Proposition 8 Has Officially Passed

[NickCole]

It's nonsense to blame the opposition, call it baiting or call it whatever you like, for the ugly response of gay protesters.

But I see this typically today, shirking responsibility for bad choices onto others.

Back in the 80s when we protested it was hard core sometimes because the opposition was hard core and our cause was life and death. But we didn't respond by physically intimidating and threatening older women. We'd shout, "Shame!", which may seem lame but it was effective without turning us into terrorists.

This is a new time and it's generally nastier with a veneer of being "nice" and "likable," but it's as true today as it's been throughout time that we are defined by our own choices and behavior, not that of others.

 

[dj415]

It's nonsense to blame the opposition, call it baiting or call it whatever you like, for the ugly response of gay protesters.

But I see this typically today, shirking responsibility for bad choices onto others.

Back in the 80s when we protested it was hard core sometimes because the opposition was hard core and our cause was life and death. But we didn't respond by physically intimidating and threatening older women. We'd shout, "Shame!", which may seem lame but it was effective without turning us into terrorists.

This is a new time and it's generally nastier with a veneer of being "nice" and "likable," but it's as true today as it's been throughout time that we are defined by our own choices and behavior, not that of others.

How much circular reasoning can one allow? In other words... What the f* are you saying?

Your post/comment sounds Palinesk. There are a lot of words in your post but your words are, in my estimation, nonsensical. Please elucidate.

Yes, we've struggled. Silence=death. OK, I get that. Much of the rest I don't get. Please explain. Or not. Maybe I'm an idiot.

 

[kallipolis]

It's nonsense to blame the opposition, call it baiting or call it whatever you like, for the ugly response of gay protesters.

But I see this typically today, shirking responsibility for bad choices onto others.

Back in the 80s when we protested it was hard core sometimes because the opposition was hard core and our cause was life and death. But we didn't respond by physically intimidating and threatening older women. We'd shout, "Shame!", which may seem lame but it was effective without turning us into terrorists.

This is a new time and it's generally nastier with a veneer of being "nice" and "likable," but it's as true today as it's been throughout time that we are defined by our own choices and behavior, not that of others.

Plain, speaking. Refreshingly, clear.

 

[NickCole]

How much circular reasoning can one allow? In other words... What the f* are you saying?

Your post/comment sounds Palinesk. There are a lot of words in your post but your words are, in my estimation, nonsensical. Please elucidate.

You must be part of the sound bite generation.

That shallowness diminishes our nation and it is part of our current decline because the devil is in the details.

(Don't worry I don't expect you to understand that either -- not sure if I lost you at "shallowness" or "diminishes" but it's a good bet you didn't comprehend past that.)

Yes, we've struggled. Silence=death. OK, I get that. Much of the rest I don't get. Please explain. Or not. Maybe I'm an idiot.

If you act like a terrorist, you're a terrorist, no matter your reasons.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ So, when in one of your previous post, the gay guy intruded in the evangelical group, the appropriateness of his behavior must have been irrelevant too. But curiously that's not how you saw things, when the roles were reversed. LOL.

Maybe all demonstrators should ignore all provocations and maybe not. But you're out of touch with reality, if you think they all will. The old woman herself has said she knew she was placing herself in danger. She wasn't injured and, my guess is, that she got exactly what she wanted.

In any event, your calling the pro-gay demonstrators "Nazi thugs" for shouting at and jostling someone, who was being intrusive and disrespectful to them, remains a gross exaggeration.

1. "Roles reversed" isn't relevant: they're not trying to win our votes; we're trying to win... well, observers' votes.

2. If they can't ignore provocations, they shouldn't be out there. This has got to be done the way Dr. King did it: with a broad strategy, with training, so that no enemy is handed to the enemy. Those guys handed the enemy a ton of ammo; it doesn't matter what the issue is, in the future, when there's anything that has to do with gays, that little old lady "martyr" will speak up and "testify" how full of evil and hate those gays were.

Yes, that's what she wanted: ammunition. She's probably worth a few dozen votes to the enemy, now.

3. Exaggeration... perhaps. But they were abusing her because of a difference in ideology, which is why I grabbed the term.

 

[Kulindahr]

And you're going to take your toys and go home. LOL

No, 'm just not going to burn the time to try to figure out how the frak he's getting the thoughts that supposedly respond to my posts, when they're not talking about anything in my posts, or separate the crap he's making up from possible actual responses. I'd rather go walk the dog with the time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Classic turnspeak. Ignore the first punch, and then blame the one who punches back for starting a fight.

Are you such a psychological wus that someone carrying a cross is a "punch"?

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW:

Somehow the TV ended up on "The 700 Club" this morning. I was feeling too lazy to get the remote and change it.

Then they started talking about Prop 8. Much of it was predictable ("Homosexuals don't reproduce -- I'm sorry, but they don't!), but then my jaw dropped....

Pat Robertson himself sat there and said that he understood that homosexuals want all the benefits marriage grant, and "that's fine, they just can't have marriage. There are civil unions...."

I'm gonna hafta find a transcript, but if I caught that, then one of the most anti-gay men in the country just said he's okay with gays having all the same benefits under the law -- just not the word "marriage"!

Someone get that to Obama......

 

[Spensed]

....If they can't ignore provocations, they shouldn't be out there. This has got to be done the way Dr. King did it: with a broad strategy, with training, so that no enemy is handed to the enemy. Those guys handed the enemy a ton of ammo; it doesn't matter what the issue is, in the future, when there's anything that has to do with gays, that little old lady "martyr" will speak up and "testify" how full of evil and hate those gays were.

Yes, that's what she wanted: ammunition. She's probably worth a few dozen votes to the enemy, now...

Dr. King's methodology was one of many. Your prescription for demonstrators isn't the only one.

Plus demonstrators are human beings, who sometimes over react and make mistakes.

Most of those who are against Prop 8, or open to being so, will condemn what the demonstrators did, but understand why they did it.

 

[Spensed]

Are you such a psychological wus that someone carrying a cross is a "punch"?

In context, the cross is being used in an intrusive and hostile way to disrespect the demonstrators every bit as much as if she had been punching them physically. That's why some of them reacted as if they had been punched. Kinda obvious really.

 

[Spensed]

BTW:

Somehow the TV ended up on "The 700 Club" this morning. I was feeling too lazy to get the remote and change it.

Then they started talking about Prop 8. Much of it was predictable ("Homosexuals don't reproduce -- I'm sorry, but they don't!), but then my jaw dropped....

Pat Robertson himself sat there and said that he understood that homosexuals want all the benefits marriage grant, and "that's fine, they just can't have marriage. There are civil unions...."

I'm gonna hafta find a transcript, but if I caught that, then one of the most anti-gay men in the country just said he's okay with gays having all the same benefits under the law -- just not the word "marriage"!

Someone get that to Obama......

Obama got that memo a while back. It's just that his version of it, which gives civil unions the same status as marriage, is more realistic than your version of it.:

Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

http://obama.3cdn.net/795174956a7f432e93_4iiemv52b.pdf

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html

 

[glo-unit]

Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.

To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.
Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

This is a blog post by Nate Silver and I think some may want to look at it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Obama got that memo a while back. It's just that his version of it, which gives civil unions the same status as marriage, is more realistic than your version of it.:


http://obama.3cdn.net/795174956a7f432e93_4iiemv52b.pdf

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html

"Separate but equal" is not "realistic" -- it has to go one way or the other. If we want it to go in our favor any time soon, then Obama's is just the first step, and the next one is handing marriage back to the churches, and having nothing but civil unions -- for everyone who comes and tells the government, "We're united".

 

[Kulindahr]

In context, the cross is being used in an intrusive and hostile way to disrespect the demonstrators every bit as much as if she had been punching them physically. That's why some of them reacted as if they had been punched. Kinda obvious really.

That's called immaturity and insecurity. Someone carrying something isn't anything like a punch, unless you're so insecure that photons are perceived as threatening.

Any time you hand someone power over you like that, it's a sign of your weakness.

 

[bluepheonix]

If you act like a terrorist, you're a terrorist, no matter your reasons.

Again with the emotively charged discourse. Perhaps we should be careful when using words with very powerful meanings like 'terrorist' and 'nazi' to take into consideration the very specific meaning and power those words have. Honestly, stopping short of defending the action of the protesters, since when is intimidating someone out of an area because you don't like what they are saying terrorism? Think before you speak, you wouldnt go calling a fight in a football game terrorism.

That's called immaturity and insecurity. Someone carrying something isn't anything like a punch, unless you're so insecure that photons are perceived as threatening.

Any time you hand someone power over you like that, it's a sign of your weakness.

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your perception of the power of symbols kuli. Think painting a swastika in a temple, or wearing a clan outfit to a NAACP meeting (or Obamas victory speech). It goes too far to say anyone who reacts to these symbols as though they were a punch is emotionally weak and immature. The cross was used directly as an insult to the gay community and the gay protesters, and represents and history of hate and persecution which still detrimentally affects untold numbers of gay people around the world. You saying the cross is in no way a 'punch' is like saying "Ill pray for you" is full of love. Christian religious propaganda is some of the most insidiously discriminatory and hateful stuff I have ever seen, it is not something simply blown out of proportion by the 'weak minded'.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your perception of the power of symbols kuli. Think painting a swastika in a temple, or wearing a clan outfit to a NAACP meeting (or Obamas victory speech). It goes too far to say anyone who reacts to these symbols as though they were a punch is emotionally weak and immature. The cross was used directly as an insult to the gay community and the gay protesters, and represents and history of hate and persecution which still detrimentally affects untold numbers of gay people around the world. You saying the cross is in no way a 'punch' is like saying "Ill pray for you" is full of love. Christian religious propaganda is some of the most insidiously discriminatory and hateful stuff I have ever seen, it is not something simply blown out of proportion by the 'weak minded'.

If someone had worn a Klan outfit to Obama's victory speech, and I'd been there, I would have started giggling and not been able to hold back outright laughter. And I'd have felt sorry for anyone who got angry or upset, for handing the guy so much power over them.

That you say "The cross was used directly as an insult to the gay community and the gay protesters" shows you haven't made the essential step of trying to understand the 'enemy': if you asked that lady, she would have said it's because she loved them, and looking at love as an emotion, that most likely would have been true -- because her understanding is that gays are on a sinking ship, and she's trying to get them off it. She would be utterly incapable of seeing how it could possibly be seen as hateful, no matter how hard you tried to explain... at least unless she made the leap which few gays have ever bothered with, to step aside from preconceptions and walk a while in the other person's shoes.

Now, the swastika in a temple is a different matter: the temple is a supremely personal space, while out on the street is open territory to anyone and everyone.

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

I wasn't even talking about the cross. I was talking about her implicit support (and obvious vote) against marriage equality. "Free Speech" is a red-herring that trivializes her actions in favor of symbols. She is, very literally, a representative for those who actively stripped these men of their rights.

There's nothing imaginary about it. It's not about "insecurity" or "immaturity" - No matter how maturely and securely any of these couples walks into Palm Springs to file for a civil marriage, they won't get one now. Because of a specific act that she directly contributed to. It would be disingenuous to pretend we don't know how she voted.

We all know that if she had carried that cross to city hall BEFORE the vote, DURING the campaign, to confront them, they would have behaved exactly the way we wish they had. What she did instead, by wielding an oppressive symbol AFTER the ban passed, was akin to wearing the KKK robe in Harlem if Obama had LOST. A KKK robe at his inauguration would be like this woman standing with her cross if Prop 8 had FAILED. These men would have been celebrating in the streets and likely would have glibly kissed her on the cheek as they passed by.

Oppressive symbols don't exist in a vacuum. It is dishonest to ignore the context of whether or not the wielder of the symbol has actually enacted the oppression they are symbolizing. It's revisionist to hide behind a free-speech strawman about the cross, if it was wielded AFTER the election. Those men's rage wasn't about the cross. It was about her vote.

 

[NickCole]

Again with the emotively charged discourse. Perhaps we should be careful when using words with very powerful meanings like 'terrorist' and 'nazi' to take into consideration the very specific meaning and power those words have. Honestly, stopping short of defending the action of the protesters, since when is intimidating someone out of an area because you don't like what they are saying terrorism? Think before you speak, you wouldnt go calling a fight in a football game terrorism.

If the football players turned their might on a lone defenseless older woman to terrorize her, I sure would call it terrorism.

Mob rule may be acceptable to you --or you may want to find nice words for it-- but I assure you that won't be the case if you find yourself the victim in the story.

It says something very troubling about the direction our society is headed that so many here are defending, in any measure, a mob bullying a lone elderly woman who's only offense was carrying a cross and being opposed to same sex marriage. There's such a revoltingly dishonest emphasis today on being "likable" to people only as long as you get something for it, as long as they're the "right" sort of person, the sort you're attracted to, and an equally revolting disregard for everyone else.

 

[NickCole]

Those men's rage wasn't about the cross. It was about her vote.

Obviously.

But their behavior was indecent and inappropriate. Had she been a big muscular younger person yelling and gathering force against them, that's a different story. But she was a small elderly woman, alone. She had no power, she'd cast one vote, she hadn't the power to influence hundreds or thousands or millions of votes; one vote. I understand their anger and frustration but the truth is those men behaved shamefully; it's disturbing that no gay man appears to step up to protect her, to stand up to his peers and say stop, this is wrong.

 

[Spensed]

"Separate but equal" is not "realistic" -- it has to go one way or the other. If we want it to go in our favor any time soon, then Obama's is just the first step, and the next one is handing marriage back to the churches, and having nothing but civil unions -- for everyone who comes and tells the government, "We're united".

We'll see. Civil unions, as an interim or even as a final step has worked, as far as I can see in England and is, de facto, already working in states like California.

I'd not necessarily adverse to your concept of "handing marriage back to the churches". But I just don't see it ever happening or any momentum on either side towards it.

A bird in the hand.