters declared victory early today, saying their model shows them with an insurmountable lead.

Proposition 8, the most passionately debated and costliest measure on the ballot, was ahead 52 percent to 48 percent with 92 percent of precincts reporting.

Frank Schubert, manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, declared victory shortly after midnight -- but opponents called that declaration "presumptuous."

"We had more than 100,000 (supporters) walk precincts for us, and they have delivered a great victory," Schubert told supporters.

But Dennis Mangers, co-chairman of No on 8 Northern California Committee, said the outcome of the measure was still in doubt.

"We're absolutely astounded they would be so presumptuous," Mangers said. "I firmly believe that when I wake up in the morning I will find the voters of California said 'no' to discrimination."

While supporters of the measure cited strong voter support in the Central Valley and in pockets of urban areas, opponents noted that half the vote not been tallied.

They pointed out that Alameda County, for example, had yet to report any of its votes, while a third of the precincts in Los Angeles County were still uncounted.

Mangers said that even if opponents lose, they will pursue legal action to challenge the measure.

"We will never surrender our constitutional right to marriage," Mangers said, adding that supporters of gay marriage are prepared to go to the ballot again.

Tuesday's vote on the constitutional amendment came eight years after voters approved a referendum with the same 14 words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

That measure, Proposition 22, won resoundingly, 61 percent to 39 percent. But in May, the state Supreme Court ruled that it violated the state constitution's equal protection clause.

Since then, an estimated 17,000 same-sex couples have been married in California, the only state besides Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize gay unions.

Religious conservatives argued gay marriage is contrary to biblical teachings and cast Proposition 8 as the decisive last stand for traditional marriage.

In television ads blanketing California, the Yes on 8 campaign expanded its argument beyond the question of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

Rejection of the measure, they charged, would ultimately lead schools to incorporate same-sex marriage into lesson plans. They said churches refusing to marry same-sex couples would lose their tax-exempt status.

Opponents of the marriage ban dismissed those claims as scare tactics.

Unmarried same-sex couples in California are accorded most of the civil rights heterosexual couples enjoy. But No on 8 forces said banning same-sex marriage would be tantamount to resurrecting long- discredited "separate but equal" policies and laws that barred African Americans and others from marrying whites.

The campaign generated more than $73 million in contributions from every state and more than 20 foreign countries. It set a national record for a spending on a state ballot initiative based on a social issue, according to the Associated Press.

The Yes on 8 campaign – whose chief contributors were members of the Mormon and Catholic churches – raised more than $28 million.

Opponents, led by gay rights groups and labor unions, including the California Teachers Association, raised more than $32 million.

Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, in a move initiative supporters called prejudicial, changed the ballot title after the state Supreme Court overturned the gay marriage ban.

In a setback for opponents of gay marriage, a Sacramento judge left intact the ballot title and summary stating that Proposition 8 "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Political analysts predicted the new language would make passage of the measure more difficult because voters are generally reluctant to take away existing rights.

After trailing by wide margins in early polls, the Yes on 8 campaign narrowed the gap with TV ads that argued schools would promote gay marriage if the measure failed.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who in 2004 gained national attention when he issued a directive to city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, became the face of the marriage ban campaign in mocking ads.

During the campaign, Newsom, a potential Democratic candidate for governor in 2010, officiated at the marriage of a lesbian teacher and her partner.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:27 PM   #686
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
The problem is that this new bullshit is an amendment to the constitution.
I know, but those numbers did at least show that attitudes are changing. The constitution can and will be amended again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
"African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition"
I'm a little confused by those figures, as they contradict their own exit poll results:

white voters (63% of total) -- 49% yes, 51% no
black voters (10% of total) -- 70% yes, 30% no
Latino voters (18% of total) -- 53% yes, 47% no

White men actually voted 51% yes; it was white women's 53% no vote that tipped white voters against Prop 8. Black women, on the other hand, were actually more conservative than black men here, 75% yes to black men's roughly 60% yes. The Latino gender split more resembled the white one (men 54% yes, women 52% yes).

To some extent this reflects the already-known-to-pollsters tendency for gender issues to be more fraught in minority communities; what is rather surprising is the extent to which black women proved more conservative here than black men, as well as the fact that nonwhites earning over $50,000 were actually 5% more likely to vote yes than nonwhites earning under $50,000. Unfortunately, there were no breakdowns of racial minorities by religion, nor any breakdowns of African-American voters by age (Latinos under 30 did vote 59% no--again, there's something at least to take hope from).

So, yes, high minority turnout for Obama (African-Americans were 4% more of CA's electorate than in '04) may have been a decisive factor, despite Obama's own stated opposition to Prop 8.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:28 PM   #687
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Read the flipping thread, Martha. Your world is just as narrow.
Because I include gay people in it?



Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
No, I'm not, and it's your bigotry that assumes I am.
If you're not happy, what will make you happy? If you're not happy when all along you've been wanting these results, when will you be happy?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:30 PM   #688
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienvy View Post
craziness.

A Giant Leap Forwards And Monumental Leap Backwards All In One Day.

In California Of All Places - Go Figure.
Exactly!!!!
What The Hell Is With That?????????????
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:31 PM   #689
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 10:09 AM
California can be very schizo.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-05-2008, 03:34 PM   #690
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:09 PM
I am 24.

In my lifetime, the legal right of African-Americans to marry has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right of an African American to marry a Caucasian has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right for African-Americans to have all of the same civil rights as anyone else has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right for African-Americans to be able to vote has never been questioned.

In my lifetime, the legal right for women to be able to vote has never been questioned.

At one time or another in our history, all of these things were questioned by people who were fighting the tide of change, fighting to delay the inevitable.

The goal is that the children of my generation, decades from now, when they are in their twenties, will be able to say, 'In my lifetime, the legal right for gay people to marry has never been questioned.'
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com