Civil Rights Up for Vote

[Popeye_Card]

IMO, this is pretty simple. In order for there to be a law banning some activity, my personal moral code stipulates that there must be a victim, or a threat to greater society. Two consenting adults who marry each other are not endangering anyone. There is no victim. The only thing you could possibly claim is that they are victims themselves, because God does not approve of their ways. But that brings religion into it, and as we've been over, that's not constitutional.

If anyone can identify a victim or threat to greater society, I'd like to hear it.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Rachel Maddow: African Americans on Prop 8

[/youtube]

LOL

It was the people against Prop 8's fault for not explaining to the African American voters what this was all about. They should have been out to tell them it was the same wording against inter-racial marriages. They should have explained what it was?

Wasn't the wording extremely cut and dry, like: "This proposition is a ban on all marriages not between a man and a woman."

It's always somebody elses fault, I guess.

[sighyoung]

Rachel Maddow: African Americans on Prop 8

[/youtube]

LOL

It was the people against Prop 8's fault for not explaining to the African American voters what this was all about. They should have been out to tell them it was the same wording against inter-racial marriages. They should have explained what it was?

Wasn't the wording extremely cut and dry, like: "This proposition is a ban on all marriages not between a man and a woman."

It's always somebody elses fault, I guess.

When a campaign fails, you assess why it didn't work. I thought she was very clear--there was insufficient campaigning done in African American communities. She's explaining how such outreach might have been done.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I thought she was very clear--there was insufficient campaigning done in African American communities. She's explaining how such outreach might have been done.

I understand what she was saying. But to say that it needed to be explained to them..... come on.

1) That has to be one of the more clear cut propositions on any ballot.

2) Do your own research. It's not a PAC's job or some lobbyist's job or anybody's job for that matter to inform you on a topic. Do your own damn research and be an educated voter. Blaming somebody else for not educating them is a slap in their face. They can read; they can research; they can form their own opinion; they don't need to be told how/which way to vote.

[jim]

I thought she was very clear--there was insufficient campaigning done in African American communities. She's explaining how such outreach might have been done.

I understand what she was saying. But to say that it needed to be explained to them..... come on.

1) That has to be one of the more clear cut propositions on any ballot.

2) Do your own research. It's not a PAC's job or some lobbyist's job or anybody's job for that matter to inform you on a topic. Do your own damn research and be an educated voter. Blaming somebody else for not educating them is a slap in their face. They can read; they can research; they can form their own opinion; they don't need to be told how/which way to vote.

Tit for tat. If the Mormon church is going to come in there and throw gobs of money at it to influence X number of uninformed voters, the other side needs to do the same.

Everyone is told how/which way to vote, and it really works and can be proven. Very strong correlation between money spent (advertising basically) and winning.

We are all puppets.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I thought she was very clear--there was insufficient campaigning done in African American communities. She's explaining how such outreach might have been done.

I understand what she was saying. But to say that it needed to be explained to them..... come on.

1) That has to be one of the more clear cut propositions on any ballot.

2) Do your own research. It's not a PAC's job or some lobbyist's job or anybody's job for that matter to inform you on a topic. Do your own damn research and be an educated voter. Blaming somebody else for not educating them is a slap in their face. They can read; they can research; they can form their own opinion; they don't need to be told how/which way to vote.

Tit for tat. If the Mormon church is going to come in there and throw gobs of money at it to influence X number of uninformed voters, the other side needs to do the same.

Everyone is told how/which way to vote, and it really works and can be proven. Very strong correlation between money spent (advertising basically) and winning.

We are all puppets.

I'd agree with that somewhat. But there are also clear cut instances where money spent does very little because hte message is weak (Giuliani I think is a recent example of that). To say they voted incorrectly because they weren't informed is a slap in their face. They are perfectly capable of making up their own damn minds and to have you believe it was the people against prop 8s fault for not informing African Americans is silly.

I would say it is pretty clear cut that they were mostly for prop 8. All this lady was doing is assigning blame to other people as to why they came of bigoted. I disagree with doing that.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I guess this is my main problem with it.

If I voted for Prop 8, I would back it up with why I did it and be prepared to fight for my beliefs (like I did regarding Proposition 1 in AR). to vote some way and then have someone else come on and say you voted incorrectly and did so because no one got you the information makes you look stupid, lazy and incompetent. Really, it makes you look like someone who shoudln't have been allowed to vote. I couldn't disagree more with that and couldn't disagree more with this lady's interpretation of what happened. Basically, she has said they were foolish victims instead of saying Hey, that's the way they voted. Get over it.

[Arthur Dent]

Marriage to Christians is defined a certain way. It's not bigoted at all for Christians to not recognize a same sex marriage.

Why not? I don't see why how a particular religion chooses to "define" marriage makes that position any more or less bigoted.

[ghostrunner]

I'd agree with that somewhat. But there are also clear cut instances where money spent does very little because hte message is weak (Giuliani I think is a recent example of that). To say they voted incorrectly because they weren't informed is a slap in their face. They are perfectly capable of making up their own damn minds and to have you believe it was the people against prop 8s fault for not informing African Americans is silly.

It's not insulting to suggest that voters may not have thought through the implications of their vote. It's pretty common for people to not even know about ballot propositions until they walk in the booth. So they see the question as do you want to ban gay marriage or not? That's different from presenting an issue in a way that suggests the decision could come back on you someday. If voters heard that argument that this is a restriction on civil rights, they may be less inclined to vote for it. That's all the woman in the clip is suggesting. My guess is she's right, and a lot of people didn't think it through very far - probably a minute's worth of thought with the ballot in their hand. That's the flaw with proposition voting, IMO.

[lukethedrifter]

Marriage to Christians is defined a certain way. It's not bigoted at all for Christians to not recognize a same sex marriage.

Why not? I don't see why how a particular religion chooses to "define" marriage makes that position any more or less bigoted.

I agree with jim. Therefore the solution seems simple to me. Either nobody gets to legally use the term marriage or everyone gets to use it. Civil unions for all or marriages for all. Then the Mormons and Catholics and Islamists et al can recognize and call it whatever what they want within their own walls.