Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:29:01 PM
There’s a surprisingly small amount of Prop 8 stuff in the Los Angeles Times today, with most coverage confined to one of the blogs. Maybe the staff is too busy actually leading the Sore Loser Protests? Or maybe the few remaining paper subscribers are older folk who are getting tired of it all, and so the LA Times is keeping most coverage online where they won’t see it? It’s just one day - probably an anomaly.
Today, Jessica Garrison has the obligatory article on the protests and lawsuits.
But the demonstrations also have raised questions about whether the in-your-face approach will alienate voters, who may be asked one day to approve gay marriage. Twice in the last eight years, voters have rejected it.
"No means no!" I say we hold counter-demonstrations where we chant that.
While they wait to see what the court does, gay rights activists say they are thinking of putting another gay marriage initiative before California voters -- perhaps as soon as 2010.
If that happens, they say, they want to ensure that the mistakes of the last campaign won't be repeated.
Some have criticized that campaign for failing to reach out enough to black and Latino voters, a majority of whom backed the proposition, according to exit polls.
Oh, get ready! Pandering and condescending propaganda is coming your way, people of color.
Others have said that the campaign failed to engage people enough -- including some gay activists now organizing protests.
The real "problem" is that we the people do not like being told that we must change something that is not broken. There are many legal issues surrounding marriage that do need to be addressed. That state licensing of marriage unites the sexes is not one of them.
The key, he said, is that the protesters not irritate or alienate the people they are trying to persuade by appearing too out of the mainstream or by tying up traffic for hours.
Like I’ve said before, marriage defenders need to get as much video and audio of these protests as possible. They are making our case for us.
Many of those organizing the protests this week say they are voicing a sense of outrage and disappointment that California voters approved a measure that took away the right, granted by the California Supreme Court last spring, of same-sex couples to marry.
True rights are not granted by courts – they are recognized by courts. The court erred by trampling on the rights of voters to create a "right" to a state-issued license.
Living in urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, in environments that are relatively tolerant of gay people, some of those activists say they experience little discrimination in their daily lives because of their sexual orientation.
Yet they are trying to portray this as akin to bussing people off to concentration camps. (I want to frame that quote from the paper.)
Meanwhile, as Mike Boehm reports, Scott Eckern was essentially forced out of his job as a theatre director because of his $1,000 donation to protect voting rights and marriage.
And you can follow more of the homofascist intolerance at LAist, which covers an attack on a restaurant because someone associated with the place gave a small donation to Yes on 8. Never mind that homosexual people openly work and frequent the place - everyone has to suffer there because someone exercised their rights.
How can these sorts of cases not be harassment? If an employer can be sued for sexual harassment because one employee compliments another, surely am employer can be sued for pressuring someone who exercised their First Amendment rights with their own money?
Guess what, homofascists? We're everywhere. People who value limited government, judicial restraint, and marriage are EVERYWHERE. We are your family, your friends, your neighbors, civil servants, doctors, police, firefighters, and so much more. If you want to boycott us all, you're going to have go live in a remote cave.
Finally, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took time during their weekly meeting to pontificate and allow homosexuality advocates and marriage neutering proponents to ramble on before they voted to commit county taxpayer resources to joining one of the lawsuits against Prop 8. Mind you, a majority of the vote in the county was in favor of Prop 8, and there were many more serious issues they could have been dealing with. Hey, at least they don't have the horribly offensive cross on the seal anymore, you know, paying homage to the founding of the county.
The Board’s three Democrats made this decision. The two Republicans were not present, but would have been outvoted anyway. I will quote from Supervisor Gloria Molina’s statement.
Last week, Proposition 8 passed by a narrow five percent margin.
That "narrow" margin is more that enough.
It eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry-and it effectively overturned the May 2008 California Supreme Court decision which found the ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.
The court was wrong. There is no right to a state-issued license.
First, that revoking an existing right guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution is not an amendment but a revision.
There is already equal protection, and this is an amendment. NEXT!
Second, that such a move is not a fundamental right that could be subject to popular vote; rather, it is a deliberative process requiring-at a minimum-a Constitutional Convention or a two-thirds vote of the California State Legislature in addition to a popular vote.
Right. Like they would not be objecting had the state legislature passed it by a two-thirds vote.
First, Proposition 8's passage basically mandates that certain people have fewer rights than others.
Not at all. Do siblings have fewer rights than others because they can't get a marriage license together? There are some that would. Just ask the BBC.
It says that certain brothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, uncles, mothers, and fathers are second-class citizens-that though they have all the responsibilities of citizens,they have fewer rights.
No, it doesn’t. So, now you don’t have to be concerned.
That is wrong.
Hey! I thought we weren’t supposed to force morality on others!
I’ll spare you the rest. It is the same tired stuff. Maybe I'm too young, but I have never seen such outrageous tactics to subvert the will of the people and our rights. That's what's going on here. There is a right for citizens to vote. There is no right for a state-issued license. There is already equal access and protection provided. Are we now going to say that all voluntary associations are to be treated the same, even though they are different kinds of associations? Are we now going to say that there is a right to a state-issues license? Are we now going to say that we have to give other people something simply because they want it? If so, I want to form a nonprofit with my toddler and I want my driver's license renewed without ever having a to take a test again, or paying off any fines. I also want a medical license. Thank you!