Protesters are rallying nationwide today to protest California’s recently passed anti-gay Proposition 8, and of course Seattle is no exception. Festivities start at 10:30 AM at Volunteer Park, with the rally starting at noon. Protesters will then march down to Westlake Center, where speeches are scheduled to commence at 2PM.
It is one thing to fail to pass legislation granting marriage equality to gays and lesbians, but yet another to amend a state constitution to take away rights already recognized by the courts. The unexpected passage of Prop 8 has served as a wakeup call as to the level of discrimination that still exists, and the amount of work that remains to be down to achieve true equality.
Goldy
You want to remove the right of the people to amend the constitution?
I suppose you want to re-institute slavery and remove the rights of women to vote?
The only purpose of the gay marriage advocates is to force the public to accept homosexual partners as socially identical to heterosexual partners. That is a reasonable goal, but why should there be a law saying this?
In fact, under the freedom of association it seems to me that groups wishing to be formed of married couples ought not to be forced to accept gay couples as part of their clique .. or vice versa.
Why NOT let people choose?
The evidence from Europe is very clear. In France, people can choose to partner or marry and largely now choose the latter.
Proud @1,
The history of our nation is marked by amending the Constitution to expand rights, not narrow them. In that sense, Prop 8 was very unconstitutional.
But while you bring it up, yes, I think it is a terrible idea to be able to amend the constitution by a simple majority at the polls. The constitution should be difficult to amend, and as such protects us from the tyranny of the majority.
Wikipedia on Prop 8
On November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry was a constitutional “revision” rather than an “amendment”, and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature.
There was a lot of money from the Mormons used in the campaign for Prop 8.
I understand that the Mormon Church’s tax exempt status is going to be challenged for its excessive dabbling in the political realm.
prop8 will likely be overturned, but I find the hyperbole a little… crazy.
Both sides of this ‘issue’ (iffy term at best) are freaking out over a WORD. Domestic partnerships are totally protected in CA anyways. Its just arguing over the use of the word ‘marriage’.
You know what? Let them have it. Don’t be so tied up in validation from whackjobs that you need to fight with them. They’re dying, and its just a matter of time. You already have the rights (the important bit), the language will come with time.
If you want to complain about prop8, complain about the initiative process (hint hint, goldy)
~~~~
this is what you get btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....California
and going after the mormons is just silly.
Everyone is acting like this is the return of Jim Crow, and its simply NOT. Its a very minor step back in a situation where everything else is trending pro gay rights. Chill out, we’re winning.
Pssst, Goldy, Prop 8 doesn’t even mention gays.
By the way, I admire the Mormons, and they have my full support. Gays are some of the most intolerant and hate-filled people around.
@8
I’m not sure you’re qualified to judge whether or not people are tolerant.
Marriage is fading out on its own… seems the only people who give a shit about it are fundamentalist Christians and Jews, Mormons, and gays.
The prop 8 campaign bolsters what I have always believed: Mormons are living proof that Indians fucked the buffalo.
@9
Thank you the link. I just reread my thesis. I may not be PC, but no one can deny its truth.
@9: Sweet comeback, Lee
Our little racist troll admires Mormons and thinks “gay” are hateful.
Sorry, anytime we start to define who is a citizen and who should have certain rights there is a problem.
To me the only problem with gay marriage is the religious implications it carries. If we could simply define civil marriage versus religious marriage – and give both types of marriage equal rights, I think this could win at the ballot box and not have the religious opposition.
I am in favor of gay marriage (I used to be for civil unions first, just for political reasons), but the pathetic argument that having gay people marry will somehow affect heterosexual marriage – that has always been a red herring.
@10
The percentage of Californian blacks who voted for Prop 8 equals that of the Mormon, but notice the gays aren’t demonizing them?
This demonization reminds me of some of the hate and anger the Germans exhibited toward the Jews in the 1930’s.
I think these gays need to be rounded up and arrested for committing felony hate crimes.
@12
effect, not affect.
What are the odds that gay activists could be setting fires next to Mormon homes in Socal?
@15
What are the odds that gay activists could be setting fires next to Mormon homes in Socal?
About the same as the odds of you being able to pass the GED test.
America has just elected our first black president. I demand to know when Horse Ass will allow a black person to have posting privileges!
@12
Apparently Troll isn’t familiar with the Mormon Church’s connections to the John Birch Society.
Yeah, those damn Mormons. Seems like every time I open up a newspaper or turn on the local TV news I hear about Mormons robbing stores at gunpoint, assaulting people who are watering a traffic circle, or beating to death harmless street musicians waiting at bus stops.
Those god-damned Mormon animals!
@19
Um, idiot, none of the incidents you mention were pushed by a large organization of African-Americans. They were isolated incidents committed by random people. Please try a little harder to use your brain before you leave your next comment.
Marriage in Washington State
Marriage is a civil contract with far ranging legal implications. It is these extra legal rights that are so important to the gay community. This includes such rights as survivorship, community property, custody of children and rights to decision making when their significant other is in the hospital.
Domestic partner is a new legal concept that does not grant the wide sweeping rights as does a marriage contract and even where it supposedly does, still does not have the case law to support it and so will be challenged at every turn. As has been pointed out so many times, separate but equal is not equality at all.
@21
Give it time. A few more generations of brainwashing school children into thinking being gay is just as normal as being straight will pay off.
World Christianship Ministries will be happy to ordain you almost immediately as a Christian minister, reverend, pastor, evangelist, chaplain, apostle, missionary, elder, deacon, preacher, bishop, prophet, wedding or marriage officiant, or other Christian clergy title. Be ordained without delay and start your own church or start your on ministry.
$58 gets you the Basic Ordination Package and $225 get you the full meal deal, with various options in between. Call, fax, or mail in your application today.
Doesn’t marriages performed by mail order preachers “dilute the value of marriage” just as much as gay marriage? If not why not? And if it does why aren’t the Mormons going after them?
@22
You think being gay is not normal?
Thom Hartman talks about a mated pair of Mallard ducks that have been living near his house boat for a few years now. Both males. They even do the “wild thing” during the breeding season.
Are those ducks not normal?
@24
No. I think it’s a choice. (Nurture not nature). And I also think it’s closer to a sexual fetish than a sexuality. That said, I don’t have a strong opinion about people being gay or not. And I don’t really care about the whole gay marriage thing. But if the majority of people of California want Prop 8, that’s their right. BTW, Prop 8 does not mention gay people at all.
@26
BTW, Prop 8 does not mention gay people at all.
The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution was: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
So it is still all right for a gay man and a gay woman to get married. Oh, how convenient.
@27
Right. That just made my case. It’s not a proposition AGAINST gay people, it’s a proposition upholding traditional marriage between a man and a woman. It does not mention gay people, like I said.
@26
No. I think it’s a choice. (Nurture not nature).
You’re wrong, and any gay person can tell you you that. That’s why judges can and should overrule Proposition 8, because it clearly writes discrimination into law.
It does not mention gay people, like I said.
But it creates a law that discriminates against gay people. Under Proposition 8, straight people can marry the person they love, but a gay person can not. That’s an inequality that goes against what this country stands for.
Sorry I just don’t get why some people seem to get upset over the idea of a man getting married to a man or a woman getting married to a woman. It shouldn’t be any more an issue than an interracial or interfaith marriage.
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one!
Heard Steve wants to marry a goat.
It passed. Get over it.
@30
In other words, you don’t understand Barack Obama. He doesn’t support gay marriage.
“But Obama didn’t support Prop 8 and he….”
I’m going to stop you right there. That’s not what I said. I said that Obama doesn’t support gay marriage, so if you have a problem with people who don’t like the idea of a man marrying another man, then you have a problem with your messiah.
@2 Goldy …
Not so sure about state consititutions but why you think
.
Amendments have been used to
restrict rights of the Federal Government
limit the right to sue government
deny southern soldiers the right to serve in government
create a federal income tax
prohibit sale of alcohal (and later to allow same)
limit terms of the President
There are also two amendments still srtanding but not approved by the states:
1. preserves slavery
2, abolished use of titel of nobility
Lee
I wish you would take the pope hat and leave it in your closet. You pontificate on more issues than El Rushbo.
Your latest is your assertion that being gay is due to nature not nurture. No one knows that. It could be true .. just as it could be true that valor, intelligence, athletic prowess and indolence are hereditary.
It seems to me that this sort of pontification hurts gay rights. Suppose your assertion is true? Does that make gayness a disease?
Look we can now “treat” depression with drugs. It is more than likely that we will be able to “treat” sexual preference with drugs as well.
I would rather leave things simple. If two folks want to be partnered, let them. It works fine in Europe and would work as well here without depriving the male-female partnership of a word that means a lot to many people.
BTW, are you also ready to accept polyandry and polygamy or are these “unnatural?” What about sib pairing, is the “unnatural” too?
@35
Your latest is your assertion that being gay is due to nature not nurture. No one knows that.
We already have plenty of evidence that gay people have different genetic characteristics. It’s certainly possible that a child could become gay by certain events during their childhood, but most gay people know from a very early age that they’re different.
It seems to me that this sort of pontification hurts gay rights.
And this is why you’re possibly the dumbest person I’ve ever met.
@35: If stupidity is hereditory than I pity your kids.
You make no sense. There is ample evidence that most (not all) gay people are not there by choice. If it is not a choice, then we are discriminating against citizens. And you pathetically stupid comparison to Hitler is offensive, Hitler gassed gays, Jews, Catholics, gypsies and anyone he did not like, that disagreed with German policies or the war or was not Aryan enough.
Making laws that discriminate against gays is right in line with Nazi Germany thinking. We shuld be vigilant to protect all citizens, period. I am not gay but I do not feel threatened by protecting all citizens, I feel more secure in my democracy.
@the whole nurture/nature thing…
The Constitution doesn’t give a crap. Laws apply equally to all.
‘Oh and, it’s IS nature. We know this. It’s time to stop giving in to the yowlers who claim that this is still up in the air.
@36 Lee, the Pope
Sorry Lee, no there is not plenty of evidence that being gay is “genetic.” There is some evidence that this is so.
Moreover, even if there were a genetic component, the penetrance of a trait like this is certainly not very high.
I will leave you to your resources to figure out what penetrance means.
@37 Correct not Right BUT very confused.
Where did you get this pile of offal? FWIW I never mentioned Hitler nor has anyone in the thread other than you.
What? Who wants to make laws that discriminate against gays. Certainly not I.
I would go a lot further than accepting gay pairs. I think our laws against pleural marriage violate the first amendment. Islam, LDS, and Jews ought to have a right to establish whatever cohabitation they want.
What I do not see is the rationale, other than a desire to legislate how people think about gay pairs, for changing the definition of the word marriage. This makes no more sense than changing the defintions of “father,” “mother,” “husband,” “wife.”
If gay pairs want a ceremony that recognizes their commitment, than I am all for that. I would vote for an amendment that specifically states that pairs have any and all rights given to married couples .. whether the pairs are married, tied un a fraternal relationship, parent commitment to child, or whatever anyone wants to make them be.
Note the ‘Global Warming Phenomenon’ used by the uber libs here:
1) Pick an unsupported cause
2) Throw in the word ‘science’
3) Claim that the debate is over and anyone who disagrees is a redneck/Bible thumper/hateful
The ‘science’ argument put forth by these nimrods boils down to ‘gays have genes, therefore homosexuality is genetic’. Or some ‘post hoc ergo proper hoc’ argument like the hypothalamus size study from the disco era.
In all honesty, the left, through decades of attempting to circumvent the will of the people via the courts that brought this on themselves. How does that crow taste anyway?