This Prop 8 Outcome Has Me Really Pissed Off, And It's Getting Worse

[stopbush]

The more this sinks in, the more angry I'm getting.

To imagine that the REAL civil rights of a segment of my fellow American citizens are being denied because the overtly BIGOTED beliefs of a supposed majority trump their BASIC, Constitutional rights is staggering.

Let's be clear - this bigotry is the result of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are founded NOT on reality or fact, but on SUPERSTITION and MYTHS that were formulated during the IGNORANT and FEARFUL childhood of our species' existence, when the answer for anything that was not known was ascribed to the invisible and unknowable power of "the gods."

Gays living TODAY have real lives, not lives of myth and legend. Yet their real and guaranteed civil rights are being abrogated because the majority of people in this state and this country still cling to superstition as if it were knowledge; still cling to fantasy as if it were fact; still seek to impose the lie-based dogmas of their fantastic religious stupidities on the lives of others.

It is reprehensible.

I hope that the CA Supreme Court does the right thing - the ONLY right thing - and calls this bigoted Prop exactly what it is, throws it out as being unconstitutional and erects a wall that forever consigns this type of senseless, lie-based bullshit to the dustbin of our IMMORAL and prejudiced past.

Rant over.

[Kerrytravelers]

1. The passage of this hateful, vile thing may lead to such a swift overturn by the courts that other

states are emboldened to do the same thing. Perhaps sooner than anticipated, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in.

[aquart]

2. THIS Supreme Court? Oh. Goody.

Yeah, that'll work.

[Kerrytravelers]

27. By the time it make it to the Supreme Court, Obama will have placed some new judges on the bench.

Eventually, this will have to make it to the Supreme Court so that all states have the same laws for LGBT people.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

8. Would SCOTUS have the grounds to weigh in?

Since the legislation affects individual states, wouldn't the appeals process stop at the state supreme court?

[gollygee]

13. It would have to conflict with the US constitution

States can't do things that conflict with the US Constitution, no matter how many people vote for it.

I'm afraid to say that I can't think of how it does.

[magellan]

14. They weighed in on the 2000 FL recount

...when they should have turned it back to the state. By that precedent, they most certainly can weigh in on other individual state matters.

[NAO]

12. This is why Christians HATE the courts

They always talk about "activist judges" who "make laws" from the bench rather than just "interpreting the laws".

And they are trying like hell to gain control of the system.

They do want to control the SCOTUS, but that is just the tip. In reality, places like Regents University are cranking out lawyers who are practicing law and aspiring to be judges at local and mid-level positions.

A recent article about students at Liberty Baptist University (Jerry Falwell's legacy) had a conversation between students discussing how best to "serve the Lord". They frown somewhat on ministerial students, because the need is for legal students. That's how God's will can best be enacted in the world.

[stopbush]

25. Christians hate the courts because they hate democracy.

There are no votes in heaven. Christians aspire to spend an eternity living in a dictatorship. They may believe heaven's a benign dictatorship, but it's still a dictatorship.

They talk about "god's laws." These are not the laws of the USA. In fact, god has a different set of laws for the OT and the NT. Further, god's OT laws apply ONLY to the Jews, not the rest of humanity. Even further, Jesus said he came to bring his message to the Jews, no one else, so the NT laws don't apply to non-Jews either.

Our American democracy is a pain in the ass to the Christians. Why don't more people realize this?

[ronnykmarshall]

3. and many so called liberals voted for it.

Look at the numbers for Obama in California and contrast those with the Yes vote.

McCain got only 39% in California, so you would guess the majority of those votes also voted yes.

Pretty fucking sickening.

[JSK]

4. Good info in LA Times

about where it stands legally:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story

[fasttense]

5. It is so despicable how the religiously insane attack a small weaker minority

in order to divert attention away from the real issues. They need their scape goat and unfortunately, this time it is our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters. At other times it has been the Jews, Black people and Native Americans.

Real Christians would have looked inward for the reasons for their God's displeasure, not turned and attacked those weaker among us.

[robinlynne]

6. PLEASE LET THE BALLOTS BE COUNTED BEFORE YOU CONCEDE!

no vote-bymail dropped off on eleciton day or during early voting or provisonal or "emergnecy ballots" have been counted yet.

There are hundreds of thousands of votes to count in LA county alone. Enough to change the outcome several times. LET THE VOTES BE COUNTED PEOPLE!!!!!

[nichomachus]

19. I have my fingers crossed too, but

The no on 8 would need to take over 58 percent of the remaining ballots, and that seems highly unlikely. It didn't get that percentage anywhere in the state. It's quite likely that the provisional ballots were among the minority groups that voted predominantly in favor of 8 -- so the count could actually go the other way.

Keep hoping, but don't set yourself up for a big disappointment. It's a real long shot.

[NAO]

7. Obama's win proved bigotry is not a factor...oh, wait, I guess it still is.

It is ironic that as one historic victory for civil rights was resoundingly won, another was lost, and in THREE states, not just one.

The Christians who are so upset about Obama's victory are taking solace in the passage of the "family protection" measures.

And they are worried sick about Obama getting tough on hate crimes.

[ronnykmarshall]

26. Get real.

A fuck load of Obama voters voted YES on 8.

Don't just lump the right wingers on this.

The exit polls on this are repulsive.

[quispquake]

9. Yup...

As happy as I am about Obama & the Dems winning so much, I have a tainted feeling today...NOBODY in America (or anywhere) should be oppressed, and not allowing marriage to our LGBT brothers and sisters is UNAMERICAN...To think that supposed liberals voted for this ban...it really sickens me...

And I do blame religion...I'm bullshit about 2000 year old myths allowing public policy to be made...I hope we grow up some time :(

[noiretextatique]

10. all the ballots have not been counted

so there is still a good chance that it will be defeated. and even if it passes, the ca supreme court has already ruled on this issue, so prop 8 will be declared unconstitutional.

[bdamomma]

16. I hope so, I wish they would leave the Gay community alone.

aren't there more important issues to be dealt with.

[noiretextatique]

20. yes...maybe the churches should focus on poverty

or drug abuse or spousal abuse or any number of more pressing issues than gay marriage.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

11. Bravo!!

It floors me that, in this day and age, they can still allow the majority to dictate the civil rights of the minority.

[2Design]

15. sucks that discrimination is allowed to be voted into constitutions - unamerican

[dembotoz]

17. those who think just because obama won everything is milk and honey

are a bit optimistic

a battle won
a big battle
but yet just 1 battle.

the fight is only begining

[JanMichael]

18. Actually, if you are referring to the Bible, it would probably help this cause

to not refer to references in the Bible regarding homosexuality as "superstitions."

In the NT, Paul's letters to the Romans...he pretty much ignores gay women and goes after the guys. There was a pretty good biological reason for that--and it was two fold:

Remember the name of the game was to have a bunch of kids (gotta keep them armies big)-- so, if guys were off with the boys, by the time they got home, they had already *ahem* "performed"--and there was the added attraction of "strange" bacteria and other ickies-- and no penicillin.

Un-pregnant and sick or dead wives: bad.

However, the gals could spend the day with the kiddies, having some quality girl time, and still get knocked up that very evening.

See what I mean? Not superstitious. There's a whole bunch of stuff in the OT and NT that needs to be read in historical content-- it does kind of create "aha" moments in literature. (seafood? Hell no it couldn't be transported that far inland without killing people-- and in that heat especially--that type of thing)

That said, what we are missing here is education. These church going fools need to realize that 1. Paul's letters being included in that text was one big fat mistake. They should be removed. 2. If one insists upon reading them, then please at least recognize that health and hygiene commentary really just doesn't apply in the US today-- except in some very rural areas that are scary to drive through anyway. 3. If people still want to read, believe, listen and apply these rules to their lives, that's fine, but please shut the FUCK UP and leave the rest of us the hell alone so we, or our friends and families can lead the normal lives that the Constitution fucking promised.

Hope my points helped.

[NAO]

21. Paul discouraged marriage entirely

on the grounds that world will end soon.

[stopbush]

22. It doesn't matter what the Bible says as the USA is in no way founded on the Bible.

As far as "reading in historic context": the ancients knew nothing of bacteria and germs. They believed people got sick because god was angry with them. Do you really think the mortality rates were higher for homosexuals than straights in Paul's era? The REASONS given by the ancients for why people died were based on superstition, not science or knowledge.

Do you really believe the Jewish dietary laws and what determined whether something was "clean" or not were based on observances by the "wise men" of what got people sick and what didn't (that's what you're implying here)? Try living on a strictly Kosher diet and see how that goes for you. IIRC correctly, the ancients missed the importance of washing one's hands before eating (though washing one's feet was often done before chow time! ;) ) Nope. The world had to wait until Pasteur to glean that simple bit of knowledge.

Religion. God help us all!

[nichomachus]

23. Well, there are a lot of problems with discussing the bible at all

Some of Paul letters were probably written by Paul, who was basically a Gnostic, and were written before the gospels. The rest of Paul's letters were later forgeries in order to push a political agenda and put down the Gnostics in favor of the literal Christians who wanted Jesus to be historical instead of the myth he was. This is why Paul often seems inconsistent.

However, there is no word in koine Greek, the language in which all the letters are written, for "homosexual." The concept just didn't exist. Homosexuality as a distinct sexual orientation was unknown to them. Just as there is no word in koine Greek for ATM. They didn't exist.

The words that are translated today as "homosexual" are idiosyncratic to those letters and appear nowhere else in the NT -- or OT, for that matter.

They may mean some kind of "moral weakness" or "wishy-washy" or something like that. At the times of the King James Version, they were translated as "effeminate," because at that time women were considered morally weak and so men who were morally weak or wishy-washy were, in their mind, acting like women.

At the time the Revised Standard Version was coming out, homosexuality was just emerging as a distinct and recognized sexual orientation. Prior to that, everyone was considered to be heterosexual and homosexual behavior was just "heterosexuals behaving badly" (the idea that underlies the current homo-cure craze).

So, in the Revised Standard Version, the Greek "malathoi" (weak?), which had been changed to "effeminate" in the KJV, became "homosexual" in the RSV. However, it was more of a political interpretation than an accurate translation.

At any rate, public policy should not be based on mistranslated religious books -- or even well-translated religious books, for that matter.

[AntiFascist]

24. K&R, I totally agree...

the CA Supreme Court needs to draw the line here separating church and state. They need to set this precedent, otherwise the Dominionists will continue to take steps to make their oppressive laws our law. These are the same people who engineered the previous 2 presidential elections for George Bush and attempted to overrun Washington DC.