San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has been a tireless crusader for gay rights. It was he who, way back in 2000 2004, began issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco.
Though those marriages were later annulled by the state, California’s Supreme Court this year ruled that gay folk should, in fact, have the right to marry, a decision that spurred the right to launch Proposition 8, which would reverse the Court’s ruling. Again, Newsom’s been campaigning against that measure and just this week shored up support against conservative “extremists.”
Obviously the right doesn’t like Newsom very much and have been using him as the poster child for gay-friendly politicians. This means, of course, that should Proposition 8 pass, Newsom’s ubiquitous image may take some of the blame.
Journo Chris Reed predicts that will be the case, but insists Newsom shouldn’t get skewered. The blame, he writes, belongs elsewhere:
…The recriminations will be intense if Prop. 8 succeeds. I think San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will be haunted forever by his braying, arrogant soundbite after the May state Supreme Court ruling declaring gay marriage legal in California: “The door’s wide-open now. It’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not!” It was off-the-charts smart for the pro-8 forces to replay the clip over and over in their ads.
For my money, though, any recriminations should focus on California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. This state was gradually moving toward a gay-marriage consensus. But it just wasn’t there yet when George, in his own way, declared it’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not.
I found George’s legal reasoning to be sound and persuasive. But given his past moderation and unadventurousness, his decisive vote to impose gay marriage on California was deeply uncharacteristic. It may well have been principled. Yet given George’s history, it looks far more like posturing for the history books than anything else.
Well, it seems to us that if Proposition 8 passes, the voters deserve the blame, not any one person….
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
M. Bergeron
correction, Winter of Love was in 2004.
fredo777
“to impose gay marriage on California”
Interesting word-choice, d-bag.
As for Newsom, I love him, but that sound bite was a dumb move.
Rick Heintz
That sound bite came from someone who was so excited to see the end of marriage discrimination. This guy has worked his butt off (Cute as it may be) working for our civil rights. Having worked directly with No on 8 I can honestly say he is doing more for our community than many of us are.
If Prop 8 passes next week we have no one to blame but ourselves. If you want to blame someone else ask yourself a couple of questions… What could I have done? How many times did I volunteer for “No on 8”? How many emails did I send out to family and friends? How many co-workers did I talk to about this?
These are our rights and many from the community, in my eyes, don’t get that.
Woof
VOTE VOTE VOTE
Gianpiero
Newsom has been proactive in supporting us and our rights from the beginning. He should be judged by the community on that, and not on an unfortunate remark (as much as it makes me wince), which happens even to good public figures.
I second what Rick says @3 above about email, volunteering, etc. So many people I’ve talked to and couples I have seen get married in the last few months have really compelling personal that can be extremely influential. My now-husband and I have put our own out there (www.doebler.us), but what can help most is talking to people who know YOU.
warner
What a stupid question. Mayor Newsom is one of the heroes of gay rights.
Jaroslaw
Isn’t it interesting that a moment of jubilation by Newsom can be used in such a negative way?
This was seized upon so quickly and yet issues of real importance such as whether or not Obama or McCain are actually “natural born” citizens vs. naturalized come so late in the campaign and as such will unable to be definitively answered.
Or the fact so many churches should lose their tax exempt status by being so blatantly partisan and otherwise knee deep in politics.. etc. etc.
I give Newsom a pass – he sees the insane hatred probably numerous times daily since he is a public figure and should be forgiven for a momentary lapse of joyousness however ill advised in retrospect.
Jaroslaw
well I should say Obama is natural born, but McCain is in a grey area……….
Cody
Of course Newsom isn’t to blame. Are you fucking kidding me?
An Other Greek
wrong question.
it is indicative of our retarded development that such a question may even be asked.
BLAME the fucking BIGOTS.
Period.
Stay on message and DO NOT buy into THEIR rhetoric.
thank you
——————————————————-
dizzyspins
The argument I have heard–and Im not sure how i feel about it–is that by pushing for gay marriage, rather than civil unions, we awoke a sleeping giant of anti-gays. Its demeaning to have to take baby steps towards equality, but in the long run it might’ve made the road easier.
Again, Im not sure which was the right course of action, but i think the point some people are making is that Newsom and other activists pushed the debate ahead of where most of America was ready to go.
Sean
As one of the folks who was married in SF that wonderful winter of 2004, I have a subtle but important clarification for your story.
The California Supreme Court did not “annull” the marriages but “voided” them. The difference being that as “annulled” they had once actually existed but as “voided” they had never taken place.
The difference will come to light again if, horrors, the Prop. Eight folks are victorious and again thousands of committed relationships are “depaddled” while already up the creek.
Will these marriages be “annulled”, “voided” or simply “aborted”?
Sean
Oh, and I must not forget…
Thank you Gavin. You are a true hero.
Cam
How dare anybody suggest that we blame a hertrosexual who has tirelessly supported us, if bigots decide to vote against us. Thank you Mayor Newsom!!!!
CHURCHILL-Y
For once I agree with something Queerty has written. It is the voters, especially those of color due to the disdain they have for Gays the ones that will be to blame for the passage of Prop 8. Although I find some of Newsom’s policies like the sanctuary city for illegal criminals thing a complete crime and just cause to at minimum make sure he remains contained in SF and never pursuits a career in DC, he has been a good Allie of the Gay community even when hypocrites like Obama were dismissing and turning him down for his support for equality for same sex couples.
He might have sounded arrogant but damn it at that time we needed lots of arrogance on our side!
Pik Botha
Of course not. The voters who cast their votes for it will be to blame.
ggreen
How very Fox News of Queerty to ask a question like that. I have one for the editors of Queerty. How large was your donation(s) to the No On 8 Campaign? Don’t lie because we can look it up, on the donor list at the California Secretary of State.
ILOVEZ
This is the dummiest posting I have ever read. He is a hero! What is wrong with Queerty?! They stop posting his bad pictures as well!!!!
Dex
Gavin Newsom is hero. No doubt. The only hero among a profession of wimps and liars. His passion is unmatched, even by Barack Obama.
ChicagoJimmy
If it fails, I would blame the mormans. It’s their money that’s flowing in from Utah. Sad that California voters can’t make this decision for themselves. Frankly, it speaks volumes about how stupid ballot initiatives and recall votes are.
Also Church-lady is dumb. So ready to tell us how all the people of color voted before they even get a chance to do it.
julian
He came and spoke at my school yesterday and I found him INSPIRING and amazing. That a straight person would stand up for gay rights still amazes me, but that he does more than tolerate, but he accepts and appreciates diversity, is that much more important. I won’t blame him at all if it passes, I’ll blame the morons who voted yes.
Charles Merrill
The Presidential candidates are to blame if it passes. That Rick Warren debate was a winner for the theocrats. They both came out against gay marriage.
nycmattman
Why do we get freaked out by “backlash?” If Proposition 8 passes all of us will be sad, pissed, resolved to fight even harder, etc. But we’ve still advanced the issue and educated millions of Americans — many of whom are now with us in this fight.
Gavin is right. It’s gonna happen. I pray the assholes don’t have a victory next week but if they do I have every confidence that victory will be short lived. Ten years ago, barely any gay people thought we’d ever be able to marry. Today, I think a majority would say the opposite.
PS. Win or lose, how amazing has the effort been to stop Prop 8? I am so proud of the millions of gay people and their friends who are joining the fight. I am amazed at how much has been accomplished against such well-funded jerks.
Cambo Soup
He’s not to blame!
NEWSOM for CA GOVERNOR! 2010!
mark
either way I won’t blame Newsom
he showed courage in his actions…and it’s RARE lately
Eric
I think it’s a fair question. Some of us down in LA aren’t so in love with SF’s alcoholic, oily mayor that we are blinded by the effect of his cringe-inducing rhetoric that certainly did nothing to PROMOTE the cause. Newsom is nothing if not an opportunist, but this time it may have backfired on him.
HC lib
There should be no vilification of Newsome. He has been a champion of our cause, and one of the most outspoken gay allies we have!
Newsome supposedly has statewide political ambitions, and is still very vocal in his support for our causes. Newsome could have been silent so as to not alienate future voters statewide but he has chosen principal and his true beliefs instead and that is a rare trait in any politician. I say: yay Newsome!
George Bush
Newsome for Governor!!! He is a civil rights hero.
Dave
Newsome Is a Hero! he supported us through thick and thin and I will do the same for him. The people to blame are Mormons, The Catholic Church, Evangelical Christians, and all the other bigots, self haters, etc. If we lose we need to take to the streets to let everybody know we are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! Peacefully of course.
mark snyder
The No on 8 Campaign is now run by Log Cabin Republican Patrick Guerrero. If we lose, I blame the conservative wing of the LGBT community and the progressives who follow them like lemmings.
Chant
What the hell are you talking about, queerty?! Newsom has been on our side since day one!
John
While the passage of Prop. 8 would probably mean the end of Newsom’s gubernatorial (and senatorial) aspirations, the reverse is also true. If Prop. 8 goes down in defeat, Newsom suddenly becomes much more “electable” in a statewide contest.
Of course, even if we come up short here, Newsom can always wait for a retirement in the House of Representatives. With a war chest of millions, Pelosi’s support, and a local campaign apparatus already in place — he’d probably coast quite easily to victory.
But somehow, I don’t think the notion of being a backbencher in Congress would appeal to Newsom. He has always been more ambitious than that. In terms of proving he isn’t a liability in a statewide election, however, he needs to put this same-sex marriage issue behind him. And the only way to do that is if Prop. 8 is defeated.
John
As for those right-wingers who hope Newsom’s going to stay in San Francisco, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Because of California’s term limit law, he has to be out of San Francisco by November 2011.
If he doesn’t get into the governor’s mansion, there’s little doubt that he’s going to DC. The only question is whether it will be as a Senator or a Congressman. As I said above, he’s very ambitious. And he has a ton of money to fuel that ambition. There’s no way he’s going back to his estate in Napa.
Capt. Jack Harkness
Jesus Queerty, Even the suggustion that Newson would get blame is truly horrendous. The man (A STR8 Man….A HOT STR8 Man no less) has gone out of his way and broken the law to stand for us and with is. NEWSOME is a Hero!
If we lose then we have the bigots and only ourselves to blames.
milkcluber
Newsom clearly did the right thing when he ordered City Hall to issue licenses to same sex couples, and all of us were uplifted by it. But one reason it was such a surprise was that just months before, as a candidate for mayor, Newsom admitted he did not provide domestic partner health insurance for his own employees “because he couldn’t afford it” and he had strenuously objected to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence’s annual Easter fundraiser because it mocked Catholics. His record on our issues as mayor is equally mixed. While campaigning for Prop 8, he also had led an effort to put on the ballot an overturn of the school board’s decision to end JROTC, and now leads the effort to re-install JROTC in San Francisco schools, refusing to address the military’s anti-gay policy. He also has refused to endorse any gay candidates for office this year, including Tom Ammiano, a true hero who is the overwhelming favorite to win election to the State Assembly. Ammiano was a friend and ally of Harvey Milk and has a thirty year history with us, beginning with his outspoken role as an open gay teacher against the Briggs Initiative in 1978. So far, Newsom has been a great one-night stand, but I wouldn’t trust him as a partner based on his record to date. His enthusiasm for gay marriage came after it was clear that it was strongly supported, and at the time in 2004, he even refused to allow any pictures to be taken of him performing a marriage except behind closed doors by his brother-in-law. Once the court sided with him, he had his Howard Dean moment, more likely giddy for himself than for us. Saying our rights will come “ready or not” was like telling the public that we aren’t looking for change that brings us together in a more equal society, but that we’ll run roughshod over them. We’ll fight for our rights, no question, but we need to win support as well, which is what thousands of same sex couples have done with their quiet heroics of coming out as married couples and thereby changing the climate far more that Newsom — but, again, he deserves credit for opening the door.
Marko
Dumb ass question. You guys sound like republicans.
And I notice the editors here at Queerty haven’t given a penny to NO on 8, makes you wonder….
frank kameny
Vote Yes On 8.
fredo777
Vote Yes on leaving an angry badger in Frank Kameny’s bed tonight.
All in favor, say “aye”.
– Queerty’s readership, in unison, chants “aye” –
Jaroslaw
Milkcluber – I’d have to research to see if all your claims about Newsom are true – but even assuming they are – posters on this site really have a problem with 3/4 of a loaf vs. no loaf at all. Just to analyze one thing you said – maybe he did come out to support marriage AFTER it was found to have strong support. If he is only mindlessly running after popularity, why then did all the other politicians not do likewise? I personally think he took a big risk and I’m thankful for it. We are a tiny minority and have made great strides relative to other groups in a fairly short time. So, even if you’re right that Newsom is just a one night stand, I still say BRAVO to him.
frank kameny
Queerty’s readership, in unison–and with whimsical flair–chants “aye”.
John
Newsom was donating money to the Republican Party as late as 2000. He wasn’t really a committed Democrat until he ran for office.
Even now, he still has some conservative tendencies,especially when it comes to fiscal policy. He has been pretty merciless with the budget cuts. And he insists on having a balanced budget every year, despite strong opposition from the Green/Socialist wing of the Board of Supervisors.
Having said that, I believe Newsom when he says attending Bush’s SOTU in 2004 changed his attitudes towards social conservatism. Bush has that affect on people.
fredo777
– tosses angry badger in Frank’s general direction –
frank kameny
Fredo,
Thank you. I like badgers. A lot.
But I’m still voting ‘yes’ on 8.
fredo777
Yeah, yeah.
Just out of (bi-)curiousity(?), Francis, are you gay?
seitan-on-a-stick
Newsom for Governor of California! Impeach Arnold!
frank kameny
Fredo,
Sorry fella, me likey the girls. Your advances notwithstanding, I’m still voting yes on 8.
fredo777
Advances? lmao
Yeah…right. I asked because I wondered: if you’re not gay, why are you posting on a gay-themed blog?
crazylove
Let me reframe your question:
Is the U.S. Supreme Court to blame for the bombing of black churchs after it ended segregation?
That Churchill, Queerty’s resident bigot emeritus, thinks you are right should tell you the dark corner of history in which your thought processes now tread.
The danger is not in the thinking. The danger is in not knowin the history and the answer to the question you ask.
Or short anwer: If know what ever dared challenge the status quo, nothing changes. Ask the queens of Stonewall do they think it was a bad idea to fight back against hatred.
crazylove
change that “if know what ever” to “no one ever”
moonstone
If prop. 8 passes, I don’t think it will be because of Newsom. We voted on this once already. It will simply be because the people’s position has not changed on this issue.
fredo777
The people’s position…
What people? The majority?
Yes, because we should always be willing to modify the constitution in a way that discriminates against more people + offers less “liberty + justice” based on what the majority votes. Keeping in mind that America is a constitutional republic, of course.
That, moonstone, is a load of shit. The Cali Supreme Court called it exactly right + that is the decision that should (+ if justice prevails, will) stand.
crazylove
Fredo
I agree with you, but the American public has been dumbed down over the last 30 years so they don’t even understand that we live in constitutional democracy that affords rights to the minority without regard to mob rule. I doubt many people here, including moonstone, have read the Federalist Papers or anything else about how our system is meant to work. Their version of democracy is simply majoritarian rule. Of course, the danger of that thinking (essentially a conservatie position) can be found here with Prop 8 and in theocratic societies such as some of those you might find like Iran. Again- how many people here even know why we balance the rights of the majority against those of the minority? Hell- how many even know that there is suppose to be a balance?
crazylove
PS– the danger can be foun din a system that says 50 plus 1 can discriminate against 49 percent of the population. Let’s say this were race discrimination. Let’s also imagine that people were saying that Jim Crow could continue because the majority felt so. No one today would argue that this is the correct result except racists. Yet, now with this issue- we simply accept the conservative construction of reality without thinking about how perverse it is in a modern democracy to allow such tyranny.
milkcluber
Clearly Newsom’s OK for marriage licenses opened the door in an important way, just as similar actions in Oregon and upstate New York did at the same time. The joy lifted up the entire city, and it led to Newsom’s approval rating going from 50 percent to 80 percent — which speaks extremely well for San Franciscans. My only point is that this one act doesn’t change the fact that we should fall in love with politicians with great caution, because their agenda is usually them, and for us, we have to make the issue our paramount concern. For example, I’ll bet few here know that as part of Newsom’s budget cuts he eliminated the Health Department’s Office of AIDS/HIV, no longer providing a special point of entry. The point about his unwillingness to provide domestic health insurance for his employees as late as 2003 is that he is in the restaurant business, with a significant lgbt staff, and we are facing critical health care needs in our community. Folks also probably don’t know that he has now closed the Castro’s celebration of Halloween for the past two years, including sending in hundreds of police to ensure that no one comes to our neighborhood to celebrate and to ensure that businesses and bars closed their doors. Admire him for his shrewdness in supporting gay marriage, but don’t look away from our need for a government that responds to all our needs, not just one of them.
John
Americans today are too stupid to understand that Jeffersonian liberal democracy, which they claim to love and respect, has absolutely nothing to do with “majority” rule. In fact, it was a carefully crafted system of checks, balances, and obstructions designed specifically to deny the majoritarian masses – and the demogogues who control them – tools by which they can abuse the minority.
In a society where only a small percentage of the population could read (not to mention vote), Jefferson’s privileging of press freedom wasn’t so much for the benefit of “Joe the Plumber” or “Joe SixPack.” It was, in fact, designed to make sure that the educated elite would remain well informed enough to rule effectively. He wasn’t thinking “free” in terms of FOX News and the National Inquirer saying whatever they want. He was thinking “free” more along the lines of law reviews and medical journals being able to publish without undue influence.
No, what we have today isn’t liberal democracy. It is a far more seductive and dangerous beast. We have Athenian direct democracy. That rudderless scourge that killed off Socrates on a whim and sent a fleet out to war – and recalled them – three times in one day. Sound like any failing country we know?
Jaroslaw
Milkcluber – now I know you’re not telling the whole story, at least on part of this. The halloween at the Castro was cancelled because it was getting too violent, not because he doesn’t like Gays.
As for the health insurance issue and the restaurant business – the PUBLIC doesn’t want to pay restaurant prices that will afford owners to give those kinds of benefits, so don’t put ALL the blame on the owners – anyone who regularly reads these posts know I seldom take the side of corporations, business or management.
You are stating the obvious that politicians have their own agenda – and you are right – but again, the PUBLIC hasn’t demanded taxpayer funded campaign laws so we get things like this. Remember Paul Tsongas? He told people 3 or 4 presidential cycles ago that we need to tax gasoline and support public transportation. How far did he get after that remark? Again, we get what we deserve a lot of the time.
crazylove
John:
The problem is that people don’t fully understand the nature of our democracy, and not that we have tended to become more representative over the years. Well, this is true except one exception– there shold be no way that anyone in any state can overturn rights by a simple majority like CA’s proposition system. My rights and those of others should not be subject to the whim of whether someone a) understands the ballot b) confuses their religious belief for what is a question of what the law should be and/or c) requires deception rather than fact based analysis to pass it.
milkcluber
Jaro — You are correct that there was violence on Halloween night a few years ago, and that was the rationale for stopping the Castro celebration. The fact is that the violence was actually outside the designated blocks of the street party, and didn’t involve lgbt members. However, Newsom promised to set up a program for the following year to create better controls — and then did not follow through, as even the BAR reported, and instead flooded the Castro with police. As for health insurance at restaurants, this is now required thanks to gay supervisor Tom Ammiano. It should be noted that Newsom’s restaurant business was largely funded by Gordan Getty, the billionaire, and that Newsom himself became a multimillionaire from the business in a few short years. One way to do that is to eliminate costs like health insurance. Today Newsom seeks credit for a San Francisco health access program, but the fact is that he threatened to veto it when Ammiano introduced it and only agreed to a plan after it was watered down. If he is the author of anything related to it, he is the author of provisions to weaken the program. If there is any community that has come to understand that health coverage is not a luxury but a necessity, it is ours. That someone would seek to enhance their profits at the expense of health care for employees, in a nation that provides health care primarily through employment-related group plans, is a valid issue.
crazylove
Weird- i thought this was about whether his support of prop 8 would hurt him, and not whether one can throw the kitchen sink at him to find something by which to attept to discredit him. or, shorter version “look over there!”
Terry House
Chief Justice George, no matter what he may have written before, wrote one of the most eloquent, persuasive opinions of the Cal Supremes. If you read it, you can tell it came from his heart. It resembles the tone of Anthony Kennedy of the US Supremes in his majority opinion in the sodomy decision. To say he did it as posturing is just ridiculous….and pointless.
moonstone
If you want to read a much better write-up, read the dissenting opinions:
Justice Baxter & Justice Chin
“So far, Congress and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or explicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid.â€
“California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.â€
“The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by aconvincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage†for opposite-sex legal unions? I must conclude tht the answer is no.â€
“… a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.â€
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.â€
crazylove
Except that gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature. The only reason why Gov Arnold expressed for why he vetoed it was that he felt it had to first be decided by the CA S Ct as legal. in other words, the two other duly elected bodies in CA as representatives of the people okay’ed gay marriage but for waiting for the S Ct to give its okay. Now, that the representative democracy doesn’t work for the bigots they have turned to direct democracy (which is essentially mob rule, and is something that both was to be avoided historically and which has problem disasterious in other aspects of CA govt including things that fiscal conservatives complain about l ike the budget, but hey why let that stop you). On top of this, yes to gild, the lilly, let’s place the social conservative behavior fully into context. Even when they lose the popular vote on issues, do they give up to accept the will of the people? Well, if prop 4 is any indication the answer is no. Prop 4 was attempted by social conservatives in 2006, and lost. That was the will of the people. They then gathered votes against to re-ask the same question. Why? Not because of democracy or because they care about it. But because they have a theocratic agenda. So please- Moonstone- peddle that shit some place else.
milkcluber
Relying on “long and universal tradition” has been the hallmark of past efforts to deny equality in California. In 1964, it was Proposition 14, to permit racial discrimination by landlords and the real estate industry. It passed with 65 percent of the vote, and in the view of many set the temperature for the following year’s Watts Riots as African Americans pushed back (violently) against being forced into housing ghettos. In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned California’s vote on the basis of the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. In 1968, congress finally passed the Fair Housing Act, four years after passage of the Civil Rights Act. There is more than a slight parallel here to Prop 8 this year, except the current Supreme Court make-up offers little hope of recognizing that the constitution’s equal protection clause will apply to same-sex marriage. The point being that perpetuation of “long and universal tradition” is a prescription for maintaining inequality. The past need not become the future and should not dictate the future when the result is inequality. Just as in Prop 14, Prop 8 is nothing less than a battle to retain perogatives for one class of citizens and denying those same rights to others. It is prejudice and bias enshrined.
JJ
Why don’t ya’ll just move to Boston?
Jaroslaw
Crazylove, you rock! (your response to Moonstone)
And Moonstone – see your paragraph starting: ‘The question presented by this case is stark and simple….” Somewhere in there it says “in deference to the long and universal tradition..” [marriage has always been between a man and a woman]
This is flatly untrue, even in THIS country which is not yet 300 years old. Indian tribes had a man married to another man visit the White house even somewhere around 1904. Mi Wha I think was his name.
You’re free to believe what you like of course, and even promote it, but STOP LYING. The folks on this blog are way to smart for your shit.
Nero
Sweet and simple, it’s the gay and lesbian community that’s to blame. Unlike other minority groups, whom willingly suffered bigotry and prejudice to endure gradual but positive change, the gay and lesbian community couldn’t wait for social acceptance to work its way into the American social conscience as was gradually happening. Domestic partnership laws, advantageous as they were to the gay and lesbian community, were not sufficient enough. Instead, emboldened, the gay and lesbian community pursued an idealistic and legal path that would ultimately be perceived as shoving gay rights down the throats of previously softening pallets. Of course, anything forced down the throat will surely cause one to reject it with force.
Theou
Hehe. I always like to read the angry gay comments. You folks are hilarious. You support everything unless it goes against you and your subversive lifestyle. Fact is: We voted against this already and a band of arrogant judges decided to overturn nearly 4 million voices to purposely start a controversy that would tear apart California. They succeeded. So stop trying to blame this person or that person and start looking at the right people. The “club” called the judges started this whole thing and you gays got right on the bandwagon lock stock and barrel. Invent your own word for wedlock. It is not marriage. Two similar pieces cannot be wed. I did not make the laws the universe did. I hope you gays find what you are looking for in the end. Keep looking. I don’t hate you but what is happening in Massachusetts would certainly happen here. Schools teaching your lifestyle is normal. Bull_ _ _ _! Your lifestyle is not normal.
Jaroslaw
Theou – So glad such intelligent people as yourself come to visit Queerty. So you speak for the laws of the universe do you? Of course you know for almost the entire history of the planet women were barely considered people, couldn’t vote, own property – hell they WERE property. Are you suggesting our laws granting women rights today are wrong and should be repealed?
Here’s another question – do you belong to any “minority” groups – do you wear glasses, have a non-Christian relative, don’t like sports – better yet, don’t go to any church at all? Since you apparently believe in majority rule only,it is okay with you to start a referendum to exterminate whichever minority group you belong to, right? OOPS I’m asking you to think which probably isn’t possible for you!
Jaroslaw
Lastly, “the people” don’t get to vote on everything – the Supreme Court should not have allowed a vote on this matter in the first place. The Constitution of California clearly says major changes MUST go through the legislature first. And a one or two percent margin of victory considering all the LIES your side told, Theou, is hardly a mandate….
Jaroslaw
NERO – I understand what you’re saying but politely disagree. THE LAW can’t change people’s hearts, initially – but over time, when companies are NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to discriminate, it changes everyone’s mindset and the tone of the discussion. This cannot be minimized – remember few admitted to discrimination up front, some adamantly denied it, yet the boards of directors, employees, neighborhoods were 100% white. The law forced the change. There were problems, of course, white flight from the cities etc. But that is a SYMPTOM of the problem – not saying the law shouldn’t address it doesn’t help solve it.
Matt Bates
Gavin Newsom has his heart and mind in the right place, but his voice and words have failed everyone.
That SINGLE sound-bite has doomed all that everyone has worked for. Now the road forward is VERY difficult.
Without that electrifying sound bite that caused many a voter to cast a vote AGAINST the mayer, rather than for the ban, Prop 8 would have passed.
Matt Bates
I’m curious: Has Mayor Newsom thought about what and how he will comment on this issue in the future? Do you think he has any regrets about his choice of words and tone that were used to pass Prop 8?
Would act any differently in the future? Is he even aware of the impact of his actions? Has he made any public acknowledgment of his error in judgment? If not, what’s to prevent Gavin from saying something horribly stupid and damaging in the future?
assa
Oh please. The religious right have lied in every damn ad up to this point, it’s no surprise that they’d take Newsom’s soundbyte and spin it negatively. The problem is: it WILL happen, because it’s an equal rights issue, like it or no. He was 100% accurate in saying it.
Of course these religious bigots are the same people who claim the CourageCampaign’s Mormon home invasion ad was mean. Shut the fuck up, whiny little cunts. The fucking douche behind SaveCalifornia did say after all:
“Now the false marriages done this summer must be declared null and void.”
http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9924
The Mormon church has insulted people by preventing further marriage and they are indeed metaphorically trying to force themselves into LGBT people’s homes and shred their marriage licenses. The bastards are lying for their cause, and idiotic voters are buying into it, since they’re too fucking lazy to look up the legal differences between a civil union and a marriage license!
Matt Bates
Well, telling voters that they’re idiots doesn’t sound like a winning plan either. It would seem to me that a campaign must know what they’re dealing with. If Gavin continues with the attitude he displayed previously, well then, this issue will have to wait much longer than necessary. You can’t count on courts, even the Supreme Court (especially), to do the right thing. They often do bend to public opinion, particularly historical public sentiment. Again, I say: Prop 8 probably would have been defeated. Gavin’s blather (you may call it honesty; but it was stupid) was a shot in the foot; hell, he shot the legs off this critical movement all across America. Would it not be wise for Gavin to rethink his strategies? OR at least supporters urge him to cool it?
assa
Gavin is irrelevant in this. The major problem lies with the people who are currently being allowed to vote. The simple fact is that the idea that ANYONE could vote for McCain/Palin when they’ve been abysmal in policy and debates, the fact that there’s gay Republicans of all things (self-hate much, boys?) shows that there is a serious, serious problem with the critical thinking skills of these voters.
We need some kind of a system that allows votes from everyone, but increases the value (perhaps by letting you cast double the ballots) if you’ve received an actual education of some kind, as England had a long while back. Otherwise, we might as well get used to the brainwashed masses voting as though they’d like to see America become a theocracy.