California and Proposition 8

I find it ironic that in a state where voter turnout helped insure the election of our first black president, there was not enough of a liberal or at least non-conservative edge to overturn the ban on gay marriage in California. I am sickened by the thought that gay/lesbian couples who married while they were legally “permitted” to do so are now feeling a sense of something neighboring on guilt because others who did not rush to the alter are now precluded from the same rights under the law that they themselves can pursue. Just as they have voiced their discontent even though their own unions are now considered marriages by law, I too as a non-gay/lesbian am feeling a sense of sadness. I want gay people in California and elsewhere who are in the picket and protesting the ban to know that gay rights are not separate from human rights. What will it take for members of the majority who share the concerns of their gay sisters and brothers to become involved to the point that they will too fight for this overlooked minority?

California is not as liberal as you may think. It has been suggested that California should be divided into two states - East and West with the mountain range dividing it. If that were to happen that vote might come out quite differently in the West coast of California.
We are a huge state with a huge population and like the rest of the country it is overwhelmingly conservative. Gay may be common in the Hollywood or San Francisco area but in most of the rest of Los Angeles or Orange County it really isn't. San Diego seems pretty average to the rest of America to me and the surrounding rural areas of California such as Sacremento, Riverside or the Inland empire might as well be middle America.

The state of California and Hollywood are not the same place much like NYCity and NY state are vastly different !

As for electing the president, that might have to do with the very ethnically diverse population of California making it more acceptable to the voters.

The other problem with this type of proposition is that the churchs get behind the no vote and spend vast amounts of money to insure it whereas those that want the yes vote don't have the numbers or resources to lobby for it.

~~

As for electing the president, that might have to do with the very ethnically diverse population of California making it more acceptable to the voters.

Exactly.....and what I am wondering is why large concentrations of other minorites do not realize that just as their rights had to be fought for and continue to be fought for, so do the rights of a separate minority (gays) whose circumstances in life are being determined by a geographic majority. Or if they do realize it and see that when a majority governs in a way that is restrictive on the life choices of any other minority, that government is discriminating in the truest sense of the word.

Thanks for the explanation about California. I realize it is not all 90210/Hollywood liberals, but it is a state ripe with ethnicity. I long for the day, not just in California but throughout the US, where the struggles for all oppressed minorities will become important enough that even those not directly affected will work for equal rights. To me, it just seems so cut and dried. I can't understand what fear exists to make people inflict their own "values" upon others.

Tradition, conservatism, etc. are obviously not in Pinky's choices but I do respect people wanting to hold on to THEIR traditions and preserve the basis upon which they believe a marriage should be recognized, but when it deals with other people's lives, what drives the need to control? I just don't get it.

Yes but the ethnic vote does not equal gay rights. Many ethnic groups are even more religious and set in thier ways about the subject. The large diversity makes it easier for race to be accepted but homosexuality becomes a slippery slope like abortion, and enter the churchs to strike it down. Organized religion is a powerful political machine. Once they mobilize its difficult to fight against and the average citizen is just not committed to breaking barriers - they like the status quo. Boy/girl marriage has been working for a long time now so why fix it is kind of how they feel. I think some even feel who cares, marriages are only temporary anyway why should they care.

I doubt that few people really realize the ramifications of health insurance, death benefits, social security, etc. that the marriage will bring to and benefit the gay couple. They look only at the couple seeking the blessing of the state.

My husband feels, and he may have a big point here, that the more intelligent voter that votes against it isnt voting AGAINST gay rights but instead against the fact that gay marriage would bankrupt the already failing social security system. hmmmmmm.

~~

I don't think your husband means that the two gay women who work for 50 years are less entitled to social security than their male/female counterpart. I realize he is speaking in terms of practicality.

I guess we can add "practical" to Pinky's list of terms that don't apply right along with traditional and conservative. The practical argument is even more difficult for me to embrace than the religious reasoning. In most cases, religion is engrained in a person from the start and is resistent to change. Practicality, from a financial standpoint of wanting to insure the status quo, is more often a learned gradual process that unfortunately often comes with a sense of entitlement or lack of empathy....at least in cases of common good.

I guess equality will in this case, as with struggles in the past, be a gradual thing. I would venture to say that more and more people are in contact with gays than five years or so ago. And they are finding that they are just like you and me. I just find it maddening that in order to effectuate change, it is often a matter of "how will this affect me" rather than basic fundamental and (at least to me) charitable Christian values. Maybe if things change more quickly than social mores will allow, there will be as there often is to change, a violent reaction. So I may not see it during my lifetime, but then again I never thought I'd live to see an African-American President.

Me and John Mayer....waitin' on the world to change.

p.s. thanks for answering my thread, Morgan. I'd sure like to know how the rest of you feel about this. But if it is too controversial a subject for some, I understand.

oh yes, definitely he is simply saying that he thinks thats why others vote against it and the big money gets behind it.

He's pretty liberal - heck he puts up with me !

Morgan Rowan wrote:

oh yes, definitely he is simply saying that he thinks thats why others vote against it and the big money gets behind it.

He's pretty liberal - heck he puts up with me !

Yeah, mine puts up with me, too! LOL!

So, if saving money is the goal, why not do away with heterosexual marriages and just let the gay marriages derive the benefits. Wouldn't that amount to even more savings and shore up the SS system for generations to come????? Or do away with marriage altogether!!!!

Please excuse me if I am being sarcastic. Glad to hear your husband was simply stating a reason, not saying it was right. You seem MUCH to liberal to be married to that kind of guy and I'm glad to hear that is not the case. Sounds like he might be a good person to bounce ideas off of. Is he a member here????

Jamie a member here????...... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If that's him in the picture and I assume it is, I've gotta couple of things I'd like to bounce off of him.

LMAO PINKY......YEA JAMIE IS A HOTTIE.......

Morgans son is pretty delicious too actually LOL


Im all for Gay/Lesbian rights to marry....I know so many people who call it a sin and blah blah blah and my responce is this we are ALL sinners....and if it IS a sin to be homosexual well then thats between that person and God....

Im one of those people who believe in looking at myself in the mirror before I cast stones or judge people......and every time I find that I too am not what the world may want me to be...so me...I accept and LOVE everyone...color, race, sexuality, ruben fan LOL u get the idea I always think I could be missing out on a good friend by judging someone.....or missing out on the chance to reduce an asshole to shit......LMAO

I'm all for marriage between two consenting adults whether it be a man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or whatever else is out there LOL..


Marriage I don't think will ever be for me, but I hope that one day that all those who wish to be married have equal rights to that privilege.

note to self . . . keep pinky's bouncing things away from hubby.

Jamie and I both agree that marriage is a civil right and simply a business contract and should be allowed between any two non-related adults. Matrimony on the other hand is a church issue and they do not have to perform gay marriage ceremonies in my opinion even if allowed by the state. We both think that gay marriage should be a basic legal right.

He was just expressing why he thought the issue may have been voted down. Big money was spent to promote the blockage of the bill. It's difficult to fight that.

Oh boy! Everyone should be able to marry whomever they love and cherish. Not that long ago, a black could not marry a white! A Jew could not marry a Christian! I can't wait for the day that the last stigma, the gay stigma, is tossed on its ear, and gays have the same rights as men, straights, whites and Christians.

Someday we might have a gay Latina woman for President!!!!!

I agree 100% happy joy

i have no problem with gay marriages, but why is there such a strong desire to latch on to the label of 'marriage', when all states need to do is allow the same privilege to gay couples as exist for a man/woman union?

i've only scanned all the posts on this topic, but i haven't seen anyone broach the loaded statement Clay made in reference to himself...and a marriage in the future? will he wait to 'marry' someone of same gender once NC goes along with this PC movement, or will he change his homestead to a state that permits same sex marriage? i assume it's premature to speculate that Clay/Reed are thinking of nuptials...

coocooitstrue wrote:

i have no problem with gay marriages, but why is there such a strong desire to latch on to the label of 'marriage', when all states need to do is allow the same privilege to gay couples as exist for a man/woman union?

i've only scanned all the posts on this topic, but i haven't seen anyone broach the loaded statement Clay made in reference to himself...and a marriage in the future? will he wait to 'marry' someone of same gender once NC goes along with this PC movement, or will he change his homestead to a state that permits same sex marriage? i assume it's premature to speculate that Clay/Reed are thinking of nuptials...

I have a lesbian friend who is waiting along with her partner for the right to marry rather than simply hope for the legalization of a civil union. For her, it basically comes down to an expression of commitment and love....same as for any male/female. To them, anything less than a total recognization by society of their right to become a married couple is not acceptable.

Now, I know some people will disagree with that, but I'm betting most of the people who disagree are straight.

I agree pinky!!!!

How many straight couples do you hear say, "It's just a piece of paper..." and what do you think about that statement? You think that one or both of them are not completely committed to the coupling. One of them just don't want to geet hitched. They are, in fact "living in sin" and either one could just fly the coop, kids or no, any old time they wanted. That is what not having "that piece of paprer" means in a hetero relationship.

When you think of :

Goldy and Kirk
Angelina and Brad
Susan Sarandom and Tom Robbins

You think, mmmmmm..... maybe they are just not that committed. After all, the guy can just walk away, the woman can just jump into another guys bed. They just are not that together...because they don't have that little piece of paper.

Well, maybe it means the same to a gay couple. It's the total committment, the commitment that says, "Hey! We'll be together forever, and if we aren't, it's gonna to take a whole lotta money and lawyers and the whole todo to bust us up! Now that is my committment to you!!!!!"!

To me, and I am a straight woman, it IS just a piece of paper. It means much more to me that my man decides to be with me because he is committed to me and WANTS to be with me, not because he is legally bound to be with me.

And I consider myself loyal like a dog when in a committed relationship, not a bed hopper.

If I had a dime for every time I was asked "so when ya getting married?" I would be a very very rich woman. We've only been together for 9 months...sheesh people!

I am an odd one tho

Paulareenee wrote:

To me, and I am a straight woman, it IS just a piece of paper. It means much more to me that my man decides to be with me because he is committed to me and WANTS to be with me, not because he is legally bound to be with me.

And I consider myself loyal like a dog when in a committed relationship, not a bed hopper.

If I had a dime for every time I was asked "so when ya getting married?" I would be a very very rich woman. We've only been together for 9 months...sheesh people!

I am an odd one tho22222

That's great and it works for you, so nothing odd about you at all. But that position is one you take by choice....many gays and lesbians, just as straight people like you, may feel the same way and don't need the piece of paper. But the difference is that you have that choice. They don't.

I am going to marry a gay man.......


watch...its gonna happen LOL

LOL!! Heather...


I'm like Paula I too feel it is just a piece of paper, but I also agree with Pinky that we who might be in an opposite sex relationship does have that choice, whereas those who are in a same sex relationship do not in most states have the choice to be married with that piece of paper or not to be. And I think all consenting non-blood-related adults should have the right to marriage and that piece of paper if they wish to have it. I personally believe I'll always wish to not have it whether I'm with a man or a woman. I don't believe marriage will ever be something I want to go through.