California.
I live in California. I always have, and lately, I’ve been disappointed.
Firstly, we seem to have an issue with homosexuals. Of course, we’re home to the most diverse communities in the entirety of the United States, but thanks to out-of-state organizations running smear campaigns, we’ve got Prop 8.
We “lead the nation” in unemployment, with a rate above ten percent. It’s a far cry from the California of yesteryear, which led the nation in other ways, but hey – at least we can still use the phrase.
Sacramento now has its own “tent city” which has received national attention. The two cops who normally patrol it have been nicknamed Batman and Robin, due to their relationships with each other and with residents of the city. If Sacramento had to get national attention for something, couldn’t it have been something a bit better than this?
We’ve finally had a budget passed of late, with no help from the Righties in our legislature or Arnold, horrible governor that he is. The Dems had a good proposal months before, but since we had to wait for the ideologues we’ve got a huge fiscal problem on our hands. Thanks, guys. We’ll repay you with a lack of votes.
Someday California will be worth living in again. I’ll just keep telling myself that.
Use this badge freely!
Oh Lord, Arnold is becoming a national nightmare in more ways than one. I do like that your language reflects the fact that he is a different entity than the republicans. I don’t know anything about CA republicans, but I do know that Arnold isn’t invited to any show run by a conservative and hasn’t been for about 4 years now. Embracing environmentalism and taxing the crap out of people is not the way to stay in our party. All that’s left is a man trying to get elected, which is what we have entirely too much of at the moment.
I would only caution you when you assert that out of state entities made prop 8 happen. Only CA citizens voted on that bill, Chris. Like it or not, the people of Cali have a gay problem at this point in history. I can commiserate with you on the whole external funding thing, however. Every election cycle, national labor unions pour untold billions into Democrat war chests. Every year I watch the 10-15 commercials slinging mud at my favored candidates, only to sigh at the “sponsored by UAW” or whatever at the end. Worst is the moveon.org people, who are staged in the East Coast but feel free to influence peddle in flyover country, as they call it.
Point is, you can’t get too mad because at the end of the day, the people of your state enact their will with their votes. Mormons in Utah did not get to vote on Prop 8, regardless of the monetary pressure they bring to bear. Now, if you want to suggest that people were convinced to vote otherwise by LDS ads, then surely they deserve to be looked down upon (those flimsy voters).
On a sidenote, I’m gonna be pissed if we have to bail out your spending-drunk state, particularly when you consider it has the most people and makes a ton of money.
“Only CA citizens voted on that bill, Chris.”
And the smears and the confusion put forth by the Yes on 8 campaign that got the votes they wanted are still apparent by the simple fact that people still come up to me when they see my “Vote No on Prop 8″ sticker and ask me why I have a problem with gays getting married. Just the fact that they put “protect marriage” on their stickers and shit led people to think they were protecting legal gay marriage by voting yes. The whole thing was shoddy, the No on 8 campaign was late starting and poorly done, and if we had been more vigilant, it wouldn’t have passed.
Hmm, I guess I didn’t know that. I know none of us here have the data (maybe no one does), but I wonder what percentage of the vote was affected by those tactics.
I remember the first gubernatorial election of Blagojevich. He was running against a guy named Jack Ryan. Jack was leading in the polls for most of the previous year, but he shared a last name with George H. Ryan, the imprisoned governor thrown in the clink for handing out truckers’ licenses for votes. Blago ran a campaign centered (literally) around confusing Chicago voters about their relatedness.
Of course, Jack was in no way related to George H., but exit polling in Chicago showed that ~30% of voters thought Jack was George’s son, but it gets better. ~8% thought it was a reelection campaign, and the polling agency took a bunch of statements from voters damning GHR for running for office AFTER his scandal.
Needless to say, Blago turned out to be a great gover-…
Nevermind.
Back on track. You’re clearly suggesting that California residents would have voted yes on gay marriage had the Yes on 8 people not confused the citizenry. This is difficult territory to navigate because you have to politick to win anything. For example, Pepsi may be way better than Coke, but if they don’t advertise, it won’t matter. Pepsi will fail to make the money that Coke does. Now, Coke promises that their product is better, whether or not its true. They have also run ads with actors or real people saying they like Coke better. Kia and Hyundai make claims every day that they are every bit as good as Honda and Toyota, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, not to mention the sticker price. I think the Toyota Camry is probably the most smeared car in America on a daily basis, but Toyota brings their guns to the fight, too, and they win the day every year going back about two decades.
I guess what I’m getting at is you have to give it your best. Based on your statement that the No on 8 campaign was poorly done, I must ask why. Seriously, if its so important to you/them/whoever (clearly it is), why sit on your thumb until its too late? One clear, statewide advertisement on news affiliates could have cleared the whole damn thing up. You could even plant a fake non-partisan company out there and do it under their name, to ensure impartiality, of course. There are realities on the ground in politics and business. If you don’t play the game hard and fast, you are going to lose regardless of the quality of your argument/product.
There is another possibility to entertain, although you may not want to hear it. Its possible that the NO on 8 people were as effective as they could have been, and a greater effort in any measure wouldn’t have swayed minds. Your assertion that there is great confusion about the vote seemingly shoots holes in this theory, but your assertion that it was only unidirectional confusion giving votes to the Yes column is also a bit rickety.
Finally, I’ll extrapolate one more thing from your comment on the confusion over the way to vote. I’m not prepared to say that ANY law should be passed or change should be made to a government if the citizenry doesn’t know what they are voting on. If people don’t understand what Yes and No on 8 mean, I would have stayed the vote if I could to make sure people get it. The worst case scenario is that people get confused and pass a law that changes their state in unintended ways. From this standpoint, maintaining the ban on gay marriage is the best course as long as there is confusion over the bill itself. Take the time and energy to state your case and draw the battle lines clearly over the course of a year or more, then take your argument to the ballot box. I know its not entirely fair, but you can’t beat the game if you don’t observe the rules.
I’d say that’s just my 0.02¢, but there’s at least 0.63¢ crammed in there.
I think it would have made a difference, absolutely, but I also blame No on 8 for not organizing soon enough or efficient enough. A lot of people thought that it was a given that prop 8 wouldn’t pass, then Utah and Arizona started pumping money into Yes on 8.
“From this standpoint, maintaining the ban on gay marriage is the best course as long as there is confusion over the bill itself.” Before the vote, gay marriage wasn’t banned, so wouldn’t it make more sense to get rid of the ban until the confusion passes?
And i suppose I don’t even need to ask you this because I think I already know what your answer will be, but should a simple majority vote be allowed to take away a minority’s rights? There is a reason we have a Constitution.
Let’s make it 64¢, and just support the banning of out-of-state entities participating in state elections anywhere. Indeed, this entire discussion, regardless of the opinions within it, could be null and void if that were the case.
While I disagree that Prop 8 should not be overturned, I do absolutely agree that in the event it is upheld, we will be back at the ballot boxes next cycle with a new amendment. And this time, a YES vote will actually mean YES.
“I’m gonna be pissed if we have to bail out your spending-drunk state, particularly when you consider it has the most people and makes a ton of money.”
Well, I hate to break it to ya….
But look at it this way: we have most of the studios, and I know you like watching 24.
“But look at it this way: we have most of the studios, and I know you like watching 24.”
I fell off the wagon and missed everything since the first four, but I do like the show.
“Before the vote, gay marriage wasn’t banned, so wouldn’t it make more sense to get rid of the ban until the confusion passes?”
My understanding is that gay marriage was not allowed before Prop 8 came to be, but the law merely removed the decision from the hands of judges. Something to that effect, I believe. Strangely, passing the law maintained the status quo in this case.
“but should a simple majority vote be allowed to take away a minority’s rights?”
This is one of the more refreshing discussions I’ve had in a while because we’re getting right down to the Jeffersonian masonry the Democrat party is built from. Its a difficult question from a philosophical standpoint, and must be considered on a case by case basis. As for gay marriage, I think there are two sides to consider impartially.
First, the right of gays to be happy, and the assumption that state recognition of their alliances is what it takes.
Second, the right of citizens to control the direction of their country, and the assumption that they don’t need to accomodate a minority interest if the votes aren’t there.
I’ve come quite a ways on this issue in 8 years or so. I was pretty anti-gay marriage for a long time, but I realized that I was only considering my own fit with being gay, which is to say, not a good one. From then, gay marriage has become a libertarian argument for me. If it makes gays happier, even just as a one word difference, let them eat gay cake. As long as my freedoms aren’t impinged, have at it. I do believe gays should be allowed to get married, but with a few caveats.
The public has to be behind it. Shoving marriage for gays down the throats of those who don’t want it will not help acceptance or anything like that, plus its going to take a bigger act than a state law or ruling to make this have any federal merit. Other states who don’t recognize gay marriage aren’t going to look favorably on the unions, and it would cause a fight between Utah and CA, for example. Importantly, I’m against changing any policies not relating to national defense without votes or legal action. Not my most coherent paragraph, but I hope the meaning shines through.
Next, I am very uncomfortable with some of the tactics and namecalling I hear when this movement does not get its way. It becomes more than an unfortunate nuisance for me when the anger is there constantly. The guy who writes Savage Love should be ashamed of himself, for example (look it up if you wish). What a childish and disgusting response to losing a vote under any circumstances. This movement would be much more effective as a liberation appeal than as a fighting for rights against religion thing. This is a freedom issue for gays, and they should be honest about it. Even though the Catholic and LDS churches line up against you, the congregations aren’t there until you begin insulting their beliefs, which galvanizes them against you. Heartfelt pleas, logical arguments, and wholehearted efforts will win this battle much faster than ichorous anger and spite.
Is that what you thought I was going to say, Luna? If so, you have me read like a picture book.
Prop 22 made gay marriage illegal. But it was in contradiction with the wording in the California Constitution that provided equal protection under the laws, especially, I think (but am not certain what the judge’s statements were) the part that says, “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.”
The judges could only do one thing: judicial review. It’s something judges have been doing since the earliest years of our Union and it’s only “rogue, liberal judges making decisions against the will of the people” once the judges decide to afford equal rights to a group that is discriminated against and persecuted by the majority.
The judges found that Prop 22 did not stand up to the Constitution, so Prop 8 was formed to change the Constitution, therefore, Gay marriage was a legal right, upheld by the amendment in the constitution and backed by the judges of the California Supreme court. Prop 8 made it illegal, maybe (it’s back in court now).
And to answer, not quite! I thought you would say you definitely prefer a majority vote, but you laid out both sides of the controversy quite nicely.
As for name-calling, it is a shame. But for one side, this is a “political issue” and they have a right to their “political beliefs” while for the other side, it is years and years of oppression, thousands of Mathew Shepards, tons of hate speech and violence, and even worse, an inability to express who they are and not be in fear. To many, it wasn’t just losing a vote, which doesn’t justify bad behavior, but it shouldn’t be put so lightly as them just having sour grapes.
And you said you were against changing policy without votes or legal action. What the judges did was legal action.