Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

“This Is So Not Over,” Promises Boxer On Proposition 8


Gay activists aren’t giving up on gay marriage, and neither is Barbara Boxer!

The California Senator promised supporters yesterday that the fight is not over:

Boxer said that despite fellow Democrat Barack Obama’s historic presidential win and gains in both the U.S. House and Senate for her party, Prop. 8 “put a damper effect” on her election night.

“This is so not over,” Boxer said at a Wednesday press conference held jointly with California Democratic Party chairman Art Torres. “The fight for equality goes on and on. The fight for a more perfect union goes on and on.”

Boxer pointed out that all the votes still had to be counted. She also suggested the fight might go back to the courts.

“There may be some inconsistencies with our law and our constitution still, so there will be legal challenges that will move forward,” she said.

And, hopefully, so will gay rights.

[Image]

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Nov 6, 2008
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 15 Comments
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      Word.

      Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • crazylove
      crazylove

      Cool.

      Nov 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TikiHead
      TikiHead

      Since civil rights are just a matter of the ballot box, let’s vote to bring back slavery to get us through this economic slump.

      All that free labor should be awesome!

      Oh, we will, of course, be enslaving Republican.

      Nov 6, 2008 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • E Jackson
      E Jackson

      1) This is coming from the same lady and group of people who think the 2nd amendment was written in disappearing ink.

      2) Prop 8 wasn’t about denying fundamental rights nor was it just a religious issue. It was about preventing the redefinition of society. Children raised by single parents have been shown to have gender identity issues and have also been shown to be less successful in life. For those of us who think that would be two fold for children of same sex couples, that is what prop 8 was about.

      Nov 7, 2008 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      E. Jackson, that is hogwash. We have been re-defining society since the beginning of time + it is — + will continue to be — constantly evolving.

      Nov 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • E Jackson
      E Jackson

      Of course certain aspects of society have been redefined over time. I never stated otherwise. The structure of the family unit however has never been redefined. The basic unit of society (the family) has been consistent for as far as history is recorded. Further, the overall strength of a society can be trended by the integrity of its families. So no, it is not hogwash, and the fact that some in this state think otherwise is why it was put to a vote – Something that didn’t happen when a number of other rights have been taken away.

      The purpose of marriage (from a historically consistent and purely sociological / non-religious stand point) is to establish a stable paternal unit consisting of a man and a wife that will then conceive and raise children who will then go on to become the societies next generation. How do same gender couples fit into that scenario? They don’t.

      Further the tax and legal benefits which were originally applied to married couples were designed to support and subsidize the couples efforts in raising a family through decreased taxes, shared employment benefits, etc. Not one of these rationales apply to same gender couples, as there is no need for a primary bread winner and primary homemaker. I take no issue with how consenting individuals explore their sexuality or express their emotions for each other, but by the same rational that same sex partners claim tax benefits and their partner’s employment benefits, I should be able to claim my dog as a dependent. You guessed it, it makes no sense.

      Nov 7, 2008 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @E Jackson:

      Not one of these rationales apply to same gender couples, as there is no need for a primary bread winner and primary homemaker.

      ….so you are probably one of those people who think that the woman should keep to the kitchen right? Because guess what E.Jackson? We’re not in the 50s anymore.

      I take no issue with how consenting individuals explore their sexuality or express their emotions for each other, but by the same rational that same sex partners claim tax benefits and their partner’s employment benefits, I should be able to claim my dog as a dependent. You guessed it, it makes no sense.

      So you’re saying a gay man equals a dog. Nice. I really don’t have to say more to show your bigotry and stupidity.

      Nov 12, 2008 at 6:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      @E Jackson:

      Yeah, speaking of “makes no sense”, that’s how I’d describe about 99% of what you just typed.

      Marriage is nothing more than a partnership. A business deal or contract if you will, with all of the legal + tax benefits that some such deals come with.

      There are gay couples who are already benefitting from such partnerships — not just civil unions, but actual marriages in name + benefits — across the world +, guess what, the world is still turning.

      Perhaps, though, your spouse would be better off marrying a dog. I reckon she’d have much more meaningful conversations + probably better sex, as well.

      Nov 12, 2008 at 6:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • E Jackson
      E Jackson

      @Chris:

      I never said that women should keep to kitchen. I did however allude to the fact that studies show that children raised by two parents where one is primarily a homemaker are more successful in life than those raised by single or dual income parents.

      Again with the leap of logic, I never said that a gay man equals a dog. Such would defy logic almost as much as you have. I did however state the fact that the tax benefits extended to married couples were originally intended to be a subsidy of that couples beginning of a family, and that same sex couples fit into that about as well as a dog and its owner.

      While you are entitled to your opinion, you may consider looking up words like bigot if you are going to use them incorrectly.

      Bigot: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own. (Dictionary.com)

      I have expressed no intolerance. In fact I stated quite clearly that while I do believe that marriage should remain defined as the union of a man and a woman, I take no issue with how consenting individuals explore their sexuality or express their emotions for each other. That is a personal and moral issue that should be dealt with individually.

      Just as there are opposing view points in nearly every other aspect of politics, you simply have to accept that over 50% of CA and well over 50% of the remaining US nation believe it is in society’s best interest that marraige not be redefined. If I felt that universal health care was good and you felt it was bad could I then call you a bigot for that?

      Nov 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • E Jackson
      E Jackson

      @fredo777:

      Your definition of marriage being nothing more than a partnership is precisely what the majority of the people have repeatedly rejected. As for the legal and tax benefits, I don’t feel the need to repeat my stated opinion.

      You speak of meaningful conversation yet you say such useless things. It seems the only conversation you are interested in is one where your opinions are regurgitated to you. And while there are women who swear by dogs (no I don’t think they should get married and have legal and tax benefits either) my wife is not one of them. She also often has a different opinion than I have, and plenty of meaningful conversation occurs without meaningless insults being thrown around.

      Nov 12, 2008 at 7:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      @E Jackson:

      Useless? Hardly.

      I said nothing that didn’t have an explicit function of expressing exactly what I felt. Perhaps you didn’t agree with some of my statements; however, there was nothing without purpose in the entire comment.

      As for the rest of your own statements, the “remaining US nation” does not agree that male-female marriage are the best for society, considering that there are areas where same-sex marriage is already legal + citizens there don’t give a shit one way or the other whether gay couples call their relationships “marriage” or not.

      Also, considering the relatively close recent loss in Cali., I wouldn’t get too comfortable with the notion that marriage is only to be between a man + woman in that state for very long.

      Furthermore, don’t try to take the “high road” or make assumptions that I only want to hear my own opinions regurgitated back to me. Especially not after that nonsense you originally typed about children being worse off with same-sex parents. That has been refuted repeatedly by experts on the subject who weren’t biased against gay marriage.

      You might be more eloquent than most opponents who post here but your views on the subject are just as outdated. As I said before, society evolves + there are already thousands of gay couples enjoying the benefits + joys of marriage (+ parenthood) in our country + abroad, which will only increase in numbers over time. Get used to it, mate.

      Nov 12, 2008 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • E Jackson
      E Jackson

      @fredo777:

      I used the term useless because while you expressed what you felt (or rather an emotional outburst), there was no thought or reason behind it.

      On the contrary, according to gallop polls, the clear majority of the nation is still against same sex marraige. This is not to say that there aren’t geographic areas where this is not the case, just that the US as a whole is against it.

      I think you mean win.

      Don’t assume that just because I oppose an idea that I don’t respect the rule of law. I respect the will of the people when the law is followed, and should at some point the tables turn on this issue, I won’t be out in the streets rioting.

      I prefer to always take the “high road” as I feel is is the proper thing to strive to always be a better person. As for assumptions, I merely stated what was apparent. I stated an opinion substantiated by facts, and your response was an emotional outburst. This tells me that you have difficulty carrying on a meaningful conversation unless you already share the same opinion.

      Any sources? Yes I am genuinely interested, because I haven’t seen any yet.

      While it is always possible to find that one’s ideas are mistaken and change them, I don’t feel there is an expiration date on correct ideas if they are in fact correct.

      As I stated before, I disagree with it. Over time things may change. I won’t let it bother me. Society will learn or fail as it has in the past. As for now, I and the rest of the majority of the CA stood by our opinions.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      @E Jackson:

      No, there was thought + reason behind what I said. Call it an “emotional outburst” if you will, but there is a certain degree of emotion in most anything I write. I prefer to remain “human” in my writing, not only relying upon cold facts + numbers.

      You assumed wrong, btw, that I can’t have a “meaningful conversation” unless I agree with someone’s opinion. Far from it. Most of my better conversations are those with persons whom I have a differing opinion from. Meaningful, I suppose is a subjective concept. If you mean it was not “meaningful” because I made a personally insulting remark, that is debatable. I found meaning in those words as, apparently, did you, since they evoked a pointed response.

      The will of the people is not fully relevant when it means protecting the minority from the majority. That has been proven time + time again throughout our history (women voting, etc, etc). We don’t live in a pure democracy, after all, but a constitutional republic. Nor do we live in a theocracy.

      As for sources, check out the American Psychological Association’s site, apa.org.

      Btw, I might have misjudged you as one of the many trolls we get here whose only aim is to post contrary statements in order to get a rise out of the crowd the blog caters to: LGBT persons. You have at least given rational, thoughtful responses + explained your opinions well. I can appreciate that more than the typical “you fags are sinners, blah, blah, blah…” commentary.

      Like I said, we have differing opinions on the subject of whether marriage remaining “traditional” in the male-female sense is/should be outdated. In my understanding, it is somewhat an outdated viewpoint, since there are already gay couples who are legally married in this + other countries + support for the inclusion of same-sex couples in the practice is growing with time.

      Over time, I feel things certainly will change. I respect your + the remainder of Yes on 8 voters’ right to stand by your opinions, though I disagree with them.

      Nov 13, 2008 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      Being a homosexual is wrong.

      God created a Man and a Women not M&M or W&W.
      This is the way it is meant to be.
      If you are gay, okay. But it’s not love. It’s lust you have.
      You are without God, and God is love, and how can you love someone when you have NO love to give?

      God made Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve.
      Please I know I sound like an asshole you you guys.
      But please turn it around. I don’t anyone here to
      have to perish because they are confused by evil.

      Dec 20, 2008 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • E Jackson
      E Jackson [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @fredo777:

      I suppose that by “the typical “you fags are sinners, blah, blah, blah…” commentary” you mean this last guy Zach.

      Good thing that he has established that without believing in his denomination of Jewdaio-Christianity humans are incapable of love.

      If somebody asked my moral opinion of homosexuality I would suggest that it is contrary to the majority of traditional moral structures (both religious and philosophical) which most likely stems from the fact that it is anthropologically counterproductive.

      But since I could say the same for several other activities (drinking and gambling to name two popular ones), there needs be a litmus test to decide when it is worth imposing the label of ethics (where government has domain) on a moral (where government has no domain) issue. The litmus test is simple: the government ought not sponsor anything which does not benefit or contribute to society as a whole and must not criminally condemn anything which does no harm to those not directly involved.

      So back to Zach’s comment. Perhaps instead of leaping to the conclusion that gays are evil, perhaps start by explaining why your religion could be validly forced on another. Or perhaps you could try a more Christ like approach and invite others to seek a personal relationship with the Father and let Him guide them to what is right.

      As for the American Psychological Association, I haven’t spent as much time as I would like to have, but I have read the policy page and several of the summaries of the referenced studies. What I have found was rather inconclusive.

      At some point early on, the APA gathered a handful of studies which showed “no evidence” that homosexuality was worse than heterosexuality on various topics of parenthood. “No evidence” studies are statistically as valuable as anecdotes since they lack the sample size and or significance to demonstrate equality inferiority or superiority (in a comparison study, on group could be visibly worse than the other but still be labeled “no evidence” if the difference does not exceed a predetermined value or the sample sizes were insufficient to prove that the difference wasn’t a glitch).

      The APA then took this handful “no evidence” studies and used them to establish a policy that effectively prohibits any study that could indicate any deficiency in homosexual parenting. So, while I couldn’t say that the APA’s conclusion is right, I couldn’t say it is wrong either based on the studies referenced.

      What is unfortunately clear is that the APA has officially stonewalled any real pursuit of truth in the matter using a policy statement supported only by piss poor science and non evidence and is dead wrong for doing so. That of course strikes any pretension of being non biased from the APA.

      Thanks for the reading though. It was thought provoking, and I did enjoy it.

      Dec 24, 2008 at 1:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.