Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?
All of these, but I think it was chosen not because it was "more important" as much as it was the least expected -- which ties into the less socially conservative thing.
Also "8" works a lot better into signs that want to spell hate "H8".
― HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:04 (fifteen years ago) link
Results 1 - 10 of about 226 for rally "measure 9" oregon 2004. (0.13 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 700,000 for rally "prop 8" california 2008. (0.24 seconds)
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:04 (fifteen years ago) link
Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage?
Because California is supposed to be "better than that".
― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:05 (fifteen years ago) link
Oh, oops, I am misremembering my numbers.
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:06 (fifteen years ago) link
Results 1 - 10 of about 588 for 2004 "measure 36" oregon rally. (0.25 seconds)
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:07 (fifteen years ago) link
I won't compromise my Christianity'cause my momma taught me better than that!
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:07 (fifteen years ago) link
We are, in some ways, compared to even 2000, but the eastern half of the state is pretty 'red'.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:08 (fifteen years ago) link
It is funny to divide so tall a state by east & west. Funny meaning amusing to look at. Like it's a red & blue harlequin hot dog bun.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:09 (fifteen years ago) link
I do wonder about LDS tax exempt status.
I thought donating to propositions was protected as "free speech", no matter who's doing the donating...?
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:10 (fifteen years ago) link
Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books. I think that plays a big part in people's outrage over Prop 8.
― The Reverend, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:12 (fifteen years ago) link
I have to admit they do like nothing otherwise that wld make them tax-exempt questionable. I mean like no church positions are paid & they don't spend their tithes on anything really but building more churches & assimilating/destroying to a broader mass.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:12 (fifteen years ago) link
they = Mormon Church
I totally understand why it's more important if you're actually IN California, it's just that I'm hearing huge levels of anger from people halfway, or all the way, across the country, including in states that have already passed these amendments. Perhaps it seems different than 2004 because people were also so angry about Bush's reelection then?
xpost - I think churches are not allowed to donate to candidates for office because they risk losing their tax-exempt status...don't know what the rule is for propositions, though.
xpost again - yeah, that does make a big difference. Hadn't thought of that.
― Maria, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:13 (fifteen years ago) link
fwiw, Mark Leno is OTM: the vv narrow margin of asshole victory and expensive and misleading campaign required to achieve it = writing on the wall. The battle may have been lost but in important ways the war is already OVER. Millenials will tip it.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:14 (fifteen years ago) link
I don't know what the polls were saying about Arizona, but I seem to recall Alfred telling us it was somewhat close in Florida. I think perhaps people thought it stood a real chance in California and also some of the gall may be in proportion to the joy over Obama's victory.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:17 (fifteen years ago) link
It's true. We killed the witch and those fuckers went and poked us in the eye.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:20 (fifteen years ago) link
the writing is totally on the wall. the fact that legal barriers have had to be erected (where before there were none) is a sign in and of itself. And only 40 years after Stonewall signalled it being (kinda sorta) okay to be out and gay in the country (in certain parts, at least)
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:20 (fifteen years ago) link
I am in the Stonewall Queer-Straight Alliance! Man can those peeps bro down. (Magpie-like tangent.)
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:21 (fifteen years ago) link
Even the Prop 8 folks were very careful to state that they were all about, like, civil union type rights and stuff.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:21 (fifteen years ago) link
bullshit
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:24 (fifteen years ago) link
Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books.
This is not true.
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (fifteen years ago) link
Bullshit that they said it or bullshit that they meant it?
Because yes it's some horseshit, but the fact that they made it a talking point tells ya which way the wind's blowing.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, if they'd meant it, they would have written civil unions into the prop
― the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:27 (fifteen years ago) link
Bullshit that they meant it, and 77% bullshit that they said it.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (fifteen years ago) link
And civil unions are some Jim Crow shit anyway.
^^^disagree
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (fifteen years ago) link
Basically, when Oregon passed the measure, it was to prevent lawsuits from being tried. The Att'y General had said, as I recall, that he didn't think the argument (that not allowing gay marriage was a form of sex discrimination, which was prohibited in the state constitution) would be valid; but it's kinda hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, which is one reason why there was the push to put language specifically outlawing it in the state constitution.
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:29 (fifteen years ago) link
fair
xp
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:29 (fifteen years ago) link
we went over this on the election thread - basically the end-goal should be to separate the religious institution of marriage from the civil rights accorded married people by the government so that EVERYONE gets the same recognition under the law (same visitation rights, same healthcare benefits, etc.)
x-post
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:30 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp
― the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:30 (fifteen years ago) link
I have even managed to get some Republicans I know to admit that marriage is a religious ceremony and the State should recognize nothing other than civil unions, though they still, sometimes quite sincerely I believe, keep bringing up the polygamy canard.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:31 (fifteen years ago) link
all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:32 (fifteen years ago) link
Then why aren't Mormons pro-gay marriage, if it'll lead to legalized polygamy?
― Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (fifteen years ago) link
But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (fifteen years ago) link
As I've said elsewhere, why would a devout Catholic want his/her state to call and recognize as a marriage, a union, even between a man and a woman, where one of them is divorced and therefor, according to the Church, an adulterer?
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (fifteen years ago) link
Shakey, couldn't the Feds just define all civil unions as marriages wrt the tax code?
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:35 (fifteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:32 PM Bookmarkcivil unions 4 everyone
― the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (fifteen years ago) link
Bcz polygamy is a commandment we are not godly enough to follow as it currently stands, and will happen again after Armaggedon. Duh.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (fifteen years ago) link
its not the same because the law only deals with the former and would basically be disregarding the latter entirely
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (fifteen years ago) link
civil unions 4 everyone
exactly
but it doesn'txp
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:37 (fifteen years ago) link
If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing, which it does, then civil unions are still second class.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (fifteen years ago) link
that sounds pretty "equal but separate
Weddings I have been to have been widely different but the underlying law remains the same.
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (fifteen years ago) link
We have to destroy marriage in order to save it.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (fifteen years ago) link
The right wing no marriage but civil unions are okay position is just about keeping language as a placeholder.
― I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link
look the LAW is the central thing here, what anybody calls it (marriage, civil union, whatever) doesn't fucking matter. The end-goal is the guarantee of equal legal treatment of everyone who's made a formal commitment to a legally recognized relationship.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link
Not exactly. Leave marriage to religion and civil unions to a secular state that treats people as equal under the law.
xxpost
― What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:40 (fifteen years ago) link
If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing,
you cannot legislate "public connotations". It is outside the bounds of civil jurisdiction.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
I see I hold a minority opinion.
― Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
you guys know how laws work, right?