Civil Rights Up for Vote

[greenback44]

US citizens aren't allowed to complain now? Whew...

Nobody has said that.

You shouldn't be a moderator.

[clement]

It is ludicrous to me. I realize it's legal, hence that's why I find it ludicrous and not contemptible or unethical. The proposition is a state issue, and it's a vote that affects the residents of that state. So I think there is something amiss when special interest groups outside of the state are legally able to pump massive amounts of money into a state referendum that doesn't affect them. I don't know how to prevent it from happening, and I guess in America's money-driven elections and campaigns, it's probably impossible to regulate. But it's still disturbing and frustrating, if ludicrous is the wrong adjective. And I specifically said in the original post that the same problem occurs on the other side of the issue, but that my comment is the same. You ignored that part.

I agree with you though, that I'm probably seeing it through a biased lens. Because obviously gay people around the country who live outside of California also feel a lot was at stake with Prop 8. I guess the difference I see is that in one case the group that takes an active interest in it are members of the actual group that is targeted for discrimination with the amendment, and the other group that takes an active interest is a group that wants to legislate the rights (or lack thereof) of people outside of their own group and belief system.

[Hudler]

It is ludicrous to me. I realize it's legal, hence that's why I find it ludicrous and contemptible or unethical. The proposition is a state issue, and it's a vote that affects the residents of that state. So I think there is something amiss when special interest groups outside of the state are legally able to pump massive amounts of money into a state referendum that doesn't affect them. I don't know how to prevent it from happening, and I guess in America's money-driven elections and campaigns, it's probably impossible to regulate. But it's still disturbing and frustrating, if ludicrous is the wrong adjective.

I agree with you though, that I'm probably seeing it through a biased lens. Because obviously gay people around the country who live outside of California also feel a lot was at stake with Prop 8. I guess the difference I see is that in one case the group that takes an active interest in it are members of the actual group that is targeted for discrimination with the amendment, and the other group that takes an active interest is a group that wants to legislate the rights (or lack thereof) of people outside of their own group and belief system.

The state of California has the second highest number of Mormons in the U.S. behind Utah. Just for everyones information.

[clement]

The state of California has the second highest number of Mormons in the U.S. behind Utah. Just for everyones information.

My comment wasn't about California Mormons. It was about Mormon churches in Utah.

[Hudler]

The state of California has the second highest number of Mormons in the U.S. behind Utah. Just for everyones information.

My comment wasn't about California Mormons. It was about Mormon churches in Utah.

It's the Mormon church,they should be able to support their weirdo members wherever they are.

[Freed Roger]

Mormons oppose a legalized commitment between two people ....hmmmmm. Clem, I know you take the patient rational approach with your posts, but that twisted irony has to burn considering the Mormon history regarding marriages++.

I'm curious, did the Ahnuld take a stance on Prop 8?

[clement]

The state of California has the second highest number of Mormons in the U.S. behind Utah. Just for everyones information.

My comment wasn't about California Mormons. It was about Mormon churches in Utah.

It's the Mormon church,they should be able to support their weirdo members wherever they are.

I didn't know proposition 8 had anything to do with Mormons.

[Hudler]

Apparently the Mormons are one of many churchs that supported it,as they have a right to no matter how retarded they are.

[clement]

Mormons oppose a legalized commitment between two people ....hmmmmm. Clem, I know you take the patient rational approach with your posts, but that twisted irony has to burn considering the Mormon history regarding marriages++.

I'm curious, did the Ahnuld take a stance on Prop 8?

I have nothing against Mormons or people of any faith. I just lose my patience when people of faith use their narrow interpretation of their rulebook to legislate what people of other faiths can or cannot do.

Arnold was against Prop 8 and said he would fight it; but in the end he was very silent on the issue. He's most likely going to run for Senate and I guess he didn't want to upset his intolerant base. His wife on the other hand was pretty actively fighting the proposition. SF mayor Newsom and SD mayor Sanders fought the initiative quite strongly as well. Sanders is a conservative but reversed his position on gay marriage when he found out his daughter is a lesbian. Nancy Pelosi and Sens Boxer and Feinstein were pretty vocal in their opposition as well. Interestingly, Mormon Steve Young made the news when his house put up a "no on 8" sign in their yard and his wife issued a statement against the measure. Magic Johnson also campaigned against it. But Arnold was nowhere to be found. So was Barack Obama for that matter.

[clement]

Apparently the Mormons are one of many churchs that supported it,as they have a right to no matter how retarded they are.

Hence my original complaint about how discouraging it is that an issue like this is put up for popular vote to begin with. To me it would be tantamount in 1965 of putting up to a popular vote an amendment to the constitution that requires all marriages be between people of the same race. I'm pretty sure it would have passed in most states, if not all.

And I don't mean to single out the Mormon church because you're right, Christians conservatives of many stripes were largely opposed to Prop8. But the Mormon church in particular received a great deal of attention because of how active the group in Utah was and how much money they contributed to the cause. In fact, they basically caught so much negative press for it that they stopped the phone banking about 10 days before election day.

And as I already said at the beginning of this thread, the irony in all of this is that this proposition, which initially looked like it was going to be defeated in early polling, was probably put over the top by Obama's ability to bring out the African American vote in higher than usual numbers.