Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
Nearly $10 Million Owed to LAUSD by Teachers Who Were Mistakenly Overpaid
If You've Got the Time: Sunday Brunch @ Casa del Mar
Good news for Californians opposed to enshrining bigotry into our constitution - a recent statewide poll published by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that support for the Prop 8, has declined significantly. According to their results, "Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, is losing (52% to 44%) among likely voters."
This comes as a huge relief after a month of hearing that California was dangerously teetering back into Dixie style legislated hatred after several months of sanity, though it only goes to show how quickly these things can change. CONSTANT VIGILANCE, in other words. Slightly less happy news is that support for Prop 4 (forcing teenage girls to notify their parents if they want to have an abortion) is just barely below majority status, which means the bad guys might be able to sneak in a victory for funduhmentalism. The entire report, which also contains polling data about the other ballot initiatives Californians get to choose from, as well as our apparently terrified state of mind, can be read here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Everyone knows of course that if Prop 8 is defeated the wails and moans from the religulous* will be deafening.
* Mahr coined it; now it needs to be put to use.
My biggest fear is setting presidence in legislating morality.
Once you start legislating morality for gay and lesbian folk, where do you draw the line? Next thing you know we'll have Jesus Storm Troopers in our bedrooms demanding to know if the sex we're having is for producing offspring or not.
That, my friends, is the Republic of Gilead you can believe in.
"* Mahr coined it; now it needs to be put to use."
Seen that yet? (just curious)
Here's an interesting article. Remember all that pissing and moaning the GOPers are doing about ACORN and voter registration fraud...
http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=1c4xsx
from the article...
"Republicans want to shut down the centers in the largely Democratic county on the grounds that they will increase the likelihood of vote fraud in the Nov. 4 election."
Please take another look at the poll results. Though it is still losing, support for Prop 8 has been increasing, not plummeting as the headline suggests. I'd hate to see this headline make people complacent. Please vote for fairness and equality and against bigotry and lies – NO on Prop 8.
The most telling part of that story is this:
Which is right in line with Paul Weyrich's famous quote.
"Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, is losing (52% to 44%) among likely voters."
That's losing.
However, yes, in case I wasn't clear, DO NOT GET COMPLACENT.
This is good news, but yeah, we shouldn't let our guard down. I just donated to the No on Prop. 8 campaign and got some nearly belated yard posters.
Good article you linked db.
I guess the GOP strategy since 2000 is; "if you can't win, CHEAT!"
wierd, this article contradicts:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage23-2008oct23,0,4937128.story
interesting how two articles use the same percentages but paint the facts in a different manner on the same day.
I was just going to post the LA times article, too.
Ohhh interpretation.
This comes as a huge relief after a month of hearing that California was dangerously teetering back into Dixie style legislated hatred...
Why not refer to it as Northwestern style legislated hatred?
Or Western style? ...or Midwestern style? How exactly does "Dixie style" relate to the banning of gay marriage?
The South is not, nor has it ever been the sole purveyor of hatred and bigotry in this country.
Sorry, but I just really take issue with people who insist on using the Dixie=Racist meme.
It's old, tired and no longer relevant to The South of today.
I think normal people should get one vote and people who read LAist get 3 votes. Who's with me? Let's reform the electoral college!
I will support Yes on Prop 8 to simply protect the definition of marriage not to deny the civil rights and liberties of anyone. I firmly support and would fight for same-sex couples that unite in a civil union to have all of the same rights as marriage as they do now on a State level to also have them on a Federal level. Marriage isn't a right, it's an institution that is between a man and a woman.
www.protectmarriage.com
VOTE YES on Prop 8!
I want somebody to answer me this:
if you care so much about "protecting marriage," why do we allow divorce in this country?
The thing is, Prop 8 is anti-marriage and pro big government.
hey Bookamom:
ever hear of "separate but equal?" by saying that you don't want a certain class of people to be able to have what you have is completely antithetical to the idea of civil rights. you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
separate but equal is not equal. equal is equal.
do you not think that at one point in the not-too-distant past someone just like you suggested "Marriage isn't a right, it's an institution between people of the same race"? Just because it's a tradition doesn't make it right. Our country's past is riddled with examples of tradition being done away with in favor of equality and civil rights.
what you are espousing is in my mind no different than it being against the law for my black father and white mother to wed back in the 60s.
keep your intolerance and close-mindedness in your home and keep it away from OUR constitution.
VOTE NO on Prop 8!
www.noonprop8.com
Oh, and the UN says it is a Human Right.
db - this is from the UN doctrine:
Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
The above states men and women - not men or women - what gives?
Bookmom - You probably don't think you're a bigot, but you are.
Ugly American? What else can I say? When you can point me to another region of the country that erupted into treason and started a bloody war to preserve their right to own other humans, and then spent the next century bloodily opposing any attempt to limit their ability to treat the former slaves like animals, I'll concede your point.
Was there bigotry in other regions? Sure. But nobody instituionalized it, and then angrily insisted on imposing it on the rest of the country, quite like the south.
oh, Bookamom - there's another institution for you!
ven_nm - Yes, both men and women have a right to marriage.
I was going to tear Ugly American a new one but Ross beat me to it.
Bookmom - You probably don't think you're a bigot, but you are.
And you wonder why Prop 8 is failing in the polls.
Keep it up.
BTW, ever heard of the New York Draft Riots?
Many northern boys weren't too keen on fighting the "rich man's war" of emancipation.
And you do realize that The Civil Rights Act was passed 44 years ago, right? Because I was just wondering how much longer The South can expect to be continually branded as the racism capitol of the world.
If The South so institutionally racist, then why do so many northerners insist on moving there? You can hardly walk down the sidewalk in downtown Wilmington, NC these days without bumping into a former New Yorker.
Actually though, I wish more northern liberals thought like you. I'd love to find a 3 bedroom house in Wrightsville Beach for under $200,000 and a renewed "Dixie=Racist" campaign might be just the ticket to send all those Yankees packing.
"I will support Yes on Prop 8 to simply protect the definition of marriage not to deny the civil rights and liberties of anyone."
Right, except you can't actually state on your ballot why you are voting Yes. So by voting yes, you ARE denying people their civil rights. Seriously, I can't believe your argument is "but the definition of marriage is a legal/religious union between a man and a woman." That implies we aren't human beings, have no common sense, and can't change things in practice that are written in old books. (Children being "forced" to learn tolerance, the procreation argument, and pretty much anything else people have come up with to mask their bigotry are also lame arguments.)
TUA, have you been to the South? It IS racist. Granted, I think LA is a pretty racist place too. The statement doesn't imply the south is the ONLY racist place, but to create a metaphor in everyone's mind linking how much x will limit civil rights, you can mention race relations in the south and inevitably most Americans will get a not-so-pretty picture in their head.
TUA, have you been to the South?
Born in Arkansas, raised in North Carolina.
Raleigh is FAR more racially integrated than L.A. can ever hope to be.
Black and whites live in the same neighborhoods and hang out at the same watering holes.
When I see I black person in my valley neighborhood, I actually do a double take. Studio City is Crackertown compared to my hometown in NC.
L.A. is one of the most racially segregated cities I've ever lived in.
But I guess tired, old southern stereotypes die hard on LAist.
To add to Buzz's comments:
How have we skewed so far from a time when fighting for equal rights meant something? The movements of the 1960s grew to their heightened state due to decades of inequalities masked by separate but equal overtones. Have people forgotten how this affected the psyche of our country? Hatred, violence, and despair. These were all common results of the separate but equal status our country embraced. For those who were not of the majority, life could only be led through tolerance. Tolerance of the fact that you were different, disallowing you the same rights as everyone else.
It seems that we are beginning to repeat history and once again, in a negative way.
By banning the ability for all to marry we are inherently tolerating a new separate but equal status for gays and lesbians. Civil unions will be allowed, but marriage will be held for those of the majority class alone, those who lead their life as heterosexuals. This is absolutely unfair and should not be tolerated. Vote No on Prop 8.
Raleigh is FAR more racially integrated than L.A. can ever hope to be.
Black and whites live in the same neighborhoods and hang out at the same watering holes.
Hey The Ugy American, hate to break this to you, but...ummmm...there are more races than just black and white. But perhaps everyone non-black or non-white doesn't count as "American" to you, so you just ignore them.
LOL...yeah, I guess you got me there.
Forgot to include the messicans, orientals, injuns, so therefore...racist...blah, blah, blah.
I'm with Bookmom...Look, I'm all for equal rights for everyone, but my beef with Prop 8 remains...you can't change the definition of a word, just because...
The color blue is blue. I'm all for creating different shades of blue, but you've got to come up with a new name for it once you've got it. Indigo, teal, etc...
I'm not down with changes what words mean. That's what Prop 8 does in my opinion.
language, by nature, evolves; neither words nor their definitions are static. nor is the nature of language objective.
i'd also like to point out that no 8 supporters dared to answer a critical question posed above by carrie: "if you care so much about 'protecting marriage,' why do we allow divorce in this country?"
i'm wondering the same thing.
I had a long talk with my boss, a Mormon/LDS biggie, a few days ago about Prop 8. I asked if there was any non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage. He said no, that it was entirely based on religion. I was kinda surprised since I expected some claim of "tradition", but no, it was completely religious.
Specifically, his position is that marriage belongs to God, not man. More importantly to him, there would be serious repercussions for going against God's will. To paraphrase his argument, "There are things you can't see, such as deadly viruses in polluted water. And just because you can't see them doesn't mean that you won't die when you drink the contaminated water." In other words, God will destroy us if we go against his will.
I kept arguing that that was a perfectly reasonable religious belief, and he kept saying "You don't understand". The premise of my position is that our government erred when it gave civil benefits to couples based on a religious ceremony. If people want to get "married" before God, fine, but then the civil benefits given to "married" couples should be based on something else, regardless of any blessing from a cleric. His position was that "civil unions" provided that. I disagreed, and he disagreed with my disagreement.
The important moment came (at least in my mind) when he finally "got" that I wasn't a believer. He stopped saying I didn't understand, but also stopped trying to make an argument in favor of Prop 8.
Since then, my relationship with other LDS members at work (there are several) has been interesting. We all have a long relationship, but I can't help but think they are severely disappointed. Even after 20 years, I suspect they don't really know what I meant when I've told them I don't believe in organized religion. I've got no problem with belief systems, including my own, but ultimately I think of them as fairy tales trying to (as Alan Watts put it) "Eff the ineffable".
So all I can say is: Fuck No on 8. And the funny thing is, I say that for personally religious reasons. Because my God is a cool, inclusive god, not a mean killer god.
Why should we limit marriage to just two people? Why not be able to marry anyone if you love them? Think of the best interests of the children. Like, for instance, if a man could marry three women, one could be like a homemaker. More people available for childcare could only be beneficial for the children. I think marriage should be extended to polyamorous relationships.
According to the LDS, God used to be cool with that, but now he says no way.
hey wowie...
marriage was once defined legally as a union between a man and a woman of the same race.
that definition evolved when the courts realized that that definition was unjust.
the exact same thing happened this past spring when the CA Supreme Court found that marriage is not limited to opposite sex couples. therefore, it is you and your ilk who are trying to redefine the term to be more narrowly focused.
quit with the hate masked as situational tolerance.
hey buzz...
there's no hate masked here.
what i love about the majority of the opponents on prop 8 is how anyone that isn't in their camp is immediately labeled a "hater" and a "bigot."
since when is it wrong to have a difference of opinion in this country? for supporters of tolerance, you sure seem to be pretty intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you.
fine. apologies for the name calling wowie. you poor thing.
all you want to do is strip me of the rights i currently enjoy for the sake of not confusing your "definitions". sorry to have hurt your feelings.
now, why don't you try to counter my arguments instead of licking your wounds.
but you are correct in one regard. your hate isn't masked.
Bookamom
What would you say if your marriage certificate said "domestic partner" as you claim to want equal rights. That will protect your "word" and give everyone a word that equates to the same rights to all. Leave marriage to religious institutions and issue everyone a domestic partner certificate that has the same benefits and rights under the law to all.
Don't be cynical and say you want to protect the saintly of marriage, you want to protect the rights/and benefits such word gives from those whom you deemed not worthy of such titles. That is bigotry and hatred.
I pray God softens your heart and allows you to see clear. Peace!
Here's more on voter suppression and ACORN...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAkRj6w-07Y&sdig=1
Uccnapca:
Well-put.
i'm still waiting for someone to explain this "protecting marriage" argument. protect it from WHAT exactly?
i don't see how gays and lesbians being able to marry will affect any hetero marriages. i don't see how it is anyone's business who marries whom.
WHY DO YOU CARE? concentrate on your own marriage if you think it's at so much risk. concentrate on your own children if you're so concerned with what they are going to learn.
stop these bullshit arguments that children's poor little minds are going to be corrupted when they find out that gays and lesbians are JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE and have the same rights. oh the horror!
VOTE NO ON PROP 8. equal rights for all.
Truth be told - banning gay marriage is not about preserving the sanctity of marriage. Ban divorce first THEN say that.
Not wanting same sex marriage isnt an opinion either, its a preference. Its only - ONLY - because you dont like gay people.
Give me one argument - any argument - that doesnt envolve the bullcrap one about "sanctity" or "religion" and I will consider changing my view that thos against gay marrage are simply against gay people.
Hey Ugly American and Bookmom, here's a thought - If supporters of Prop 8 aren't bigots, if they aren't trying to take away rights from gay people, then why doesn't prop 8 contain a provision declaring something like:
"Let it be known that aside from the semantic change proposed by this proposition, there shall be no legal distinction between "marriage" and civil union under California law. Civil Union couples will enjoy every single right and privilege currently bestowed upon married couples."*
Oh, maybe because supporters of prop 8 are liars.
But you know what's missing from that statement? An ad hominem attack. So here goes:
Wowie - why are you being such a whiny ass titty baby? Did your mommy not breast feed you enough? Did you just poop your diaper? I'm just trying to figure out how a mature, marriage defending American like yourself could be such a fucking crybaby pansy.
Do you honestly mean to suggest that it's far worse to accuse someone of being a bigot than it is to actually be a bigot? Weird logic I suppose, but whatever.
But seriously, your comment could be translated as "WAAAA, WAAAA, MOMMY! SOMEBODY WANTS TO HAVE GHEY SECKS AND THEY'RE NOT LETTING ME STOP THEM! MOMMIE, I HAVE TO HAVE MY WAY OR I HATE THIS COUNTRY! THEY"RE MEEN TO MEE!!! WAAAAA."
But in all seriousness, what the fuck business is it of yours? Grow up and stay the fuck out of people's lives. Try concentrating on your own stuff. It's amazing how acting like an actual grownup can improve your life.
*Note: that isn't a dare. I support full marriage equality. Period.
I just got this e-mail from Equality California...
Dear jrb,
If lies don’t work, then maybe threats and blackmail will.
Yesterday, donors and supporters of Equality California began receiving threatening letters from the “Yes on 8” campaign leadership.
These letters threatened to “expose” the donors listed on our website if they don’t donate to the “Yes on 8” campaign and refrain from supporting Equality California in the future.
That’s how low the other side is willing to go. They are willing to threaten organizations and other donors who support efforts to protect youth and seniors, as a way to raise money in their effort to eliminate our right to marry.
Here's the full article about this on their website...
http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4061163&content_id={6330E804-9A6A-40E2-A7E4-B90437A6EA16}¬oc=1
Oh, I meant to say something earlier, but UA, you are aware that there is a massive, galaxy sized difference between an unfair draft system, and people rioting to protest being drafted, and an entire region of the country committing treason by starting a fantastically bloody civil war to defend their legal right to own other people, right?
I mean, you can't possibly think that there's no moral, circumstantial or political difference between actively causing the deaths of over 600,000 Americans just so you can keep your slaves, and that other thing Southern apologists always trot out. Right?
So, in the interest of fairness, I just want to give you the chance to confirm you are capable of understanding this distinction.
Just please confirm that you understand that the unfair draft system in New York didn't secede from the Union in order to preserve the right of the unfair draft system to own other human beings, and also that the unfair draft system in New York didn't declare war on America and lead directly to the death of over 600,000 people.
"Will you please give this a rest? You are all hogging up the Recent Comments feed and it is annoying."
WAAAAAA! EVERYBODY JUST STOP MAKING COMMENTS BECAUSE IT ANNOYS POOR WITTOW scotyosh!
Sorry everyone, from now on "scottyosh's comments will be deleted.
Wowie - It's not a difference of opinion in the way you think it is. If you think Carl's Jr has the best hamburgers and I think In-n-Out does, I'm not going to berate you until you succumb to agreeing with me. If you say you hate black people and don't want them in government, working in stores you frequent, or going to school with your children, that's different. It's not an "agree to disagree" scenario. It's bigotry, akin to your views on Prop 8.
TUA - The above scenarios are what I've experienced in rural Mississippi, though clearly the situation is much better than it was 50 years ago. I do agree with you, though, re: Los Angeles. One of the most racists places I've ever been. Most of the rust belt and north-central cities (like Chicago) tend to be pretty non-racist, as far as my experience is concerned, at least compared to everywhere else. Using the South as a metaphor though is like comparing a politician's morals to Richard Nixon. No, he wasn't the ONLY, or perhaps even the MOST corrupt politician, he's just the example that stands out.
(Additionally, I realize black and white are the most, uh, "prominent" races in NC, even though people from the rest of the US and much of the world have been moving there for the last few decades, so I don't fault your use of those as an example.)
"Sorry everyone, from now on "scottyosh's comments will be deleted."
But, but, but, I enjoy dishing him up his daily ration of shit!
Someone just sent me this video, they titled it, The True Face of Yes on Prop 8, enjoy...
http://www.vimeo.com/2053489
Well...it's too early to call...I heard the religious right have A LOT of money for this campaign...who knows...
http://www.votesmarter2008.com
oops that didn't work:
Try this one
As I posted in another blog on this site, the way to make sure that this hateful measure is defeated is to support those opposing it. One can over to the Equality California website at www.nqca.org, make a donation, and do just that.
I'm thinking of doing some freeway blogging;
NO ON PROP 8
PROP 8 = HATE
Hello to everybody here at LAist from Toronto, and Torontoist. It seems that most Americans don't get it yet, or maybe the example set in Canada has yet to truly filter down south. Here's my take on this whole bacchanal:
Marriage is for everybody. No ifs, and or buts. Get that through your heads, those of you from the south and the north, and stop this fracking bullshit now! Start to join the 21st century, please.
The CA Supreme Court is the most respected and cited State Supreme Court in the US. Its is also dominated by Republican appointees. After a multi year long case with hundreds(maybe thousands) of briefs filed on both sides, they came up with a fair and accurate ruling that was painfully thought out and even went as far as to classify gay and lesbian people as a "suspect class" who have suffered overwhelming discrimination and are deserving of the strictist scruitiny regarding laws that would deny them their fundemental right to marry in a civil setting. The justices that voted to grant the fundamental right to marriage to all CA citizens are visionary, heros to millions of minoriies, and will be remembered as brave and ethical individuals who properly applied CA's equal protection clause to a widely discriminated class.
As for the Mormon influence. A) They should worry about their own state issues and stop trying to manupulate CA with their personal religious views and abundant cash. B) Should realize that their religion hasn't always had the same definition of tradional marriage (1 to 1) C) Realize that the bedfellows that they are in cahoots with (Catholics, So Baptists, Evang Christians) overwhelmingly view Mormons as openly attempting to steal their members to build their ranks and are widely considered a cult by "TRADIONAL" judeo-christian based religions. D) Realize that if they were seen as a serious enough threat to traditional religions (those over a few hundred years old) they, one day, could be subject to a voter based consitutional ammendment to eliminate their fundamental right to worship as they please because a majority of folks didn't much care for their choice in religion.
In the end, justice will pevail, Californians will refuse to be puppets of Salt Lake City, and history will show that these folks who attempted to stand in the way of fairness and progress will be regarded as not sufficiently evolved as humans, while the angels on earth that understand the true american ideal to protect those in the minority from discrimination by the majority will take their place in history as brilliant, brave, unaunted, and fearless supporters of the most cherished American legal ideal etched in stone above the entrance to our US Supreme Court for which all to marvel... "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW."
So, the South is too busy to hate, huh? For those of you (Bookamom, The Ugly, wowie) who believe this bullshit, here's a reality check:
'Too busy to hate'? Looks like it's still doing the same hating as before-only in addition to blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, the South's now added Muslims as well. What else is new?
Oops, here's the real link:
I live in the South. The Confederate Flag still flies for some people, as does anger at Abraham Lincoln. Not everyone is racist, but I bet almost everyone I know knows a racist.
And this doesn't include all of the xenophobia out here. When folks ask me how long I've lived in Austin (about 10 years), it's important that I say, "Not long enough," and leave it at that.
Frankly, I think the gov't has no business "marrying" anyone. The language of religious ceremony/custom/tradition should be stricken from the legal code entirely. The state should provide civil unions for hetero- and homosexual couples. Period. Get married by some other instition than the state, if you want. The gov't should only have a say over the *legal* repercussions of two people (man-man, man-woman, woman-woman) joining together. That way, everyone is afforded the same rights under the law, regardless of gender.
All that said, NO on Prop. 8!!! Separate but equal is not equal.
Word to what brainylagirl says. She nails it on the head.
Nice job brainylagirl. My sentiments exactly. It's time to separate religion from the government.