Yes on 8

[foxgrrl]

I can not comprehend why anyone would vote for such a horrible law.

If you are voting yes for this, why?

What kind of crime must someone commit, to be punished by destroying their families?
What do you gain by destroying thousands of loving marrages?
How would you fell if you had your marrage annulled?
No, seriously. I'm tring to understand what kind of monster would hurt other people like this.
ANSWER ME!

Comments

[primaldog.livejournal.com]

Fuck yeah. I'd like an answer to this, too.

DOMA keeps me and my lifepartner living thousands of miles apart. Going to bed alone every night fucking hurts, and it leaves me wondering just why I have to continue to be punished simply for loving someone.

Alot of us would like answers.

[spider88.livejournal.com]

I think Prop 8 will go the way of Prop 187 if it's voted in. The California Supreme Court will knock it out as unconstitutional, correct? That's what happened to the creepy nazi-esque, "brown people must show ID to enter all buildings" Prop 187.

[bunnykitteh.livejournal.com]

The kind I write about here: http://bunnykitteh.livejournal.com/153136.html

[aenaminie.livejournal.com]

Funny you should make this post.

Today on my way to work I came to the intersection of Skyline and San Bruno Avenue. It's a T intersection about 1/4th of a mile from my house. And what did I see on the fence? A big yellow "YES ON PROP 8" sign. As soon as the light turned green I pulled up next to the sign, got out of my car, and RIPPED IT THE FUCK OFF THE FENCE IN FRONT OF EVERYONE. I then tore it up, wadded it up, and chucked it in a nearby trashcan in front of about 50 people. A lady in a volvo was so moved that she pulled over, got out of her car and yelled "I FEEL YOU ALL THE WAY BACK HERE ON THAT ONE GIRL!! WHOOOOOO!!!!" She cheered, kissed the girl in the car with her, and they both waved.

I normally don't tread on others views... But this is promoting prejudice. This law is no better than a law supporting racism. My vow of the day is to tear down as many of those signs as possible. The law is completely unfair and promotes nothing but non-progression and continues to violate equal rights for everyone.

FUCK THAT.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Heh. I have a stencil I made that says "VOTE HATE" and fits conveniently across the top of the "YES ON 8" signs.

For me, this is a good compromise. I'm not tearing down their sign and symbolically removing their freedom of speech. I'm just adding my own opinion to it and putting a little truth in their sign.

It amuses me because every single one that I've modified has subsequently been removed or replaced (only to be modified again) Presumably by the very people who put it up in the first place.

It's almost like they're afraid of something.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

While I'm not planning to vote yes on it, if I were, it would be because I want the state out of the marriage business altogether.

[solarbird]

Sadly, no. It's an amendment to the state Constitution, so definitionally cannot be found to be in violation of that Constitution. And as a contract law matter, it's also primarily a function of state, not Federal, government, so doesn't really fall under US Constitutional law either, and insofar as it does, it would likely meet the same standards (such as they are) of DOMA, which has also not been struck down as Federally unconstitutional. (You may wish to remember that the "pursuit of happiness" is a feature of the Declaration of Independence (which is not law), not the Constitution of the United States (which is).)

[tixen.livejournal.com]

The only reason I can think of that people would vote yes on this is because they're either religiously brainwashed, or they do not understand that a "No" vote on Prop 8 is not a statement of your preference of gay marriage.

I am voting no, not because I feel gays should be permitted to marry, but rather because it is unconstitutional to tell them they cannot. The mere fact that there is a proposition for amending the constitution with unconstitutional articles is one of many reasons that I am ashamed to call myself an American these days.

This having been said, if they do successfully amend the constitution, perhaps the movement I believe most strongly in will finally be given light- that marriage is a religious ceremony that should not be defined legally, and should not in fact exist legally.

Civil Unions for all!

[kitten-goddess.livejournal.com]

*claps for you, forsoleil*

You are a very rare person. You are guided by principles, not by emotion or self-interest.

who would vote for this law?

[kitten-goddess.livejournal.com]

Some scared evangelical who was told to vote for this law, or else God would pour wrath on the whole country. Some little evangelical who does not know she knows any gay people.

I was that little evangelical, once upon a time. Luckily, I was never called upon to vote for such a law and I got out of the movement before I ever did more than annoy my dorm neighbors with constant invites to church.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I do wonder if all of the people who are opposed to this measure will remember, the next time the City of SF proposes trashing the rights of people to bear arms in self defence.

That's generally my offer to people. I'll support your rights if you'll support mine. Even if I find them "distasteful". (Not, mind you, that I do find homosexuality distasteful, but it seems to be a common theme among anti-gay-marriage folk.)

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

I will! I will! :D

If the unthinkable (e.g. theocratic martial law) comes to San Francisco, I'll be defending my gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans friends with the help of my best pals Emma the Sig Sauer P226 and Prejudice the Remington 12-gauge pump-action. And I, too, hope that folks will remember and protect my U.S. Constitutional right to defend myself and them.

[bearfairie.livejournal.com]

Hear fucking hear.

I have completely lost my ability to be rational about this one. Marriage isn't even my big issue - I have huge issues with the way marriage exists in our country and am not planning on marrying even if I could... but to take away our rights simply because we're queer? FUCK THAT. I swear, I live here in the south bay of CA and as far as I can tell, folx who are voting yes on 8 are doing so b/c it's given them the confidence to bond together in their hateful homophobia, revel in it like pigs in shit. Look! We're lobbying to take gay people's rights away! Maybe jesus will come to earth sooner! I dunno. Like I said, I cannot be rational about this one. I'm actually volunteering for the no on 8 campaign, and will be working at the polls tomorrow.

[kengr]

That's another of the Big Lies the Yes on 8 people are pushing. Another is that churches will be forced to marry gays. Neither is true.

[mikeys.livejournal.com]

I'd like to know the answer to that one too. What kind of horrible person do you have to be to go and fuck up someone else's relationship for spite?

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

Have you read The Authoritarians? It's the closest thing there is to a full explanation of exactly what is wrong with these people.

[hasufin.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I thoguht I was one of the only people to read that book.

Sadly, I don't see anyone actually defending the pro-8 stance here. It would be... well, interesting. Though, as Altemeyer explained rather well, we aren't goign to make any headway with debate.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

Because people thing they known better than everyone else, and thus, by extrapolation, they know what's good for those people.

This is the basis of all 'well-meaning' authority.

Blatant dictatorship-for-power-alone is more honest.

As Ogre will attest at every turn; "Faith in Government defies reason and history"

[tiggerfox.livejournal.com]

If you break it down, the state issues a license binding you to a contract. You get married in a church for a completely different reason that should have nothing to do with the state, its a sacrament to god or some such.. Anyway the state should issue a license to ANY two (or more?) people that want to join and be seen as one to the state, gay, strait, or other. This is entirely for tax and other legal reasons. Getting married in a church has nothing to do with this. What is is, if you want to vote yes on 8, is that you want to give benefits from the state to one group of people and not another, and that is WRONG plain and simple. It would be the same thing to say you want to pass a constitutional amendment that bans people with blue eyes from entering into a contract. I think most (GLBT) folks agree that they don't even care if it is called marriage, they just want the same rights that strait married couples get now, and that is the way it should be, keep the church out of this. It is all about being the same in the eyes of the state, not god.

[kengr]

Check the original decision that allowed gay marriage in CA. They actually covered that. If this amendment passes and that same court gets asked to rule on things, they'll go with the "plan B" THEY ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS DECISION.

Namely, getting rid of *marriage* and making everything in CA civil unions INCLUDING EXISTING MARRIAGES.

Can you imagine the screams from the fundies when their attempt to "preserve" marriage actually destroys it? :-)

[anaisdjuna.livejournal.com]

Good questions, Julia. Good points.

I think it's that they're afraid of people not like them. They have no clue what a family is.

[viesti.livejournal.com]

The real monsters aren't the ones voting Yes, but those responsible for this mess in the first place.

The ones who petitioned to get it onto the ballot.
The ones who mass-produced signs with a shiny happy heterosexual family with 1.8 2 kids.
The ones who twisted words and warped truth and lied to Californians with messages of hate and fear.
The ones who are dividing neighborhoods, households, and families by this.

It's not difficult to fool someone with no personal stake in whether gay marriage is legal or not into thinking that this will directly impact their life. All you have to do is twist and distort data, paint scenarios involving your second-grade children, and hammer your specific interpretation of (insert religious text here) in such a way that makes it more difficult to consider alternate interpretations later. As an added bonus, they also had the old wounds from the Knight Initiative in 2000 which never healed up to play with.

The rifts caused by this are going to take a very, very long time to heal considering the sheer level of visceral emotions this whole ordeal is stirring up. The people being played into voting Yes and alienating their neighbors, family, and friends are victims of this, too.

[lupinekassidy.livejournal.com]

The reason to vote yes for most people isn't any sort of petty vindictiveness or even outright hatred toward people like us. The reason is simply because they're made uncomfortable by the notion- because they have to treat it like they're being made to do it themselves. As a country, I suspect this place has a serious crisis of sexuality on its hands. We're so devoted to being 'straight' that most have to reject the principle of 'not-straight' even if it doesn't really apply to them, because it's how they keep their own lives in order.

This gives me an idea to put to ponder, though. I wonder how many people are attracted to their friends in a sexual fashion? Like, they make friends because they're attractive... ooh, this is a nasty idea. Thank you!

[kengr]

ah, but the folks in favor of it mostly don't consider those to be "real" marriages.

And a lot are voting for it because they've been misled by the "yes on 8" folks claiming that churches will be forced to marry gays even if they don't want to (yes, they actually claim that). Or that young kids will be taught stuff about gay sex in school (another falsehood).

[romonster.livejournal.com]

Hrmm. If I thought that the passage of Prop. 8 would actually result in marriage as a legal institution ceasing to exist, I would vote yes on it. I believe no one should be accorded special privileges that others don't get. Legally we should all be regarded as separate individuals. If people want a religious or personal ceremony, great, but the state should not be involved in any way.

However, I'm not foolish enough to think marriage is going away anytime soon. For reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, people seem to want it. And if we're stuck with marriage, then it must be available to anyone who wants it. So I have to cast a no vote, even though it flies in the face of my other principles.

[baxil.livejournal.com]

I am absolutely voting against 8, have marched in a rally against it, and have donated money against it.

That said, my parents are voting for it, and I discussed it with them at some length a week or two ago.

They say they are against it because gays should not have gotten to marry in the first place. They say that it's an invented right by four liberal activist judges (never mind that they were appointed by Republicans) and that it's important that marriage as an institution be preserved. They call themselves "traditionalists" and think America's going to destroy itself by shredding the values that has made it great.

What they didn't say, but what I suspect to be a major factor: They're from an earlier generation and have watched everything from Vietnam to the Internet accelerate the pace of social change. Us younguns mostly cope with change pretty well -- we've lived our entire lives amid progress. My parents came of age in the 1940s and 1950s, and so they grew up assuming life was on a steady set of tracks; now that the future hasn't gone exactly like they expected, they see it as off the rails.

They're afraid.

I'm still upset at their vote. This is directly affecting the lives of my dear friends (and my boss!). But they're being fed a great deal of propaganda, mostly by Fox News, that reassures them that what they grew up with is inviolable and unchanging and that that lie is worth more than any number of individual lives.

It is monstrous, and I wish they could see it from inside that bubble. Because if you don't see who you're hurting, you just see the great shining principle you're supposedly protecting, and pat yourself on the back.

It's Fear

[cyberspice.livejournal.com]

People hate what they don't understand and the tiny small minded drones who have been obediently following what they have been told are frightened of change that leaves them behind as emotional has beens. When I've been in CA I have to admit I have been abusive to every Yes on Prop 8 picket I have seen. I hope you get the right result..

[eqe.livejournal.com]

I voted no and donated to No On 8.

An undereducated, overworked, religiously observant family in the Central Valley, who do not know any out queers, would have no reason to vote against a proposition marketed as "protecting marriage" when confronted by scare tactics like "schoolteachers will be required to teach that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage". The penetration of No on 8 in conservative neighborhoods is mediocre at best; you can see this even in working-class neighborhoods in San Mateo for example.