Proposition 8. (2 Viewers)

[Trefoil]

One thing - California has around 1.5 million absentee ballots to count before the 2nd of December.

If they get more than 500,000 ballots counted that say No on Prop. 8 it won't get passed.

Holy shit... source?

That brightened up my day. Don't be wrong, now!

 

[jb_nc]

things gays can't do in CA:
-marry
-get to heaven
-file joint taxes

 

[Tulipa]

Holy shit... source?

That brightened up my day. Don't be wrong, now!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-gay-marriage-ban_N.htm

BUT

The "No on 8" campaign did not concede, even though spokeswoman Kate Kandell said the absentee count is "highly unlikely" to change the outcome.

And now, from www.noonprop8.com:

We will not give up.

And we are not done.

Nov 06, 2008
Final Statement from No on Prop 8 Campaign

We had hoped never to have to write this note.

Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples.

And while the election was close, and millions of votes still remain uncounted, is has become apparent that we lost.

There is no question this defeat is hard.

Thousands of people have poured their talents, their time, their resources and their hearts into this struggle for freedom and this fight to have their relationships treated equally. Much has been sacrificed in this struggle.

While we knew the odds for success were not with us, we believed Californians could be the first in the nation to defeat the injustice of discriminatory measures like Proposition 8.

And while victory is not ours this day, we know that because of the work done here; freedom, fairness and equality will be ours someday. Just look at far we have come in a few decades.

Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn’t single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 — passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990, the state of California following in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.

Today, we fought to retain our right to marry and millions of Californians stood with us. Over the course of this campaign everyday Californians and their friends, neighbors and families built a civil rights campaign unequalled in California history.

You raised more money than anyone believed possible for an LGBT civil rights campaign.

You reached out to family and friends in record numbers—helping hundreds of thousands of Californians understand what the LGBT civil rights struggle is really about.

You built the largest grassroots and volunteer network that has ever been built – a coalition that will continue to fight until all people are equal.

And you made the case to the people of California and to the rest of the world that discrimination — in any form — is unfair and wrong.

We are humbled by the courage, dignity and commitment displayed by all who fought this historic battle.

Victory was not ours today. But the struggle for equality is not over.

Because of the struggle fought here in California — fought so incredibly well by the people in this state who love freedom and justice — our fight for full civil rights will continue.

Activist and writer Anne Lamott writes, “Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don’t give up.”

We stand together, knowing… our dawn will come.

Please check back at this site for next steps.

Sorry to get your hopes up.

 

[Trefoil]

 

[veloc1ty]

The "No on 8" campaign did not concede, even though spokeswoman Kate Kandell said the absentee count is "highly unlikely" to change the outcome.

500k is only 33% of 1.5mil ballots, why is it considered "highly unlikely" to be able to get that many if so far 'yes' recieved 52% of the vote?

 

[nikolas]

My argument that i'm too busy to argue isnt strong? I'll flesh it out a little:
exams my fren
Why not trawl through Iron's previous posts? I'm sure you'll find sufficient wisdom in them to awaken and set course for the steady seas of conservatism
Actually I intend to have them collated one day into a little iron book which will shake the world

I have no problem with you simply not having the time due to exams, dismissing me as a ignorant child was uncalled for.

I'll definitely buy your book though.

 

[sdsdsdsdsd]

But.. it goes against god, don't you care????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[withoutaface]

This does not affect me.

 

[Iron]

I think the real question is whether gay Hollywood celibateees perform better under legal discrimination.
I think they do, so this is in my immediate interests

 

[Trefoil]

This does not affect me.

I don't think that's how Libertarianism works.

 

[katie tully]

It doesn't affect me either, you know, not being gay and all.

But.
Still.

Travesty

 

[55HS]

It does effect me, it pisses me off because it's a great injustice.

 

[withoutaface]

I don't think that's how Libertarianism works.

As far as libertarianism is concerned, this is a non issue, and in fact the idea that one's relationship is validated by the government giving them a shiny piece of paper is a distinctly anti-libertarian one.

 

[Trefoil]

As far as libertarianism is concerned, this is a non issue, and in fact the idea that one's relationship is validated by the government giving them a shiny piece of paper is a distinctly anti-libertarian one.

It's anything but a non-issue. If it were as simple as a piece of paper, far fewer people would care, but as it stands this means that gay couples are not afforded the same legal rights as straight married couples.

The correct Libertarian stance would be to call for all marriage to be decoupled from the state in place of civil unions or something, not to shrug and say "doesn't bother me".

 

[withoutaface]

Why do we even need civil unions? The contracts system exists for a reason and would adequately fulfil the necessary legal aspects of marriage, except maybe family tax benefits, superannuation etc which are bullshit anyway.

 

[Iron]

Marriage is a rich and symbolic institution you cold robotic cunt

 

[Iron]

There is no society, it doesnt exist. There are only cunts

 

[withoutaface]

Marriage is a rich and symbolic institution you cold robotic cunt

I agree, so why would I want to tarnish it by having the State along as a third wheel?

 

[Iron]

Because the legal effect enforces the gravity of the social norm and therefore the committment and therefore people stay together longer and therefore there are less wards of the state?

 

[Kwayera]

Because the legal effect enforces the gravity of the social norm and therefore the committment and therefore people stay together longer and therefore there are less wards of the state?

Sources?