Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiProp. 8 Protests Could Become National Movement
SAN FRANCISCO - Outrage and anguish over the passage of Proposition 8 has spurred massive street protests throughout California, and leaders of the gay and lesbian community believe the backlash could spark an unprecedented nationwide push for gay rights.
![[Outrage and anguish over the passage of Proposition 8 has spurred massive street protests throughout California, and leaders of the gay and lesbian community believe the backlash could spark an unprecedented nationwide push for gay rights. (Sacramento Bee)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/prop811_15.jpg "prop811_15.jpg")
Today, same-sex marriage supporters have planned simultaneous
protests throughout California and in all 50 states, as well as cities
in Canada, England and Australia.
It's a never-before-seen response, surpassing in size and scope even the 1969 Stonewall riots, which started the modern gay rights movement after New York City police raided a Greenwich Village gay bar.
"This is unprecedented and very significant, and we must not allow it to be a fleeting moment of screaming and yelling," said longtime activist Cleve Jones. He is calling for seven weeks of sustained protest and civil disobedience to force federal action on a host of gay-rights issues, calling the state-by-state pursuit of rights a "failed strategy."
"This has got to be made real," he said.
So far, the protests are being organized not by the large and established gay-rights organizations, but largely by individuals spreading the word via the Internet and cell phones.
The backlash after Tuesday's vote has been enormous and wide-reaching. People and businesses have become targets of blacklists and boycotts. Two temples of the Mormon church, which advocated for the marriage ban, received letters containing a white powder, though the FBI determined the substance was not toxic and do not know who sent them.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights organization, on Friday published a list of donors to the pro-Prop. 8 campaign.
What's next
What course the response ultimately takes remains to be seen. This uprising so far lacks clear leadership. The gay and lesbian community in San Francisco has called a town hall meeting for next week to begin to formulate a plan of action. Whatever their decision, the next step is likely to be something beyond California's borders.
"People around the country were watching this very closely," said Kellan Baker, a Washington, D.C., resident who is organizing today's protest there. "For Californians to go to the ballot box to strip people of civil rights they had been enjoying is, I guess, the last straw."
Stephen Vaisey, a UC Berkeley assistant professor of sociology, said he believes the response from supporters of same-sex marriage shows they did not really believe the ban would pass. Vaisey said he is closely watching the response and said it could be the first stage of a larger movement - but that depends on protesters.
"For that, you need to get beyond some of the stuff that is happening," he said. "If the focus is a religious group that is not going to change its doctrine and has no power over public policy, then what you get is a backlash, not a movement."
Individuals targeted
The boycotts and blacklists are affecting not only the political faces behind the Prop. 8 campaign, but also individual supporters.
Phillip Fletcher, a Palo Alto dentist who donated $1,000 to the campaign, is featured prominently on a Web site listing donors targeted for boycott. He said two of his patients already have left over the donation. On Sunday, protesters were outside the Mormon church he attends, and he said they were cursing at adults and children who came for the service.
"I'm not sure if it's so much equal rights or if they are trying to silence, threaten and intimidate a group of people," Fletcher said.
Mormons decry protests
On Friday, the Mormon church's top leaders, known as the First Presidency, officially responded to the fallout from the vote. In a statement, they said, "These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America."
The campaign behind Prop. 8 is not planning any sort of counterprotest, and leaders of the campaign said they are frustrated by the aggressive response they have seen since election day.
"The election is over. There was a full and high-profile discussion of the issue and voters turned out in record numbers to decide it," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign.
Critical court case
What could get opponents of same-sex marriage in the street, however, would be the state Supreme Court tossing out the vote, he said. San Francisco city officials, joined by the city of Los Angeles and Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, have petitioned the court to do just that.
"I think you'll have a revolution on your hands at that point," Pugno said.
Whether it gets to that point, some people on both sides believe the debate on the issue should be over.
Dan Savage, who is editorial director of the Seattle weekly the Stranger and who has written extensively on same-sex marriage, said he believes it's no longer acceptable for people to support some rights for gays and lesbians but not marriage.
"To borrow a phrase, either you're with us or you're against us," Savage said.
Today's protests
Cities around the state and country expect gay-rights protests today. Here are the planned protests in the Bay Area. All events will occur at city hall buildings from 10:30 a.m. to noon unless otherwise noted.
-- Alameda
-- Berkeley
-- Fairfield
-- Fremont
-- Mill Valley, Depot Bookstore & Cafe
-- Mountain View, 1 to 2 p.m.
-- Napa
-- Oakland
-- Santa Cruz, County Courthouse
-- San Francisco
-- San Jose
-- San Rafael
-- Santa Rosa, Courthouse Square, 10 a.m.
-- Vacaville
-- Walnut Creek
88 Comments so far
Show AllI am still in awe over the hypocrisy of separating church from state in this country...The religious zealots still don't want to realize that their (G)od is the judge, not man.
I still remember what my grandmother told me - God loves all his children
Now back to reality...There is no reason to keep bringing up different groups to attack unless the goal is to keep causing separation. I'm still waiting to see if we will ever take away the civil rights of WASPS...I mean male WASPS. We're pretty close, since there seem to be some gay WASPS.
Do we need to take a refresher course on "We the people"?
QWEE
~~
QUITE CONTRARY QWEE PROPOSE TO MARRY MARRY IN EVERY COUNTRY
QWEE WERE STANDING ON FOGGY GG BRIDGE THINKING OF FALLING IN LOVE
ELECTRIC CITY OVER THE RAINBOW FREE QWEE IS THE FREQUENCY
QWEE CREATE PEACE EQUALLY FREE HAPPY RETURNS ETERNALLY QWEE
QUINTESSENTIALLY QWEE WE HAPPILY REPEAT QWEE QWEE QWEE QWEE QWEE
~~
WWW.QWEE.NET
Here's another article from the SF Chronicle. Note that some of the backers of "marriage equality" are men, not necessarily from California, whose previous "committed relationships" were with women.
Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/15/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics
A bunch of sweet liberals are being led by the nose, based on a bogus "civil rights" argument, into a "movement" which is covertly anti-church and anti-democracy, and openly based on blackmail, boycotts, and blacklists -- mostly in the interest, real if unspoken, of extending government and corporate "spousal" benefits -- developed on the model of a male breadwinner with dependent children, and a non-employed wife at home caring for them and him -- to those in gay "marriage"s.
There is an anti-woman and anti-procreation/family cast to this "movement" that feminists of any gender might do well to consider, and -- if they dare -- to comment on. (Remember that When rich gay men were uncoupling AIDS from public-health reporting, next to no one spoke against what has turned out to be a really bad idea ... )
I guess since I don't choose to live my life according to church standards I am anti-church? Ever hear of live and let live!
Is marriage only for the poor?
I only wish children in this country were getting the bonding and nurturing that they need but unfortunately that is not the case at all. See: http://ttfuture.org/services/bonding/main.htm
You post is mistaken in many, many ways. What in the world is wrong with wealthy gay men and lesbians contributing money to the effort to defeat an anti-gay constitutional amendment? The article you link to says nothing about men formerly married to women. And yes, equal marriage rights is a genuine civil rights issue - nothing "bogus" about it - and is neither anti-church nor anti-democracy. No church would be required to perform same-sex marriages (how often must that be repeated?) and there are, in fact, certain churches - the Unitarians, the liberal Quakers, and the UCC - who do perform same-sex marriages and who argue that their own right to freedom of religion is infringed by the lack of state recognition of these unions. Equal marriage rights is a fervently pro-democracy movement, claiming the Declaration of Independence's assertion that we are all "created equal." Yes, the equal marriage movement is about spousal rights (of many sorts) - what's wrong with that? - and it is also about the dignity of love. Your accusation that the movement is somehow anti-woman is outrageous - we are fighting for the right of women to marry each other and live entirely independently of men! and there is nothing at all anti-woman about the love of gay men for each other (that's one of the oldest anti-gay slanders there is). Your slur about "rich gay men" and AIDS is insulting and unacceptable - gay men fought a long, hard, courageous battle for AIDS education, research, and treatment, during years of devastating tragedy, and we (mostly) won. You need to examine your prejudices and try to speak with a little more honesty and fairness.
I know there will be someone who will say the Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper. It has no legal authority what so ever. I know that because I already implied that in another blog and that was the response. Sad.....
I was referencing the Declaration of Independence as a classic statement of the principles of democracy; I didn't mean to imply that it has legal authority. Sorry if I was unclear . . .
Once again:
There are many arguments made for and against Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. It seems, however, that the one question asked of me is how can a 50 percent vote plus one vote take away inalienable rights of all Californians?
It seems the only conclusion is that it cannot.
Therefore, I ask you to make sure that faulty logic and faulty legal thinking will not trample our inalienable rights. Let right be done. I ask that you act in your capacity to see that it is done.
Maybe if the Mormons were allowed to have their bigamous, polygamous, religamous, lifestyle legalized, they'd leave the gays alone. They're just pissed and need to take it out on someone.
You left out those many MORMONS WHO ARE PEDOPHILES; When one of their 'men' marries a dozen women, they are usually little girls.
Real Christians.
I've never been a supporter of marriage as an institution beyond the legal and tax benefits afforded those who are recognized as married. In my state same-sex marriages are not recognized, but CA gave their citizens the the legal recognition and benefits of marriage regardless of who they are. To reverse that decision is once more example of how much money and power fear-mongers have in this country. I may not have been vocal before, but my voice will be heard now... and loudly.
I think religion is going to far in these attempts to control people's behavior. Like it or not that's what these propositions boil down to. A group of religious wacko's who want to force people to live according to their religious belief's. The Proposition has become an easy avenue for religious nuts to impose laws on people they don't like and behavior they don't like. They have run the gamut with the abortion issue to where abortion is no longer legal in a lot of states. How far are American's going to let these freaks go before they finally realize these people are not about Democracy! They are about controlling everyone and everything around them. These people are slowly chipping away at American's freedoms. They need to be reigned in before we wind up with a country run by religious nuts similar to the Taliban. I was raised in the 50's in the Bible belt USA. Religion in those days on no occasion interfered in politics. In fact, it was considered rude to impose your religion upon those around you. You kept your mouth shut about your beliefs. We need to go back to a Separation of Church and State in this country. If religion wants to meddle in political issues let the freeloaders start paying their fair share of the tax burden. That would cure the deficit overnight if they started doing their fair share. Instead of riding the system and using it for their nefarious deeds.
I'm glad to have seen the figures for donations to the No on 8 campaign.
Thank you!
So it was individual Mormons who contributed, not the LDS "church"?
How many of these donors were Mormons who actually live in California?
I'm just curious as to how we could organize effectively to stop this abuse of their tax exempt status (and other churces, too).
So much damage and destruction done in the name of God & religion.
What exactly are the Mormons afraid of?
Whoever wants to marry should be able to. It should not be this big of a deal.
If we had universal health care, and other substantive social supports, much of the impetus for "marriage" (of any kind) would shrivel away.
Marriage (as a state-sanctioned legal contract) is all about property, isn't it?
The rest is a celebration of human spirit, and, yes, love!
>>How many of these donors were Mormons who actually live in California?<<
A lot. Did you read the list? By far most listed were in California although some really large donations came in from other states. There are a lot of mormons here in CA and most supported Prop 8. That is why a boycott of Mormon business might be worth considering. Churches that meddle in politics become targets and targets need to be acted upon.
Right on Goose4.
If the "majority" can vote to take away the civil rights of gays, then they can vote to take away YOUR civil rights too.
Perhaps the next California vote should have a proposition to take away the rights of churches...fair is fair....a ban on magic underwear!
In Canada, our bill or rights states that no one can be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, along with race creed colour age, etc.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Like some others have said, you can tell where the churches priority's are and it's certainly not helping with the other debilitating issues affecting families, especially children.
The war is all about keeping the power away from us bad immoral liberal pukes!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has mobilized followers to give an estimated 77% of donations to support California's proposed marriage ban.
Californians Against Hate released figures Tuesday showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed $6.9 million to pass a a similar law, Proposition 102, in Arizona.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64163.asp
The organization is allowed to play a minor role in campaigning, lobbying or other efforts involved in trying to get certain legislation passed. (In other words there is no seperation between religion and government if the church has the money....they win, fair and square ;)!
Gay marriage must be a real threat to the church....why is that?
The 501(c)(3) Tax Law - The 501(c)(3) tax law is specific to religious organizations. It affords these groups tax exemption status along with a right to give tax deductible receipts to their donors. By law, church organizations are automatically tax exempt; thus, they are not required to apply for the 501(c)(3). However, most medium to large churches have received the 501(c)(3) because it gives the organization the ability to apply for federal funds and other grant programs. Religious organizations other than churches are required to apply for the 501(c)(3) (with a few exceptions).
501(c)(3) Rules Pertaining To Political Activity - Application for the 501(c)(3) is submitted by the organization's Board of Directors. Acceptance of the 501(c)(3) means that the Board agrees to adhere to the rules that govern legal religious organizations. Many of those rules pertain to political activity such as:
A religious organization is allowed to hold general voter education or registration activities as long as the organization does not show a preference to an individual candidate and/or political party.
A religious organization is prohibited from campaigning in any way for or against an individual candidate or political party.
A religious organization is prohibited from donating funds to a candidate or political party.
Pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders can endorse a candidate or political party as an individual but not as a representative of their religious entity. Endorsements cannot be made at an official gathering or organizational publication.
The organization is allowed to play a minor role in campaigning, lobbying or other efforts involved in trying to get certain legislation passed.
http://non-profit-governance.suite101.com/article.cfm/501c3_and_church_organizations
i am with goose..the idea of marriage having anything to do with tax code is a violation of all non-married folks civil rights, 'n visitation rights, 'n 'n 'n..'n yes 'joe' the new man is gonna have a problem with me if he chooses to bring religion into a secular government..
ken
It is already there ......the church obviously has the "power" (money).
The church has no authority over anyone's civil rights.
The majority of America has no authority over anyone's else's civil rights.
As far as I am concerned, anyone that is threatened by gay marriage doesn't have a marriage to begin with.
seems to me joe if you are going to make special rules for what men and women can do together then you do not support gay-rights and you do not support civil rights..religion has no function in this issue..i saw service stations in the south in 1963 that had three bathrooms: men, women, colored..come on man..catch a glimpse..
ken
Oh yeah and there's the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights passed in 1868...
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Since when does a simple majority vote mean the RIGHT thing is being done?
In the Federalist Papers (#51), our 4th president, James Madison said, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
AKA Joe, the Tyranny of the Majority. Google. Read. Learn. This is not a new struggle. Even our recent history is rife with this same tyranny. And though we eventually overcome it hasn't come from a majority vote but the court system. Brown v. the Board of Education, Loving v. Virgina, Roe v. Wade, Bowers v. Hardwick...to name a few.
It'd be great if the majority took into consideration the rights of the minority but until then the poor, maligned "Activist Judges" will just have to it for them.
Civil rights? Are you saying Obama opposes civil rights?
If no one will say it I will. Obama said he is against gay marriage. I can look at that from two ways, either he said it to get votes from conservatives, (just take a look at the election results regarding this question) or he too is discriminating against a minority group of people due to his religious beliefs and if anyone should know better Mr. Harvard Constititution should!
Look, it was put to a vote and the majority of people spoke. Gays may not like it, but should they not respect it? To aggressively try to overrule this vote is more likely to hurt their cause than help it. If the vote was authentic, why should it not stand?
The vote was authentic, but they way the measure got on the ballot was something that was very, very wrong. If it was something that affected your life in the way this affects the Gays, I wonder if you'd just suck it up and respect the authentic vote.
Let's see, you want to sanction a 'sexual preference'(or whatever suitable word you choose to use) by permitting same-sex unions to be recognized by legal marriage, regardless of what the majority wants. You say that civil unions will just not suffice. Marriage was originally intended to be between a man and a woman. This 'original intent' is what you really want to change, is it not? Why should a majority be forced to except it, if they do not agree? Who is infringing upon whom here? And, like the bible, one can interpret (and in some cases amend) the constitution however they want, no?
This issue is much bigger than just the self-interest of gays. Many special interest groups are and have been forcing their agenda on the rest of us without a vote for years, and often with disastrous results. Now you are saying this being on the ballot is 'very, very wrong.' So you want tell the rest of us what we can and cannot vote on, according to your interpretation of the constitution? That's just another way of framing the issues in accord with your own self-interest. There is nothing new here.
In a democracy, all citizens must be able to participate fully in all the basic institutions of society, including those relating to marriage and the family. All citizens must have equal rights, or there is no rule "by the people," there is only rule by an elite (i.e. by those who have rights). It is never acceptable to put the rights of a minority up to a popular vote, because the majority will always vote to deny those rights - just as, in the Deep South, if the rights of black people were put up to a popular vote, those rights would be taken away - certainly this would have happened in the 50s and 60s (during the civil rights movement), and arguably it could still happen today. It is entirely likely that, were the citizens of Alabama asked today to vote on whether or not inter-racial marriage should be allowed, the majority would vote to forbid it. That would be inherently anti-democratic; democracy cannot be equated simply with majority rule. Democracy also means equality, and equality must be protected against the tyranny of the majority - that is the reason why we have state and federal constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.
You are right that "this issue is much bigger than just the self-interest of gays." What is at issue are the fundamental principles of democracy.
Denying civil rights to alternative families is unconstitutional. It should never had been on the ballot in the first place.
Look, I totally support gay-rights.
But I'm siding with Obama, I don't think gays should have the right to marry.
In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said,
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
the key word in that statement is "YOUR" religious beliefs....why should you be allowed to impose YOUR beleifs on others?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Who said anything about getting married in a church?These people just want their CIVIL RIGHTS nothing else and if Obama cant see that he's full of shit too.Tony
He supports civil unions.
You don't "totally support gay rights" if you oppose gay marriage.
Obama is letting his religious views determine what policy he, as Senator or President, tries to implement for the nation as a whole. That is fundamentally wrong; it is unconstitutional. Obama should be supporting separation of church and state.
Since when did gay rights come to equal gay marriage?
The more militant gays become on this single issue, the more support you are likely to lose, including from people who have generally supported your civil rights. The more dramatic actions of the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and other militants were great wedges for the right wing to use to build their constituency and decrease the effectiveness of the peace and civil rights movements -- and there was no Fox News or Drudge in the 1970s. Anti-gay churches will feed on militant gay energy and become stronger. Don't you get it? Do you want Sarah Palin's theocracy in "0-12"? If so, just keep on screaming for gay marriage. (Hmmm -- are diehard Log Cabin Republicans behind this?)
It's sad that the gay-lesbian community has such a poor sense of strategy and cannot see when it might be a good idea to make a strategic retreat until the time is more propitious. You were gaining ground steadily until you forced gay marriage down the throats of people who opposed it, rightly or wrongly. What is so important about the word "marriage"? Can't you just call it something else, or is it that you just want to win at all costs? If so, be prepared to be fighting this battle for a long, long time.
To write that gay people "forced gay marriage down the throats" of other people is incredibly offensive. In the situation you are referring to, what actually happened was that the California Supreme Court - the most respected and influential state supreme court in the nation - after careful deliberation, issued, with a full, detailed explanation of its legal reasoning, a decision that gay men and lesbians are included in the equal protection guarantees of the California state constitution, and therefore cannot legally be denied any commonly held civil right in that state. This was hardly forcing anything down anybody's throat - it was a dignified, measured, legal process in which the California Supreme Court acted in accordance with the best traditions of our democracy to protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority.
(And - by the way - lawsuits, boycotts, and nonviolent demonstrations for marriage rights are hardly the same as the tactics of the Weather Underground!)
As Martin Luther King noted in the letter from the Birmingham jail, there will always be those who say it is the "wrong time" to press for justice, there will always be those who say the oppressed should wait. But how long have gay people been waiting? Our oppression is ancient, and the time to end it is now.
This is just a continuation of Bushesque religiousity. Look at the people O is hiring on for his staff. He is going to be something less than a Clinton II it seems. Bristling with support for Israel and anti-gay is just the start folks. We got taken to the cleaners!
Pardon me but aren't we in the middle of a world recession, a financial crisis?
Aren't whole economies collapsing, people losing jobs, homes, super funds?
Aren't there two wars happening, global warming, famines, dangerous weather events, cancer, pollution, an energy shortage, talk of nuking Iran?
Hasn't the G20 just met and resolved nothing except to prop up the failed capitalist system and agree to meet again in March?
And in the midst of all this, you want me to be concerned about whether two people of the same gender can get married.
You're joking, right?
www.dangerouscreation.com
Economic equal needs to be addressed. A remedy can be found when we recognize that all inalienable rights are secured for others and ourselves.
I understand the desire to lash out at those that supported this, but violence/threats of and intimidation are not the way to keep the support of the rest of the country that sympathizes--you need look no farther than Bush's success with that tactic.
HOWEVER, in this time of economic crisis...Boycotts are much more effective!!!! (as long as they know you're not shopping/using their services/buy from them because they supported Prop 8)
Protesters gathered in many, many more cities than were listed in the article, including Athens, GA. It's absolutely amazing to see gays a cross the country coming together. Early on, things happened at protests that should never have happened. These incidents, specifically the roughing up of the little old lady in Palm Springs and attacks on African-Americans, were widely reported. A majority of gays and lesbians were repulsed by that footage and more like it that's widely available online. It was a wake up call and I believe everyone got the message. The fact that this movement is viral rather than the product of activist organizations makes it very special indeed. Maybe it IS time for equal rights for everyone. I sure hope so.
http://thecrotchetyoldman.blogspot.com/
There are many arguments made for and against Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. It seems, however, that the one question asked of me is how can a 50 percent vote plus one vote take away inalienable rights of all Californians?
It seems the only conclusion is that it cannot.
Therefore, I ask you to make sure that faulty logic and faulty legal thinking will not trample our inalienable rights. Let right be done. I ask that you act in your capacity to see that it is done.
Three couples now in their later years want to marry for reasons that will allow themselves the benefits the law provides to married people.
The first couple is two heterosexual men who have lived together for over twenty years each having many girl friends and lovers after their spouses of many years died. These two men have become family to each other and are now at an age where looking after each other in the years to come will benefit both by marriage to each other.
The second couple is a gay man and a lesbian woman who have lived together for over twenty years each having many intimate friends and lovers after their special lovers of many years died. This man and woman have become family to each other and are now at an age where looking after each other in the years to come will benefit both by marriage to each other.
The third couple is two heterosexual women who have lived together for over twenty years each having many boy friends and lovers after their spouses of many years died. These two women have become family to each other and are now at an age where looking after each other in the years to come will benefit both by marriage to each other.
It seems to me that it is unfair that only the gay man and lesbian women will be allow to marry each other and that the heterosexual men and the heterosexual women will have to suffer the indignity of second class citizenship by having their inalienable rights denied.
Excellent point you make. Civil marriage should be allowed for any two people who are the significant others in each other's lives and who want to hold the unique legal responsibilities, in relation to the other person, which traditionally accrue from marriage - rights to make decisions on the others behalf, visitation rights, medical-related, etc.
Exactly.
I don't see what is wrong with Obama's position of allowing civil unions for gays and marriage for heterosexuals. It might put them in a separate category than heterosexual couples. But if they get the same rights, then why isn't that good enough? Isn't it equality?
Here in the Northeast, in states that offer civil unions to same-sex couples (Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey), it is commonly reported that civil unions can be very problematic - For example, there are reports of hospital staff refusing to recognize the validity of a civil union when one partner has been injured or severely ill, telling the other partner that "We don't recognize that sort of thing here, we only recognize marriage," and refusing the well partner the right to make healthcare decisions for their loved one. I suppose that person could then hire a lawyer to explain the law to the hospital staff, but by that time the necessary decisions etc will have been made and the denial of rights will be an accomplished fact. This sort of situation is one of the reasons why the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that civil unions were not at all equal to marriage.
Marriage is not only a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities - it is also an identity and a status. Civil unions simply are not the same - they are offered precisely as a refusal of the status of "marriage" - they proclaim "second-class citizenship" by their very existence. What gay men and lesbians want and demand of America is a full recognition that we are equal in dignity and worth to heterosexuals, and that our relationships are just as wholesome, just as worthy of respect, and just as valuable to society as the relationships of heterosexuals. Nothing short of full marriage equality will suffice.
..and that "colored only" water fountain is identical to the "whites only" water fountain....isn't that "good enough"?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
It is only equality if it is exactly the same in practice, law and vocabulary. If it isn't the same exactly, it is equivalent, not the same as equal.
The 14th amendment states that all laws have to apply to all residents (not citizens) of a state. If there are laws regarding marriage, then those laws have to apply to everyone. EXACTLY.
If you don't like that then the answer is not to deny gays the right to marry, but to remove the entire section from the law for everyone. The church can go on marrying anyone it likes, but the state has no legal entity or interest. That would be fair. I could go for that.
One of my children is gay; and also intelligent, moral, beautiful and motivated.
Sorry, but I have NO problem with my son's sexual orientation; what matters so much more is his life and the degree to which he cares about others.
Bring. It. On.
Translucent.
.Best post you ever created, thanks for it. Perhaps you have some substance to you after all.....now back to the fray.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Hi ardee; I guess our fray will be defined by our no doubt quite different perspectives re Obama's Presidency.
However I am confident that you will come around.
When and if Obama deserves your respect.
-would this juncture be the 'devil in the details?'-
I concede; I do look forward to hearing from you about how right I was about Obama.....
Shucks I'm kidding, peaceout.
I agree! Good post. Good luck to your son!
Thank You Goose4. Thank you for your kind post!
I don't know how legitimate it is but I saw the donor list at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe2023SzWXxE8wYX5qWeoIw and quite frankly I saw a great deal of churches that made contributions. Do these churches pay taxes? Is this on the up and up?
Yes a great deal of Mormons contributed but unless the church actually cut a check the church can't be accused of contributiong. Not that I agree with it but they do have a right to contribute to their cause.
I don't think protesting or going to the church and insulting people is going to change these people's minds. Personally I think it is a waste of time and energy.
If I were a gay marriage supporter I would be looking into the legaility of the whole process. Civil Rights should not be on a ballot.
Attacking the Churches is unlikely to help further the cause of gay marriage. In fact call it Legal Union asnd watch it pass.
I'm with you, Thomas. Pity that this issue has become a church issue, but marriage goes far beyond that. Civil unions should be allowed without question. The modern world has become so good at 'spin' that anyone can spin anything any which way. Society is corrupt in so many ways, and people are so conditioned within that corruption that it's often difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the ethical from the unethical. Every issue is framed as a 'battle,' and a 'war' against this or that. Aggression, imposition, polarization, and violence (of which there are different types other than just physical) have infiltrated into just about every issue. Anything promoted AGGRESSIVELY is a form of violence, regardless of the actual position taken and, must of necessity, provoke opposition. What happens then is that BOTH SIDES become hardened in their stances and a battle ensues.
I think the root of this movement is based less on "love" and more on financial angles. Probably a great way to get free healthcare on the "spouses" dime, and others that come with a traditional marriage. Not to say some don't really "love" their companions.
Its very interesting that this movement based on penises and vaginas, gets so many people in the streets than say, the murderous and criminal behavior their government is perpetrating on the innocent and repressed people around the world.
Strange.
People care a lot less about people half way around the planet than about their neighbors and that is as it should be. Your neighbors are here. They shop at your stores, they make your food, they tend your children. If you can't support them here now, then that puts lie to your protests for people in far away places.
We have evils here at home we need to tend to now. Might want to be a part of that.
.I would earnestly ask you to reconsider this issue with more depth than you have currently shown. You are simply missing many facts in this matter; facts as a spouse unprotected by law might not be able to even visit a long term companion in the hospital, might have no say, even after a decades long commitment, as to treatment or other considerations. There is of course a financial angle, such as , after ones partner has died getting thrown out of the house you shared for many, many years because you have no legal right to it.
There are any number of reasons to protest this unfairness but the single most important one is that it denies equal rights to all peoples. Are you not in favor of such rights for all?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Nice to see your true colors.
And if you think love is about genitalia I understand your anger with gay people (and secure straights) because they know better and would cause you discomfort.
Guess what? Love trumps money in good people's worlds.
Your ugly homophobic comments mirror your soul, not the worlds.
You sleep good?
Signed, I was in love with a girl on marijuana
I was in love with a girl on cocaine,
She had everything going but her brain.
Why all the suspicion, why all the scare quotes? Gay men and women mostly don't really "love" their significant others, they're shysters angling for financial benefit from society? And how generous of you to allow that "some" really "love" their companions.
As if people should have to go through some legal commitment ceremony to get basic things like health coverage - another civil right we don't have.
You "think" this movement is based less on love and more on financial angles.
You presume this movement is based on "penises and vaginas"
If you're married, are these the only reasons you got married?
These are people - human beings - just like all of us. And all they want is to be allowed to live their lives just like the rest of us. And why would they be worrying about the murderous and criminal behavior their government is perpetrating on the innocent and repressed people around the world, when they're innocent and repressed themselves?
People have done that for 8 years and got no where.
Roseanne Barr calls the Mormons "the Nazi Amish", and neither they nor the rightwing Cathos nor the anti-gay african-american churches understand that it is NOT democracy when a majority vote against the human rights of a minority, and that the reason the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing a religion is to prevent such groups from pretending that their "free exercise" of religion from impinging on others' rights.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Jefferson%27s_Religious_Beliefs
Time to lift the veil of spiritual oppression! Tax the churches!
I agree! they should lose their tax exempt status. how many more will have to suffer at the hands of this "one true religion"?
I am amazed about the demos over gay marriage.
Where are the protests over loss of habeas corpus and privacy?
Think about it.
And if such demos took place would the press publicize them as they have the gay marriage cause? If so, it would be a change.
But I could be wrong !
The protests over loss of habeas corpus and privacy happened November 4, 2008.
Massive numbers of people turned out for the protest.
"These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation.
True. The action of a church as large as the Mormon church exerting it's will, its money, and its members to crush a large segment of our society, is not worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation.
The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America."
True again. It should be the beginning of a quiet but strong revolution to get the seperation of church and state established again. There was nothing free or fair about what this church perpetrated in this election.
Thomas and George I agree wholeheartedly. I think it's long past time the churches started paying taxes. It's time to hound Congress to close those tax loopholes churches have been slipping through to be more political than most political organizations are.
You know when you think of it tax isn't a bad idea. Not on the church building itself, but on all other properties, etc the church owns or derives revenue from.
Tax them, tax them, tax them! That should be the response. All efforts should go towards taxing churches: Mormon, Catholic, fundamentalist, even progressive. Just think, all that wealth in the hands of superstitious bigots!
Same-sex couples tend to have more disposable income and time because they aren't involved in child rearing. I'm not surprised they are making such an outcry over an issue of obvious importance to themselves. If they put in the effort, they'll get their rights; this *is* America.
It isn't factually true that same-sex couples have more disposable income than heterosexual couples; they actually generally have less (there are studies that prove this) - for one reason, because of employment discrimination. Lesbian couples, especially, generally have markedly less income, because women typically earn less than men in our culture. The idea that we have more money than other people is just one of a number of endlessly repeated stereotypes.
.An increasing number of same sex couples are adopting children. This is a good thing as there are far more children in need of families than there are people willing to adopt.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The right to adopt children is another issue gays are fighting for. Arkansas just passed a referendum making it illegal and I believe it is also illegal in Florida. Probably other states as well. This is insane! As you said, there are so many children in need of families while these bigots let them languish in foster or group homes. I'm so happy people aren't just letting this matter drop. We should all support the protests in any way we can.
And the same churches were behind those ballot measures in those other states. This situation goes way beyond just Gay rights. It churches can control peoples' lives this way, where will they stop. I agree, we should all support the protests in any way we can, or support the foundation that may be forming to fight this - not only for Gay rights, but for similar future attacks.
SHAC tactics are effective(referring to the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign which uses a wide variety of tactics within the law to get people to pay attention, like sending subscriptions for hardcore porn magazines to scientists, as well as companies that supply things for them, or confronting the children of scientists and telling them what their parents do for a living).The tactics work amazingly well.
Its difficult to say how much anti-gay marriage people would tolerate, since animal researchers tend to be very cowardly and its hard for them to defend videos that show laboratory puppies being punched in the face, but some anti gay marriage people are quite adamant about it.
I wonder how LDS church members would like their pictures posted on the internet.
They make a practice of bringing their 'message' to our doors.
Tomorrow is Sunday and turnabout is fair play.
I am glad to see people have woken up out of the slumber they have been since the Act-UP protests of the 80's. What happened to queer activism? It's not like our community has not been attacked since Reagan left office. When I saw photos from the first post-election protest in SF, I knew a new movement had been born, out of the organization and mobilization started by Obama. This will be unstoppable, especially with the Republican party in tatters. We have one person to thank for this momentous occasion - ironically George W. Bush. He is the one who destroyed the Republican chances of winning this election, and helped to motivate so many people to care about this election. Of course, Obama's ability to inspire helped, but it was really W. who created the perfect storm. And that storm is now raging and ready to take down one of the worst remnants of Republican, Fundamentalist-Christian enabled rule - the attack on equality for people of all sexual orientations and identities! Fight the power!!!
Anyting actively promoted will meet active resistance. Many do not like gay or any other type of discrimination, but do not want to see gay marriage sanctioned. In a democracy should not the majority decide such things? I think this is the main issue here, though I do not think attacking another is ever justified.
Should the majority decide in a democracy?
Not always. When the majority wants to take rights away from a minority, then the decision needs to be in the hands of the courts. If this attitude now had been there in the 1960s there would be no civil rights movement. The only way it happened was in the courts and this is a DIRECT comparison to that other civil rights movement.
"Agitate, agitate, agitate." - Frederick Douglass
Ray Berthiaume I am encouraged by this. This is a grassroots response. It bodes well for human rights. But I pray any form of violence - verbal, physical, economic - is not part of this action.
The grassroots should go for the jugular-end the tax deductions for religious institutions. Church, school, whatever. These churches are political entities that in no way deserve tax exempt status. Time to make them pay like everyone else. They are basically Republican tax free political machines. The Mormons practice mind control and are a cult. No Mormon should ever be considered for public office. If you can't decide whether or not to drink coffee for yourself how can you make any decision that impacts the lives of others?