Most of us know about the power struggle between ‘gay rights’ groups in California and the lengthy debate over campaigning to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.
The ironically-named Courage Campaign officially announced that it would back no such effort due to shrinking support in the polls and lack of financial backing.
Seriously, don’t underestimate the power of small, grassroots organizations fighting for marriage equality. All the money and support poured into Maine did not materialize into anything substantial. What makes people think that big institutional support and funding is all that it takes?
No matter how much I detest the institution of marriage, Proposition 8 is a violation of equal protection and a persistent scar on the California Constitution.
I support Sign for Equality and its efforts to gain signatures to put a proposition to Repeal Prop 8 back on the ballot.
The initiative must gather 1 million signatures by April 5, 2010 to qualify.
Once it gets on the ballot, what are the gay rights groups in California going to do? Lose face again by throwing up hands in protest and defeat? I don’t think so.
Fantastic cover shot from The Advocate referring to how Obama has let down queers. He certainly owes the LGBT community much more than he has delivered thus far. But he is telling us to ‘wait’ a little bit longer. Sorry, that just is not acceptable. And with the Human Rights Campaign telling us to cut him some slack till 2017, we realize what ‘waiting a little longer’ means.
As you may know there will be one question on the ballot this November in Maine addressing the issue of same-sex unions. In part it will read “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry?” A yes vote takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry. A no vote keeps the right of same-sex couples to marry. If the election were held today would you vote YES or NO on this question?
48%-YES
46%-NO
6%-NOT SURE
It’s within the margin of error but it doesn’t look good for LGBT Mainers and the fight for marriage equality.
But releasing these polls gives us more ammunition to shift all eyes and operations to Maine. I expect more donations to flood into the No on 1 coffers as people realize the gravity of the situation.
In the meanwhile, No on 1 and Travel for Change are escalating the out-of-state volunteer recruitment efforts by releasing a new “Volunteer Vacation” video and simultaneously rolling out additional online travel resources. Here is the link to the video if you haven’t seen it yet.
Given all the travel I have done in the past few months, I decided to stay put for a while and actually contribute to something else for a change. So I have taken a short-term post as New Media Director for TravelforChange, to help organize volunteers from out of state for the Maine Equality battle. And I am excited about getting this new project on the ground as an over-educated, under-employed young person.
The No on 1 battle is being waged in Maine. But since LGBT rights is a nation-wide issue and we don’t want another California, it seems prudent to enable as many volunteers to get involved as possible. Maine needs organizing right now, not necessarily the state of California where the proposition to overturn the gay marriage ban is hanging in limbo due to infighting between several groups.
Now Dan Savage didn’t like this idea last year but there’s really nothing wrong with shipping out excited and enthusiastic volunteers to other states. We aren’t breaking any campaign finance laws especially through the innovative way in which we use airline miles. Some movements can probably learn from it and invest their millions in funding more wisely.
I’ll let you know how it pans out in November and may ask for your help on this project. In the meantime, there’s a lot of backend and ground-work to be done.
I am hereby pledging to defeat Prop 1. Vote No on 1.
Setting a date right now for getting out of here. Should I sign a voluntary departure or do without it?
Two years ago, I qualified for Canada and was set to leave. But then I listened to some lawyers and more tear-jerking from my useless family. The logical reasoning for staying here no longer exists.
If I have to await ‘in-line’ 8-10 more years (Re: Matter of Wang), I might as well do so somewhere where I can move forward in life.
I don’t care about the vile threats from my family. I have had enough of this imprisonment.
I know it might seem dumb for someone covered under the LIFE Act to self-deport, but this someone is a very educated person. How long am I expected to put my life on hold for the convenience of other people? And of course, no one would sponsor me for an EB-2 and legalize my status regardless of how (over)qualified I am; they will make me work without pay or put me on meager stipends.
I can’t get married to adjust my status. Don’t remind me.
These idiots in the USA can file for ‘hardship-waivers’ later if they want. I really doubt I would want to come back here.
Yes, I would probably be put in jail in Fiji. I might even be beaten and killed. But those are just risks I need to take. Freedom comes at a cost. I’ll rather be killed while I am free than die in this prison every day.
Lyle Masaki at AfterElton tested the new version of The Sims to see if gays and lesbians could get married. He reports: “…after a week of game time, I was able to get a male couple to plan a wedding party and tie the knot.”
We all know how much I really don’t care about gay marriage even though I blog about it often enough.
But The Sims series holds a very special place in my heart. The game, by Will Wright (Maxis), was released 1-2 years after we moved to the United States. My greatest struggle wasn’t just with the culture clash, but with confronting and coming to terms with my sexuality.
The game was a great expression of self-empowerment. It allowed us to pick our appearances right down to an earring, made us the sole decision-makers on how to run our lives. And two women and two men could actually live and sleep together, even though they couldn’t have children together. And the men could actually have babies (if abducted by aliens), but I digress. It was simply a great step forward in gender non-conformity and to give teenagers like me an opportunity to live the lives we wanted.
9 years later, we are still not there. But it was The Sims that went quite a long way in reinforcing that I was normal and loving someone of the same gender was not the big sin that everyone else made it out to be. And I am sure the bold move in The Sims 3 would reinforce this message to a younger generation.
Next two generations, if we survive global warming, I expect to hear – “Mom, this is so crazy. Once upon a time, gays couldn’t marry. WTF?!
With a 6-1 vote, separate but equal was upheld in California.
Congratulations Californians, the ‘will of the majority’ to take a particular category of people and deny them civil rights is going to stand.
The California Supreme Court, no matter what it proclaims, overturned itself with these words:
Proposition 8 does not by any means “repeal” or “strip” gay individuals or same-sex couples of the very significant substantive protections afforded by the state equal protection clause either with regard to the fundamental rights of privacy and due process or in any other area, again with the sole exception of access to the designation of “marriage” to describe their relationship.Thus, except with respect to the designation of “marriage,” any measure that treats individuals or couples differently on the basis of their sexual orientation continues to be constitutionally “suspect” under the state equal protection clause and may be upheld only if the measure satisfies the very stringent strict-scrutiny standard of review that also applies to measures that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion.Because Proposition 8 has only this limited effect on the fundamental rights of privacy and due process and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws under the state Constitution as interpreted by the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, there is no need for us to consider whether a measure that actually deprives a minority group of the entire protection of a fundamental constitutional right or, even more sweepingly, leaves such a group vulnerable to public or private discrimination in all areas without legal recourse (cf. Romer v. Evans (1996) 517 U.S. 620), would constitute a constitutional revision under the provisions of the California Constitution.A narrowly drawn exception to a generally applicable constitutional principle does not amount to a constitutional revision within the meaning of article XVIII of the California Constitution.
Translation: It’s alright for the voters of the state to carve out exceptions to certain civil rights afforded to minorities that are supposedly protected by the Constitution.
What are you people smoking?
Justice Moreno, in his concurring but dissenting opinion, did state:
I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus “represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a ‘revision’ of the state Constitution rather than a mere ‘amendment’ thereof.”
…
The equal protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently
countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect. Rather, the enforcement of the equal protection clause is especially dependent on “the power of the courts to test legislative and executive acts by the light of constitutional mandate and in particular to preserve constitutional rights, whether of individual or minority, from obliteration by the majority.”
…
In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative
measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
So the California Supreme Court decision comes down to this: Sexual orientation is a suspect class but the people can write discrimination against this suspect class into the Constitution. What prevents voters from exercising the tyranny of the majority and doing this injustice to other minority groups in the state? The California Supreme Court ignored the possibility of this, saying there was NO NEED to consider this fact.
I personally wish this issue would go away so the ‘gay movement’ can focus on other pertinent matters. Supporting a movement to uphold a regressive institution like marriage gets tiring.
I used to say that I am from California with a lot of pride. That’s certainly been stripped.
But there is hope for marriage equality advocates in California -
Anti-gay marriage activists (the ones that spend all their time reading up and chatting about gay news) are spurring into action, snarling about judicial activism and the downfall of democracy, as well as civilization.
The atheist judges of Britain had destroyed Christianity in Britain, they allowed Sikh people to wear turban instead of helmet but prohibited schools from celebrating Christmas stating that it is offending non Christians.
Another moron:
It’s time for righteous indignation! We have a voice that needs to be heard, but in order to be heard we must use our mouth. This country was based on Christianity and MORALITY in our pulpits!
…
Does that even merit a response? It offends the sensibility of this blog and tells us not to bother arguing with such people since they have obviously lost control of their mental faculties.
Needless to say, I am thrilled. However, I would like to also take a moment to say that gay politics do not and should not stop at ‘gay marriage.’
Also, don't need to hear legal (privileged) queer immigrants whining about those "undocumented immigrants" getting citizenship. Really don't [Desidyke]
Most of us know about the power struggle between ‘gay rights’ groups in California and the lengthy debate over campaigning to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.
