Legal alternatives to prop 8

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Those Prop 8 bastards would have capitalized on ANYTHING to push their attack. If not Newsome, then they'd use video clips of two men and women kissing. For christ sakes, their major attack ads included a little girl talking about a children's book on gay marriage. Even if gay marriage was being taught in schools, there absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. But most people don't think so. The prop 8 proponents were appealing to homophobia and they knew that many people were going to be susceptible to the whole "we must save our children from gay marriage" horseshit. Whether they admit it or not, most people still have a good inkling of homophobia and that's exactly where the Prop 8 ads hit.

But those things you think they "would have capitalized on" wouldn't have been nearly as effective as Newsome publicly and deliberately taunting people who are against gay marriage with his comments. It's not like there's a shortage of video of gay men and women kissing each other--they could have used that easily--but instead they led their primary attack ad with Newsome and returned to Newsome's "nothing you can do about it" line at the end of their main ad. Clearly, they thought it was their most effective line of attack. And I don't think they were wrong about that. If Prop 8 had passed by 10 or 15 points, then I wouldn't hold Newsome responsible for that. But don't you think that his deliberate provocation anti-gay-rights groups was worth 2 percent in a tight vote?

Mind you, Prop 8 never would have passed without homophobia--you're right in that that was the primary motivation of people who voted for it. But I'm also convinced that Newsome's idiocy was the tipping point that it put it over the edge, since some people (maybe a few percent) just wanted to stick it to him and tell him to shut up.

Edit: It occurs to me that people outside of CA may not realize quite how obnoxioius Newsome seemed. He's just being a jerk, at that point, and that gave Prop 8 supporters the last little push to get it through.

I realize a lot of actions Newsome did may have hurt the cause. Did I wish he did not flaunt the issue in front of everyone? Sure I did. But my point was that the actions of the Prop 8 proponents were far more deserving of ire than the actions of Newsome. There comes a point where shifting so much of our anger towards Newsome becomes counter-productive.

[Elfdart]

Payback's a BITCH, isn't it?

Theater Director Quits Amid Gay-Rights Anger


November 12, 2008 09:08 PM EST | AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The artistic director at California's largest nonprofit musical theater company resigned Wednesday amid protests over his donation to a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

Scott Eckern stepped down from his job at the California Musical Theater in Sacramento after some gay activists called for a theater boycott.

He said he is leaving "after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatergoing and creative community."

Eckern said he "chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved" but had no idea his contribution would generate such controversy. He said his sister is a lesbian in a domestic partnership, which he understands to carry the same legal rights as marriage.

The boycott calls _ led by artists including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman _ began after activists learned Eckern contributed $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Last week, voters approved Proposition 8, which changes the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Lisa West, regional spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Eckern is a member "in very good standing" and the Mormon church supports his decision to resign.

Fred Karger, the founder of Californians Against Hate, which was created to publicize donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, said he was not involved in the theater boycott effort and was saddened that Eckern resigned.

"That's not good news, but there's going to be a lot of fallout from this (gay marriage ban)," Karger said. "Of course, a lot of lives were ruined on the other side."

He said his Web site has received thousands of visits from those tracking Yes on 8 contributors.

Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, issued a statement criticizing gay marriage supporters who "cherish tolerance and civil rights (but) are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others."

The theater company, Sacramento's oldest arts organization, said it is not involved in political issues but doesn't interfere with employees' rights to express their views. The company issued a statement thanking Eckern for his 25 years of service.

Eckern was the company's chief operating officer and its artistic director since 2002. The company produces Sacramento's annual Music Circus and plays at Broadway Sacramento and the newly opened Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

What kind of moron works in an industry chock full of homosexuals and publicly supports taking away their rights? I hope his last day on the job was something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-hhXyA53I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpY0tmpLZBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUZdXUI3VKo

No more wire hangers for this asshole!

[wautd]

Keith Olbermann is going to have a Special Comment about Prop 8 on Countdown tonight.

Just saw the vid. I don't think I ever saw him this emotional.

[Darth Wong]

Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, issued a statement criticizing gay marriage supporters who "cherish tolerance and civil rights (but) are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others."

Bigots never get tired of claiming that you are violating their "rights" if you won't let them take away yours, do they?

[apocolypse]

Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, issued a statement criticizing gay marriage supporters who "cherish tolerance and civil rights (but) are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others."

Bigots never get tired of claiming that you are violating their "rights" if you won't let them take away yours, do they?

See, that's the shit that I really don't get. By allowing gay marriage, what "rights" are being taken away/trampled upon? I hear this constantly but don't get the logic behind it. Allowing gay marriage doesn't disallow straight marriage, so....what's being lost? The "right" to discriminate? That's the only one I can think of.

[Lonestar]

See, that's the shit that I really don't get. By allowing gay marriage, what "rights" are being taken away/trampled upon? I hear this constantly but don't get the logic behind it. Allowing gay marriage doesn't disallow straight marriage, so....what's being lost? The "right" to discriminate? That's the only one I can think of.

I am arguing with someone on another board who is saying, in all seriousness, that gay marriage would lead to the destruction of marriage as an institution and allow pedophilia to become socially acceptable. Not surprisingly, when I asked him to provide evidence that that has occurred in countries where gay marriage is legal, he has persistently refused to do so.


Basically, the people who try to rationalize it are not intellectually honest enough to admit "because gays make me feel icky".

[Darth Wong]

Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, issued a statement criticizing gay marriage supporters who "cherish tolerance and civil rights (but) are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others."

Bigots never get tired of claiming that you are violating their "rights" if you won't let them take away yours, do they?

See, that's the shit that I really don't get. By allowing gay marriage, what "rights" are being taken away/trampled upon? I hear this constantly but don't get the logic behind it. Allowing gay marriage doesn't disallow straight marriage, so....what's being lost? The "right" to discriminate? That's the only one I can think of.

Pretty much. This argument is a descendant of the old Southern slave-owner claim that abolition of slavery would take away their "right" to own slaves. I wonder if it dates back even further, although I kind of doubt it since political discourse from previous centuries does not focus so much on "rights". It seems that as soon as somebody came up with the idea of human rights, somebody else came up with a counter: the idea that oppression of other peoples' "rights" is a "right" in itself, and that anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite.

Another version of this particular trick is the "if you preach tolerance, then you must tolerate intolerance or else you're a hypocrite" argument.

[Elfdart]

“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.”

--Abraham Lincoln

[The Yosemite Bear]

pretty much they are discriminating against our right to preach hate speach. And if we can't persecute those gays someone might notice how much they are being hypocritical assholes. (especially the covering up child molestation Catholic Church, and the lets sell underaged girls to older men Mormons.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

An update in case not everyone has heard.

Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court
The California high court will review legal challenges to Prop. 8. A hearing is set for March. Prior to a ruling, gay weddings will not be allowed to resume.
By Maura Dolan
2:16 PM PST, November 19, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.

Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and said a hearing on the cases could come as early as March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.

Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance.

Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.

The order was signed by six of the court's seven justices. Justice Joyce Kennard did not sign, and the court said she would have invited a separate filing to determine the fate of existing same-sex marriages. She voted against granting review of the lawsuits

The court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage on May 15 in a 4-3 historic decision. Opponents of gay marriage gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.

Gay rights advocates argue that the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.

The court's previous rulings on similar lawsuits have been mixed. The court has upheld at least six initiatives and rejected only two that were challenged as illegal revisions.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure. The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections.

Although the court tends to defer to voter sentiment on initiative challenges, it has overturned popular ballot measures in the past.

In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.

At the next judicial retention election, the margin of victory for the justices who appeared on the ballot declined by about 20%, said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and an expert on the initiative process.

Federal courts overturned another contentious initiative, Proposition 187, the anti-immigration measure passed by voters. Unlike state judges, federal judges have lifetime tenure and do not face voters.