Opinions are like assholes. Everyone’s got one.
And Proposition 8 going back to California’s ballot box in 2012 certainly isn’t short on assholes. Oops — we mean opinions. Just read our comments from the survey we posted and you’ll see what we mean.
But to be fair, some comments were very insightful. For example, Alex wrote, “Didn’t we complain that “civil rights should never be voted on” and “the majority should never vote on the minority” wouldn’t it just be hypocrisy?”
Some users asked the hard questions:
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.
Hybybt said, “if somehow the courts fail us on this, the ONLY way to undo Prop 8 will be a return to the ballot. Under those circumstances, should it come to that, would you still oppose holding a vote?”
Luke asked, “Remember those couples that don’t have long left to wait? Why should they wait for the Supreme Court to finish up in 2014?”
Swoon. We love our commenters.
EQCA is also conducting a survey accompanied by a series of statewide town halls to end on June 9th. If anyone leads the charge for a ballot measure it will likely be EQCA, so the results of their findings should be a good read.
Speaking of surveys, here are some results from ours:
About 50% of our survey participants support going back to the ballot box in 2010. About 20% opposed the ballot measure. The other 30% were unsure, neutral, or they went to watch TV and forgot about the survey they were taking on Queerty.
We know this will get some panties in a twist. And it probably should. What happens if the ballot measure fails? What will that do to the Supreme Court Case? What if it wins? Where is all the money going to come from? Who will raise it? Should we even promote the idea that people should have the right to vote on our civil rights?!?!
There is so much to be angry about!!!
So go ahead – drop your comment. Don’t forget the usefulness of CAPS and exclamation points!!!!!!!
God, we love drama.
iDavid
I think it’s a shoe-in at the ballot box. California has been horribly beat up on this issue, more than anywhere else in the U.S. We have some horribly depressed gay people suffering the double tripple punch. We’ve suffered enough. I want the drama over stat, we can carry the ball with another state. I take for once in my life, the conservative approach. I wanna take my well deserved winnings and walk. So I’m gonna walk and cancel further bets. That’s my “final answer”.
WewaBoi
Wouldn’t it be better to do it in 2014? You’re going to have the same problem with the liberal religious voters in 2012 that you had in 2008. Fewer of those people vote in midterm elections, but people who do vote in midterms in CA are exceedingly liberal.
chels
I like the idea of the physical girth and size of a California West coast ballot box win, matching the girth and size of winning east coast states combined. It’s like two pieces of thick bread with the country in between. Get Cali legal then put the sandwich between the hands and squeeze with buckets of cash from the coasts oozing out wins one by one with an appropriate timing at SCOTUS.
Cam
The worst that can happen has already happened. It lost, so whats the harm in revoting on it? If it wins, great, if it doesn’t we still have the court case.
TheRealAdam
It comes down to results: if there is a chance of winning in 2012, then put it on the ballot. The fact of the matter is that *most* people do not see gay rights, and marriage equality, in particular, as a civil right. The Supreme Court’s decision will reflect that stance and more than likely will rule against marriage equality, since the SC has traditionally sided with the backward masses on minority issues.
It’s important to remember that Prop 8 was a close call in CA. Other states, such as those in the South and Midwest, tend to be more conservative, and gays really don’t have a chance of securing their rights through the ballot there. In their case, they may have to wait for judicial rulings. In the case of CA, it would make more sense to wage another campaign, with a more serious (and seriously funded) and aggressive tone, that involves reaching all sectors of the population, including the minority populations who overwhelmingly voted against us.
iDavid
The stats are now in our favor, they weren’t in ’08. The tides have turned. I think it’s too soon for SCOTUS, I just feel we need more of the country legalized first and I think Cali would do it. Though it may fly w SCOTUS since we have a high 52% gay marriage favor in the U.S. Just not interested in chancing it. If we lose at the ballot box in 2012, which is HIGHLY unlikely, we can always continue on to SCOTUS and 2014. But I strongly feel it’s incredibly important to grab the brass ring in 2012, as the impact on the country will be very far reaching, with more positive results than one can imagine right now. There is a strong quickening of the domino effect waiting to happen w Cali legal, that’s my gut on it. Heck, if standing is denied this is all a moot issue, Cali wins by default.
jeff4justice
I was employed with NO on 8 working in SF and Sacramento.
For many of the same reasons why we lost in 2008 (reasons largely ignored in LGBT media after the election), I don’t think we’re prepared to win. Nonetheless, if it got on the ballot, as an independent activist, I’d do I all could to ensure we win.
So what are those reasons why we lost in 2008 that were ignored in all the post-prop 8 blame-game? First, after EQCA dropped the county chapter structure in 2005, they lost their connections with rural and suburb LGBT folk. Marriage Equality USA tried to pick up the county chapter model but it never seemed to succeed in ensuring a county leader in all areas of CA, let alone the rest of the USA. When they mostly relied on the big gay hotspots (WeHo, The Castro) as a goldmine of volunteers, some of them were siphoned off helping anti-marriage equality Obama and many others were simply apathetic.
A great, insightful commentary by a NO on 8 volunteer share’s a similar experience of dealing with a predominantly apathetic LGBT community: The Tragedy of Today’s Gays http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189402-1
Post Prop. 8, LGBT activism has become a bit trendy. However, most of the LGBT folk in rural and suburb areas of supposedly-liberal CA remain ignored by the major LGBT social and political groups and big city LGBT centers.
I opine in depth on this topic in the following vlogs. In these vlogs, I encourage Queerty to not just critique “Gay Inc” endlessly, but to show leadership in offering solutions to improving the lives of LGBT folk.
Big Gay/LGBT Groups Ignore Rural Gays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzgR1JvSgNw
Too Many Gay/LGBTI Groups Doing Same Thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U-JwkHdI6k
LGBTI Folk Are Too Fearful & Apathetic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqhjsfGG25M
Lastly, I don’t believe in one-size fits all strategies and solely relying on focus group testing/poll numbers to both attain equality and also better the social communities for the rural/suburb left behind LGBT folks. I believe that all approaches should be welcomed. Otherwise, when non-conformists become alienated, they will just do what they want anyway (team Boise/Olson for example) and more often then not start up yet another duplicative LGBT group.
May we all lift up one another and seek out similarity more than differences in our shared struggle for equality and freedom and peace.
jeff4justice
@jeff4justice: Corrections:
Pardon my rushed writing. When I wrote, “When they mostly relied on the big gay hotspots (WeHo, The Castro) as a goldmine of volunteers, some of them were siphoned off helping anti-marriage equality Obama and many others were simply apathetic,” to be clear I am referring to the NO on 8 campaign, not MEUSA.
Next, the link to the “insightful commentary by a NO on 8 volunteer… dealing with a predominantly apathetic LGBT community” was wrong. The correct link is: Young, Gay, and Apathetic http://www.randomlengthsnews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=210
I wish Queerty would let us edit or delete our postings.
This is why I vlog instead of vlog. ; )
Pete n SFO
Personally, I’m exhausted by the prospect of another ballot initiative. Some attitudes may have changed, but the basic methods have not & it will be more of the same.
The notion that voting on another citizen’s rights at a ballot box is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. That alone should be the message repeated as a mantra- until people really ‘get’ that, the outcome is definitely unknown.
The second principle is Civil vs. Religious marriage. If people don’t recognize the clear division that should exist, we’re dead-in-the-water.
The ‘consultants’ that managed the process during Prop 8 missed the boat. At phone banks we were given scripts that were clunky & lame. They moved no one, least of all the volunteers.
Mayor Bloomberg’s quotes should be put up on billboards- they were right on-target & decimated the baloney of our adversaries.
RJ
I say go back to the ballot box.
A lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage was fueled by the notion that liberal judges were subverting the “will of the people” on this issue. It created a sort of backlash against same-sex marriage. With the passage of time, that backlash has dissipated, and the public has become more educated on the effects of discrimination. One of the anti-equality rallying cries has always been that gay marriage, when put to a popular vote, has never won. A win at the ballot box would shut down that argument, and demonstrate clearly to everyone in the country that the “will of of the people” is shifting towards marriage equality.
Furthermore, I think there’s a large degree of voter apathy on this issue — a lot of people whose first inclination is to vote against gay marriage — but for those people, they really don’t care strongly about it and they recognize that it really doesn’t affect their lives in any way. Those people are tired of hearing about it, tired of seeing TV commercials about it, and might tend to vote pro gay marriage just to move on and settle the issue so they don’t have to hear about it anymore. Tenacity is the key to winning those voters. Gay marriage should be on the ballot at every election, 2012, 2014, 2016, etc. until it wins. I think the opposition has resigned to the fact that gay marriage is coming at some point in the future, and their ability to raise money to fight this losing battle is diminishing and will continue to diminish each time it is placed on the ballot.
I understand that putting civil rights up for a vote is distasteful. The current Supreme Court is not an ideal forum for a finding of a fundamental right to gay marriage, and contrary to popular belief, this current Prop 8 case is not likely to ever make it to the Supreme Court. (DOMA is a different matter. It’s more clearly unconstitutional for different reasons.) The Supreme Court finding a fundamental right to gay marriage would be much more likely at some point in the future, when more states (California and New York) have legalized same sex marriage and there are many more legally-married same sex couples who are affected, and after the constitutionality of DOMA has been settled.
Pete n SFO
This is the Bloomberg quote (still too long) that I really liked:
“Now, I understand the desire by some to seek guidance from their religious teachings. But this is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. And that is why, under the bill proposed in Albany, no church or synagogue or mosque would be required to perform or sanction a same-sex wedding—as is the case in every state that has legalized marriage equality.
“Some faith communities would perform them; others would not. That is their right. I have enormous respect for religious leaders on both sides of the issue, but government has no business taking sides in these debates—none!
“As private individuals, we may be part of a faith community that forbids divorce or birth control or alcohol. But as public citizens, we do not impose those prohibitions on society. We may place our personal faith in the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or anything else. But as a civil society, we place our public faith in the U.S. Constitution: the principles and protections that define it, and the values that have guided its evolution. And as elected officials, our responsibility is not to any one creed or congregation, but to all citizens.”
mike
It has to go to the ballot box.
1. We will win, if not in 2012, then in 2014. All statistics and polls prove it’s only a matter of time.
2. Once we win, it puts a huge hurt on bigots’ ability to raise funds – people don’t like to give money to losing causes.
3. A win at the ballot shuts down the “it’s people’s will” argument by the bigots.
4. We cannot trust that we will win the Prop 8 case should it go to this conservative Supreme Court. Historically, however, the Supremes do not take “moot” cases. If the voters overturn Prop 8, then AFER’s lawsuit becomes moot. Even if the Supremes still take the case and find for the defense, marriage would remain legal in CA.
It’s heinous that people are allowed to vote on our civil rights. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case … think of it this way: the enemy has brought this battle to us via the ballot box, and we should not be afraid to fight them on that very front.
Prof. Donald Gaudard
@TheRealAdam: Sir, you couldn’t be more wrong. Obviously, you are not a lawyer, yet you pontificate on things you know nothing about. For example, with your reasoning, how do you explain Brown v. Board of Education? How do you explain Loving v. Virginia?
If you have a broken leg, you go to an orthopedist. When you have a legal problem, you go to a lawyer. Why is it that everyone talks about “I feel that…” or “I believe that …” No one ever gives any data or FACTS to back up their beliefs.
I’m glad we have all these informal polls about how people feel; now let’s listen to our lawyers. We have the 2 best in the country; why would you discount their opinions? Do you know how the SC rules more than Ted and David do?
hyhybt
@TheRealAdam: It *was* a close call… and it will have been four years past, on an issue where opinions are ever-shifting in our favor. Sounds like a good reason to get it on the ballot.
The argument against having it on in 2010 was that 2012 would be better. Now it seems that the argument against 2012 is that 2014 will be better. How long do you want *that* to go on? 2024: “well, polls only show 74% support, and only 1 in 4 people vote. It might be the wrong quarter, so let’s wait until 2026!”
(And sorry, I have to say it: this is, I believe, the first time any site has quoted one of my comments in an article. So I guess it’s appropriate that my name is misspelled 🙂 “Have You Had Your Break Today?”)
hyhybt
By the way, since nobody’s yet answered, the question still stands: To anyone who says (rightly enough, in theory) that this shouldn’t be subject to a vote, will you still be against holding one if it turns out that’s the only way to get it done?
iDavid
It would seem Bois and Olsen are fighting tooth and nail to have Judge Vaughn’s ruling stand, to the point of shooting down standing for the defendant upon appeal. With that in mind it would seem their stance is to get marriage rights now if possible. If not, run it up the flagpole to SCOTUS. There may be more to getting legal in Cali now than they are letting on. I do not believe they have voiced their opinion about a ballot measure in 2012, tho I may be uninformed on that point.
jeff4justice
@hyhybt: Hmmm. Catch 22ish.
drmikey
I say put it back on the ballot in 2012. But strategy-wise, ignore the Central Valley and most of the inland counties except perhaps Sacramento. Concentrate efforts on the coastal counties, except the OC of course(!), where the vast majority of Californians live(if you had to choose between Santa Barbara and Fresno, would there be any doubt?), and which are all predominantly liberal and pro-marriage equality. It’s all in the numbers and where the few dollars we have get spent. And phone calls suck. Everyone hates them. Go with billboards and TV ads. And use the many pro-equality churches to get out the message too. Just sayin’…
iDavid
2012. “Legal experts advise that the case might not be resolved for several years –and there is no guarantee how the courts will ultimately rule, despite the amazing work of the lawyers leading this effort,” writes EQCA Interim Executive Director Jim Carroll.
With this in mind, it would seem a balls to the wall highly financed 2012 ballot push is inevitable well calculated and noteworthy. I personally will donate a lot more cash than ever just to get this issue off my desk once and for all.
hyhybt
@iDavid: That’s their job. Though I’m sure they’d *like* to go to the Supreme Court with this, their *job* is to get Prop 8 removed. The shortest route to that is for the appeal not to proceed due to standing, with the likelihood of the appeals court siding for the plaintiffs as a backup.
iDavid
@Hyhybt…….Yep it is their job, but many think Brown and Schwartz should have defended Prop 8 so looking at strategies is always telling, and the standing issue should be resolved hopefully this year. If standing is not granted its game over. This debate is rather nebulous and probably could be shelved until that outcome solidifies.
Prof. Donald Gaudard
@RJ: For your info (what the gay mainstream media and the gay lawyers are not telling you): The US Supreme Court, in an unanimous opinion said, in dicta, that supporters of initiatives do NOT have Article III standing. So, no matter what the Cal SC does, and no matter what the 9th Circuit does, the US SC will hold that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing. Then the 9th Circuit will decide that, since no one has standing to challenge Judge Walker’s ruling, his opinion stands.
Now, who’s on the 9th Circuit? Judge Reinhardt is the most liberal judge west of the Mississippi (and perhaps the country); he is a strong supporter of gay rights and gay marriage. He is married to the Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU. The 2nd judge is a moderate Democrat who was appointed by Clinton. The 3rd judge is a moderate Republican. So the vote is either going to be 2-1 in our favor or 3-0 in our favor.
What this means is that by next December or January there will be gay marriages in California.
But, suppose it somehow makes it to the US SC (an impossibility, but for the sake of argument, go with it). Virtually everyone acknowledges that the decision will be 4-4 with Justice Kennedy being the deciding vote. So, how is Justice Kennedy going to vote? Let’s look at the FACTS instead of “believing” or “feeling”. Right now, the 2 most important Supreme Court gay cases are Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Both of these landmark cases were written by Justice Kennedy.
Now, if Justice Kennedy votes with the conservatives, then Chief Justice Roberts will assign the opinion to a Justice to write (most likely himself). However (and here is the kicker), if Justice Kennedy votes on our side, then he will be the most senior Justice on our side, so he will decide who writes the opinion. You just know, given his ego (second only to Justice Scalia), that he will assign this case to himself.
So, if you were Justice Kennedy, what would you do? Write the opinion which will go down in history or sign onto Chief Justice Robert’s opinion. Since the law is on our side, he’s going to write any gay opinion there is.
Friends, I wrote the 1st gay rights ordinance to pass in the US in 1972. Before I retired, I taught law for over 15 years. There is no way that the Prop 8 proponents have standing, so it is a non-issue. If we’re going to have gay marriages in California within the next 6 months, what is the point of going to the ballot?
Mike in Asheville
I say place marriage-equity on the ballot each and every election until it passes. YOU NEVER GIVE UP ON CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!
***********
Marriage-equality is only a major issue to gays/lesbians. To everyone else, and look at Michael Bloomberg’s speech, while it is an important issue, there are more important issues to them.
After each ballot, everywhere across the country, more and more, slim percent by slim percent, public opinion shifts little by little to our side. What difference does it matter if it takes 3, 4, or 5+ attempts? Don’t gay/lesbian relationships and families deserve their equality no matter the effort required?
iDavid
Prof. Donald Gaudard,
Suppose CSC comes back allowing standing due to Brown and Schwartz going default, can the ninth kick it to SCOTUS for an opinion or is it a states right issue? From the way you are telling it, it sounds as if in it’s present form, it could never go to SCOTUS due to lack of standing from a federal view point. 9th being federal, why haven’t they then done what feds say on the standing issue and reject it?
TheRealAdam
@Prof. Donald Gaudard: Sorry, but I stand by my comments. Barring certain historical cases, the SC has not ruled in favor of minorities and they are more apt to stay in line with mass opinion when it comes to judicial decisions. You don’t have to be a “lawyer” to figure that out. A review of history would suffice, so it would behoove you to take your own advice and keep your pontificating to yourself.
@hyhybt: Ummmm…OK. You’re basically agreeing with me in this post, so I am not sure what your point is or why you quoted me.
hyhybt
@TheRealAdam: I’m not sure either, looking again. Perhaps I’d misread your post in some way.
@Mike in Asheville: Well, there’s the matter of funding. These things are *expensive.* If it’s not going to pass (though I think it would) then it might be more prudent to use that money elsewhere (say, by sending it to Minnesota) or to save it for a bigger campaign the next time around.
There is one other thing I’ve been wondering about the last couple of days. This will probably sound silly… but I wonder if an active election campaign doesn’t make people pull back and harden their stance, just from being tired of being pushed this way and that by ads and calls and whatnot. Just block it all out and go for what you know… whereas when there’s *not* a campaign on, it’s just a matter of seeing people as being people, and realizing they should be treated as such. But it’s just a thought, and probably not a good one.
RJ
@Prof. Donald Gaudard: OK, professor, let’s re-read my post.
I said that, contrary to what most people think, this current Prop 8 case is not likely to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. I didn’t elaborate on why, but I was referring to the issue of standing. You agree, but you miss the point. Those people who want the court case to proceed, as opposed to having a new election, are basing their stance upon a mistaken belief that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear and decide this case on the merits and declare a fundamental right of gay marriage once and for all. The point is, that’s not at all the likely outcome, as you explained perhaps better than I.
Furthermore, I merely said that the current Supreme Court is not an “ideal” forum for finding a fundamental right of gay marriage. An “ideal” forum would be one that would deliver a 9-0 decision for us on such an important civil rights matter. You say let’s look at facts, but then can only articulate your HOPES of how Kennedy may decide. While you share my own analysis of how Kennedy might opine, it is no certain fact that he will. And there are differences between decriminalizing sodomy and redefining marriage. You simply don’t know where he is going to draw the line, and that’s a fact.
Regarding standing, you are missing an important point about what the U.S. Supreme Court has in fact decided. They held, in the particular instance then under consideration, that there was no standing by the initiative supporters, because, in that particular instance, there was NO STATE LAW OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY which would have granted standing to the initiative proponents. That’s exactly why the 9th circuit sent the present case back to the Calif. Supreme Court — so that they can make just such law and authority, if they so choose. If the Calif. Supreme Court finds there is standing under the Calif. constitution, the case you mentioned (without naming it) is then meaningless and your analysis of how the U.S. Supreme Court would handle the standing issue is simply wrong.
Then you say, “What this means is that by next December or January there will be gay marriages in California.” Wrong again. Even if the Calif. SC finds no standing (and it’s very possible they will decide to allow standing), the 9th circuit then has to act. The the entire 9th circuit en bank gets another complete round, should they want it, then, after that, someone’s going to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, even if just on the issue of standing. All the while the injunction will remain intact.
As a lawyer myself, I’ve come across many law professors who are full of crap and/or full of themselves. I’ll reserve judgment on you, since I don’t know you; but in any event, I’m glad you are on the right side of the issue, fighting for the cause!
iDavid
RJ—–Your explanation is how I have always perceived it. However, if standing is a state sanctioned law, can SCOTUS even take it up? If so they could I believe, elect not to hear the case.
kf
Ok do a gay marriage ammendment in 2012. By all means if your polling data in correct and not faked like during Prop 8 then do a reverse prop 8 ammendment but that means that you agree that all pass gay marriages are fake based on the original fake ruling of the CA Supremoes. This would mean you agree with the Prop 8 constitutionality and that Guv Brown and the AG are doing the CA Supremoes job, the judicial branch and executive mixing. This implies that both the guv and AG should be recalled!
Amster
I say definitely back to the ballot box while the issue is still hot. We’ll most likely win and the blacklash that the Mormon church suffered for their bigotry is still fresh in the air… I doubt anyone wants to step in to fill their shoes. Charge!!!!!
Amster
oh, but please…. lets do it better this time. No apologizing for ourselves or making it a joke…. call bigotry what it is, bigotry… talk about our children and how gay marriage effects them.
beergoggles
Why not just run a ballot measure that says civil rights shall not be subject to vote and that vacates past ballot measures that did so?
And there’s plenty of other venues for us to spend money if California doesn’t want it – Minnesota for one.
hyhybt
@kf: Complete nonsense from top to bottom. None of your steps of implication has any logical connection, and there is no cause whatsoever to think the polling was faked, either now or in 2008. If you look back, you’ll see it started off in the spring as *slightly* in our favor, and shifted to the opposite before the election. That doesn’t mean the results of any of the polls were faked, or even that they were badly done; just that the other side ran a more effective campaign.
@beergoggles: I’m pretty sure that would violate the limit of one item per proposition.
Steve
I had to parse that question twice. So, just for grins, I ran the question through a Readability index calculator. Those results are: Flesch-Kincaid Grade level 13, and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 38.
Those scores mean, that the average high-school graduate cannot understand the question. It takes at least a year of college to reach grade level 13 in reading comprehension.
I’m not suggesting that the answers are not true results for the question that was asked. I am only suggesting that, to get a valid answer, it helps to ask a question that most people can understand. And, it helps to ask the question that you actually intended to ask.
Parsing the question carefully, “Do you oppose a ballot measure…” does not ask whether or not the organization should sponsor a ballot measure. It actually asks, whether the reader would vote against such a measure at the election.
A better question might be something like, “Should we sponsor a new proposition to repeal Prop 8 before the law suit about Prop 8 is finished?” That question scores Flesch-Kincaid Grade level 10, and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 54.
Michael
If we repeal Prop 8 in 2012, it can potentially moot the case when it reaches the Supreme Court, and who knows, it might strike down all constitutional bans on marriage nationwide!
Blake S
I think it should be on the ballot again for a multitude of reasons. 1. If that’s how we lost it that’s how we should win it. I personally want the “winners” from the first time around to have to acknowledge that they are finally a minority. 2. We have more support now than ever. The last 3 polls taken in America show an overwhelming advantage for us. California is much more liberal than most of America and we will win sooner or later (though sooner seems to be more likely). 3. I don’t trust SCOTUS-they are mostly conservative and care more about their religious convictions than they do about giving all Americans equality. They’ve given business better protections than the people and are very selective in their thought processes. I see them as being only influenced by large majorities. 4. I don’t want to wait years for us to win lawsuits with a probability of losing in the end anyway. 5. We don’t know who our next president will be. Though I’m a humanist, god help us if we get stuck with another brain dead republican. And trust me, with their line up of morally reprehensible candidates, I have no intention of letting them dictate what’s right to me when they are capitalist “Christians” which in and of itself is an oxymoron. Don’t wrote the bible to me when you’re having gay sex I’m airport bathrooms and capitalizing on people too stupid to know what’s best for ALL of us. My only reason for not wanting this on the ballot is that civil rights should be for everyone and not voted on by the majority. But guess what, they already were. Andnow that the scale has tipped in our favor we should be taking advantage of it. That’s what the conservatives did before. Now it’s our turn. 🙂
iDavid
Blake S,
I ditto you tho I don’t see some republicans as brain dead. I see them as virus brained; those who counter clear logic with purely irrational thought. Other than that minor difference, it’s back to the poles brother.
iDavid
Micheal,
If 8 is repealed in 2012, The court case is moot then and stops dead in its tracks.
Frederick
As someone who had all the guests who attended our same-sex wedding donate money to the No on 8 campaign (in lieu of wedding gifts), and who also volunteered for the No on 8 campaign on numerous occasions, I now feel very strongly that allowing the majority to vote on/determine a minority’s basic civil rights sets a very dangerous precedent. I feel that eventually the courts will overturn Prop. 8 and allow same-sex marriages to resume in CA. Until that time, we just need to be patient and allow this civil rights issue to work its way through the courts.