- In the debate over who is to blame over the passage of Prop 8, it's interesting to note that San Francisco county had one of the lowest rates of voter turnout in California.
More Prop 8 updates, after the break.
Fernando Espuelas
- MormonsStoleOurRights is loaded with information about the Mormon church and also has a petition you can sign to get the IRS to drop the church's tax exempt status.
- The New York Times has an article about how the passage of Prop 8 is going to hurt the state — already nearly $12 billion dollars in the red — economically.
- Yesterday we linked to an article by Paul Festa over at The Daily Beast about Prop 8. Today it's singer Melissa Etheridge and she's is PO'd! She's right — why should any of us pay taxes when we aren't full citizens?
- Things got ugly at a protest in Hollywood after the election. Check out the video from WOW:
- Pop singer Christina Aguilera spoke out about Proposition 8, asking how anyone could put so much money behind keeping people from loving one another.
Submitted by
on Fri, 2008-11-07 17:12.
taxes...
What taxes would Melissa not pay? or....does she mean she wouldn't pay taxes at all?
divorce needs to be banned. if i have to hear "protect sanctity of marriage" one more time....
Non-citizens have to pay taxes too.
Sorry Ms Etheridge. There is no link between being a citizen and paying taxes. This country expects everyone who works here to pay taxes, citizen or not.
If paying taxes makes you a citizen I could have voted last Tuesday!
"Taxation without Representation" is still in practice today.
-Ron.
Thanks for the link
I seriously doubt if that tally from San Francisco is valid
An extremely large portion of the population votes absentee and those votes are still being counted. Where did they get their final figures from?
Joshua Norton
San Francisco
I am so sad that prop 8
Its. Not. Going. To. Happen.
As soon as we realize that and turn our time, energy and money towards a realistic goal, we start achieving the safety and security that gay families truly need.
What we need is a federal level domestic partnership law.
Screw the word "marriage"! Marriage is a broken institution anyway. Why try to fix it? Lets just start fresh with civil unions. If we did I wouldn't be surprised if straight couples started skipping the marriage certificate in favor of forming civil unions. Especially if it were designed in such a way that divorce didn't cost so much money. Marriage is an overly expensive, outdated model that is indivisibly linked to religion. Lets just leave it behind.
When Obama states that he does not support gay marriage, but instead supports civil unions, I personally feel it is because he recognizes the writing on the wall. If anything, he has shown a streak of pragmatism that shows a desire to get things done rather than stand by, on principle, and watch people suffer.
I know there are many gay people out there that are righteously angry about this issue and that feel anything other than marriage is a cop out...but I just don't agree. I understand the argument that it is an equality issue, but I just have to ask, what do we want to be equal to?
I think civil unions are SUPERIOR to marriage. Let's give up trying to force straights to let us get on the bus. Instead let's lead the way down a newer, better path and watch how many follow.
I Signed The Petition. . .
How 'Bout This as a Start?
Because California's amendment system is apparently insane, why not a simple proposition in the next California election that reads thus: "To protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, civil rights issues cannot be decided in the state of California by a mere popular vote nor ballot initative."
It'll be hard, if not impossible, for the same far-right religious folks to counter that one, 'cause 1) it ain't specifically about the gays 2) it's an idea that is likely to appeal to all sorts of minorities 3) folks like the Mormons will look terrible if they're having to actually argue for the "tyranny of the majority" 4) it'd likely hold up to legal challenges and 5) it'd be extremely difficult to ever vote down again.
How 'bout that as a start? Seems like it'd remove one of the biggest obstacles to fairness and actually be positive to minorities way beyond the gay community to boot.
to shanikka at dailykos
If we want to put on blinders and pretend that African Americans in HUGE numbers support gay rights, fine. If we want to put on blinders and believe that Obama's election BROUGHT IN HUGE NUMBERS OF SUPPORT against Proposition 8, fine. If we want to put on blinders and believe that the National Democratic Party actually helped us, fine. And if we want to put on blinders and ignore the OBVIOUS irony of the situation of minority voters voting in support of oppressing gay people, fine. Go ahead. Spin away.
While the blinders might make some of us feel better, it doesn't help anything; actually pushes us even further back.
One of the IRONIC truths of the left that come to the spotlight is that other minority groups, Black, Latino and Asian are not friends of gays. The question I come up with is: How do we find a place at the rainbow table and change that?
P.S. The wow video is a dead link. Searching wowtv.tv for Hollywood or Protest turns up nothing.
To Nukely
How are Shanikka's stats strange. No where in her article does she talk about Black people supporting gay rights. The point of the article is that it is stupid to place the blame for this ammendment passing on Black people when Black people are only 6% of CA population. The fact is that the majority of the Yes votes were not cast by Black people. The fact is that CNN's numbers are skewed in that if they were true, that would mean that there are more Black people who voted in the election than there are Black people who live in CA.
Your arguemen about who is a friend of the gays also makes no sense. I live in GA, where a similar measure passed by more than eight percent, and again the majority of those who voted yes are White, so does that mean that White people aren't a friend to the gays. In fact, the yes voters on all of these ammendments are White, if White people didn't vote for these ammendments in such high numbers then there's no way that they would be passing. And lets not forget that the vast majority of the people calling for and funding these Ammendments are White, so why aren't you making the arguement that this shows that Whites aren't friends of the gays.
The bottom line is that we have to reach out to people of all races, sexes, religions, and sexual orientations in order to make sure our rights are protected. We can't wear blinders, but we can't isolate ourselves or alienate people by spewing racist garbage as has been the case over the last few days on this site and others.
when do we get to sit at the kids table?
I wrote "shanikka's understanding of statistics is weird." She does not seem to understand the science of statistics.
I know what the point of her blog entry was. I am dismissing her reading of the stats. Rather than say that the actual stats mislead us into believing that black voters had a predominant influence on the election, (which I agree -black voters were not the decisive vote anymore than evangelists were the decisive vote that got George in the office for 2 terms), Rather than simply state that, she decides to completely deride the actual stats, which I think is worse than mis-applying the information.
1) I assume the CNN stat she refutes was available on line, yet she doesn't offer a link to it. I feel like she doesn't want me to come to my own conclusion. (her main, and somewhat conveluted, argument seems to be that CNN got their math wrong. Which I find highly unlikely. It it's true, expect this to be picked up by the major news outlets across the board. It is more likely that shanikka misread the data, but without offering a link to her source, she keeps me from checking her.)
2) She quotes CNN and again doesn't offer a link to that reference.
3) again since she didn't link the exact source, it is difficult for me to debate what stats she is refuting.
Randomly quoting statistics is easy, finding and linking to those stats takes time.
The irony I am talking about is the rainbow table. The rainbow table presupposes that there might be a group of "minorities" that can work together, a group that address issues of inclusion into the majority. At any rate, last time I checked the majority was loosely referred to as white not gay. Correct me if I am wrong. When we, as gays, sit at that rainbow table it is shocking to see that the other minorities view us in much the same way that the majority does. Maybe even more so.
Now, why is that so hard to accept and why is it such a nasty thing to acknowledge? And why do people like shanikka insist on sweeping that fact under the rug?
.
Nate Silver agrees with her
Follow up point
CNN
I used to work for CNN, and mistakes in coverage do happen.
Shannika does provide a link to the exit poll. It's highlighted, all you have to do is click on it.
...and however you interpret the exit polls, inflammatory language of a bigoted and prejudiced nature is not acceptible. people aren't just merely pointing out "the facts."
JUDGING BY WHAT HAPPENED IN FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA
AND ARIZONA,
"WHiTES" ARE NOT FRIENDS TO "GAYS" EITHER.
Too bad they're aren't any Gay Latinos or Gay Asians or Gay Blacks or wait...but
THERE ARE BLANCHE, THERE ARE! WE ARE HERE, WE EXIST IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS, CAN FOLKS ACTUALLY NOT SEE THAT?
Conservative, Fundamentalist, Non-progressive and Born-again Christian African Americans Voted For Proposition 8
Conservative, Fundamentalist, Non-progressive and Born-again Christian Latinos Voted For Proposition 8
Conservative, Fundamentalist, Non-progressive and Born-again Christian Asians Voted For Proposition 8
Conservative, Fundamentalist, Non-progressive and Born-again Christian Whites Voted For Proposition 8
Every single one of those "Blacks" in California voted in favor of Prop 8 based upon RELIGION, NOT RACE!
YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW I KNOW?
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT BEING BLACK THAT MAKES YOU HOMOPHOBIC. THERE IS NO BLACK COMMUNITY ETHIC THAT TEACHES HOMOPHOBIA.
BUT THERE IS A LONG-STANDING AND VERY POWERFUL COMMUNITY ETHIC IN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANITY (OF ALL VARIETIES) THAT TEACHES HOMOPHOBIA AND HETEROSEXISM AND AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY CHRISTIAN.
THERE IS SUCH A SMALL NUMBER OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY 3 DAYS LATER WE ARE STILL HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
NO ONE ON THIS SITE IS ARGUING ABOUT THE NUMBERS. WE ALL KNOW THE STATS.
1) 70% African Americans voted FOR PROP 8 - FINE, I ACCEPT THAT AT TRUE
2) African Americans constitute somewhere between 6 and 6.2 % of The Population of California - THAT SEEMS TO BE TRUE BY ALL ACCOUNTS.
I DISAGREE WITH WHAT FOLKS THINK THE ABOVE TWO FACT MEAN!
1) I don't care how many black folks in california voted against my right to get married, THEY DON'T REPRESENT "THE BLACK COMMUNITY" any more than the folks on this website represent "THE GAY COMMUNITY" to the extent that either exists. All the numbers in California can tell you is what THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF BLACK FOLKS (Mostly Women) Think About Prop 8. PERIOD. That's it.
2) I'll say it again. IF EVERY BLACK PERSON IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (INCLUDING THE BLACK GAYS AND LESBIANS) HAD VOTED AGAINST PROP 8, IT STILL WOULD HAVE PASSED BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH BLACK FOLKS IN CALIFORNIA TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
THAT IS NUMERICAL FACT.
I CARE MORE ABOUT ALL THE GAY FOLKS IN CALIFORNIA (Celebrities, Wealthies, Gay Joe Sixpacks, Et AL) WHO DIDN'T VOLUNTEER OR GIVE MONEY OR MAKE PSAs OR DO WHATEVER IT WAS GONNA TAKE TO WIN AGAINST PROP 8!
WHY IS EVERYONE OBSESSING OVER HOW A HANDFUL OF RELIGIOUSLY MISGUIDED, ANTI-GAY AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA VOTED.
DID WE ESPECT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE TRADITIONAL CHURCH MINDED FOLKS?
AREN'T THEY JUST AN EASY TARGET?
IN THE NAME OF ALL THINGS HOMO!
I AM BLACK, I AM A LESBIAN, I EXIST AND I AM NOT ALONE NOR AM I SOME KIND OF ABBERATION THAT MATTERS LESS THAT STRAIGHT BLACK FOLKS.
I AM THE FRICKING "GAY COMMUNITY" JUST AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE.
I HAVE VOLUNTEERED FOR, WORKED FOR, FAUGHT WITH ALMOST EVERY GAY AND LESBIAN ORGANIZATION IN MY CITY (NYC) OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS OF MY VERY GAY LIFE (GMHC, GOD'S LOVE, LESBIAN AVENGERS, ACT UP, HOUSING WORKS, GLAAD, GLSEN, you name it!
NUKELY, with as much respect as I can muster at this point, do you really not see that writing something like
"One of the IRONIC truths of the left that come to the spotlight is that other minority groups, Black, Latino and Asian are not friends of gays. "
Is inaccurate as best and just plain divisive at worse.
I'm not Blind to Homophobic Black Folks. I'm also Not Blind to Homophobic White Folks.
It just isn't useful to break HOMOPHOBIA down by race because it's not really the issues
All this fighting about race is just playing right into the hands of THE ANTI-GAY, HOMOPHOBIC, HETEROSEXIST RIGHT?
Do the words "Divide and Conquer" mean anything to you?
It's like old union busting strategies, get the poor blacks fighting with the poor whites over who's more oppressed while the rich ride off into the sunset, moneybags in tow.
It's like Susan B Anthony and Fredrick Douglass fighting over who gets the vote first!
Seriously, THIS DOES NONE OF US ANY GOOD.
HOW IS FREAKING OUT ABOUT WHAT 6% CALIFORNIANS THINK ABOUT GAYS GOING TO WIN THIS FIGHT? WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 94%?
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)
Persecution does not equal liberalism
A Mormon I know likes to talk about how they were driven out of what was then the boundaries of the United States at gunpoint, and how it was once legal to kill them in the state of Missouri.
African-Americans like to talk about slavery, segregation and the Klan.
Latinos like to talk about being exploited as near-slave laborers by American business.
But the real kickers are the conservative Christians I really have encountered who like to talk about how many Christians were fed to the lions by the ancient Romans (a moot point given what happened later once they ruled Rome).
A history as a persecuted minority does not necessarily make people more sympathetic to the plight of other persecuted minorities. Often just the opposite, it strengthens their sense of self-righteousness and desire to find someone they can spit on.
Do unto others...is a platitude they do not necessarily agree with. More commonly they feel that discrimination against them was wrong because they were "righteous". But discrimination against those they consider to be "sinners" is both right and justified.
Hypocrisy isn't hard.
I agree
The bullied so often becomes
Big protest rally Saturday Nov.8 at 6pm
Can't we just accept that we lost?
I've been reading through the comments, and there's no way I can stay silent after everything I've been reading.
First off, let me say that I am NOT happy prop 8 passed. There was a part of me that hoped it wouldn't pass, but when I found out that it did, my reaction was resgination. What's done is done, and I think we should accept the fact that we lost; My reaction would've been the same had the YES on 8 campaign lost. And no, I'm not a self-hating gay, so don't even start with those accusations.
And as far as what nukely said about minorities not being friends of gays, you're ALWAYS gonna find people who believe being gay is immoral. Their ethnicity has NOTHING to do with it. I am a Mexican-American male, and I've never played the victim because I'm a minority. And other minorities shouldn't either.
Quite frankly, I think everyone is being entirely unfair to Christians. Just because they believe in "traditional marriage", that doesn't make them bad people. I have a few christian friends and am acquainted with several Christians. Only one of them knows that I'm gay, but he has been nothing but loving and supportive of me. While he believes being gay is a sin, we're best friends. Eventually I plan on telling my other Christian friends about my sexuality, and I'm sure they'll still love me as a brother and a friend. If Christians were so intolerant, they would want nothing to do with me. And I'm aware that there are christians who are prejudiced against gays; I have yet to come across them.
The mormons, on the other hand, are hypocrites. I'm sure most of them still practice polygamy, so they're the last people to be talking about "the sanctity of marriage." If anyone is to blame for the passing of Prop 8, it would be the mormons. And anyone in CA who didn't vote.
It will be very difficult to overturn a constitutional amendment, but if gays and lesbians across the nation were able to do so, I'd be surprised.
Just thought I'd add my two cents.
Isn't that a boot print on your face?
afhickman
"The mountain has wings."
So just lie down and let everyone walk all over you. Yeah, that'll work.
Some of us Christians support Gay Marriage...
...and Gay Rights. We do not all believe that being gay is a sin or that gay relationships are sinful. Some Christians actively support gay rights. Some Christians are gay.
Christ never directly adressed homosexuality but He did tell us to treat all people, not just as we want to be treated ourselves, but as we would treat Him.
In my opinion, Christians who take the "love the sinner, hate the sin" view of homosexuality are full of crap and should not be thanked for their "tolerance".
a gay uncle Tom
...passing off weakness as strength and cowardice as virtue.
When you're in a position to place your loving, heterosexual friends relationships on a statewide ballot... I'm sure they'll understand that though you love them, the thought of their relationship sickens you and is a poor example for children. Tough luck.
Really?
A gay uncle Tom, really? Your calling someone who is willing to recognize that he has friends who have different beliefs and still accepts and loves them, an uncle Tom? Wow, such class...
So how is a comment like that gonna change anything? How is simplifying the complex and painful process of dealing with the conflict of faith vs. sexuality going to reverse Prop 8? Cause I would really like to know.
We Stand In Awe Before That Which Cannot Be Seen
Shouldn't it be Auntie ...
First on my comment about minorities not being the friends of gay people is based on statistics. The reasons for this are varied. I feel like many gay community organizations have done a poor job of bridging the gaps between gay rights and minorities. The perception in may of these ethnic groups is that white people are gay, not people of all colors, and it is a disease whites foist onto their kids. We need to change that impression.
Well, for one thing, you choose your religion, not your sexual orientation. If you find your church, temple or coven to encourage bigotry you can always leave. That's one way to reconcile your religion. But to continue to make excuses for bigotry because of religion, well in that case we can go all the way back to ALL of the advances on civil rights that those churches were against and issues they forced on their parishioners the agony of trying to "reconcile." (interracial marriage comes to mind as does having a black minister)
It's a free country. Churches are allowed to believe in and promote bigotry just like the KKK does. Churches are allowed to use the Bible to explain away their bigotry, just as the KKK does. And just because you belong to and make excuses for a church that teaches bigotry on the basis of a narrow reading of scripture doesn't make you a bigot, just as belonging to the KKK and making excuses for their narrow interpretations doesn't necessarily mean that you yourself are a bigot. As a matter of fact many members of the KKK report that they love black people the same as whites, they just want to forbid them from teaching in their schools and marrying their daughters. (sound familiar?) And of course their reasons for this are religious, not bigotry.
Do people still believe that crap?
BTW, I am grateful for mafelix's contribution to the discussion but I wouldn't go so far as calling him an Uncle Tom, (we use the term Auntie Tom, anyway) I think he is trying to find a bridge between the communities. Unfortunately to the bigots, that bridge means that gays must sacrifice their rights, just like any bridge between the KKK and minorities would mean that they must sacrifice theirs.
A true bridge between bigoted churches and civil rights only occurs when these churches admit that they are grievously wrong, as the Mormon Church was late in doing on the issues of interracial marriage and Blacks in the priesthood, but even a mean spirited church like the Mormons finally came around on those issues.
Twilight Movie
I would hope not.
In addition to including a very obvious homo-erotic subtext, the content of the Twilight books was not at all well-received by "devout" Mormons. She strikes me as someone who is not afraid to act in opposition to the church's conformist culture and, besides, with all the scrutiny she's been under with the upcoming release of the film and that hissy fit she threw after part of the Midnight Sun manuscript got leaked we'd surely know for sure, by now, if she was a Prop 8 supporter. Personally, I count her in the same class as Steve Young's wife. We would do well to avoid lumping all Mormons together in the same group with those that are truly to blame, the First Presidency and those that donated to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Besides, this movie is poised to be a huge stepping stone for a lot of talented young actors on the verge of stardom that have nothing to do with the LDS church. It would be a real shame to see their promising careers become collateral damage as the result of all of this.
I would agree with this.
I would agree with this. I'd also be interested to hear about any homerotic subtext? I'm actually writing an essay about the seires for a gender studies class, my main focus is misogyny in the text.
That aside, I really do like the actors in this movie, and I do think it's probably unfair to Boycott Twilight, I was just wondering. After all, there's probably a lot of innocent people who live in Utah, or work at Marriott, but we're boycotting them.
Misogynist or Anti-Feminist?
There are a couple of Mormon ideals that seep through into Meyer's books. Abstinence until marriage and willingness of women to take on subservient rolls are definitely chief among them. While the female characters often kick ass, I definitely spotted those odd instances when they displayed what one might call anti-feminist attitudes. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that the series is misogynistic, though.
If you were to stack them up, the pile of elements that run contrary to LDS teachings vastly outnumber the Mormon-ish ones. That's why I was very surprised when I found out Meyer is LDS.
As for the homo-eroticism in the books, the argument could be made that after the first book the story turns into one big "manhood measuring" contest between Edward and Jacob, with each of them eventually growing to see in each other what Bella saw in them all along, Me? I think that's sort of a reach.
However, I do think it's made blatantly obvious that, if Bella hadn't survived, it would have only been a matter of time before Edward and Seth Clearwater scampered down to Oregon to get themselves one of those same-sex Native American reservation weddings. ;Þ
I meant Misogynist
I'm fine with abstanance until marriage, but I'm not fine with abusive relationships being idealized. Edward controls and abuses Bella. Jacob sexually assaults Bella and then threatens suicide to emotionally manipulate her.
This is getting way off topic, but I'll pm you my observations and a few links.
The Mormon concept of agency
Mormons Leaving the Church
I was raised Mormon, but realized at an early age (even before I realized that I was gay) that I wanted out as soon as I was no longer under my parents' roof. I haven't set foot in a Mormon church in almost a decade, but I never got around to initiating the name removal process, since it seemed like a big pain-in-the-ass formality.
Many Mormons are resigning their membership in droves over the First Presidency's hypocrisy and the hand they played in the passing of Prop 8, so I decided to throw my own into the deluge of resignation letters that have begun pouring in.
There is a website where members can submit their resignation letters and non-members can submit letters of dissaproval that will be compiled and delivered in a heap to the church headquarters at a latter date. They are also compiling petitions and providing resources for members that need help with the name removal process.
This is the website:
http://www.signingforsomething.org/
You are right!
Mark Morford....
...blames it on God....a good read as usual.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/11/07/notes110708.DTL&nl=fixI say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
There is not point in
There is not point in blaming this or that group what is done is done,i also don't think that protesting will not make much difference(but i can surtenly understand gay americans are pissed of and want to show it).I would set the goal to domestic partnership because that is a more realistic goal to achieve and start creating the same benefits and obligations that weddings have.With Obama i think its possible,he has sayed that he would listen and co-operate where he can or at the very least not be a obstacle for LGBT rights.
Is the love that 2 people have for each other any less because there commitment has a different name than what the haters wanna call it,i think not.
pls don't take it the wrong way but i think there is a little bit of pride involved here.