Nationwide protest against Proposition 8 tomorrow.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by MrFun
the gay community as a whole needs to build bridges between all ethnic/racial groups among gays and lesbians.

To aleviate societal biases, the best methods involve being engaged with and visible to other groups WITHOUT being in their face/in their grill. Engage in interactions that show your human condition/life/personhood, not ones that trigger defensive and backlash reactions. Conflict interactions will reinforce and spread bigotry, not diminish it. You need visibility without generating conflict/defensive emotions. Let your opponents be the *******s on national media, you be the nice guys.
People who make make an entirely reasoned judgment about "Those people different from me getting rights" are well outnumbered by those who have a lot of emotional content in that process. Work on generating neighborly/warm and fuzzy emotions in them, not conflict/rivalry ones.

I have had had a great deal of satisfaction from scorched earth verbal interactions (on a different issue) like:
"My god is smarter than you god. My god is stronger than your god. My god will kick your gods ass and then bend him over a small rail shaped universe and butt rape him until he squeals like a pig."
but the recipient audience was clearly a lost cause and I nothing to lose by going to full burn. With the setbacks that gays/lesbians have taken in marriage issue elections, they cannot afford to burn any voters.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
If impatient lazy ****headed activists had not, in concert with dishonest judges, galvanized opposition by usurping the regular processes for amending constitutions, gay rights would not now be facing marriage amendments to overcome.

If only lazy, ****head activists hadn't, in concert with dishonest judges, overturned the law that would have prevented me from marrying the woman I live, simply because we are of different races.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Calling everyone who wants to protect traditional marriage a "bigot" is smart PR.

Only the Mormons practice traditional marriage. Most people nontraditional limit it to one man and one woman.

[Docfeelgood]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What should I put on my sign?

Hell no we won't blow?

[chequita guevara]

We had over a thousand folks in Fort Ladeda today. It was pretty awesome.

[Kirnwaffen]

An interesting piece of analysis from www.fivethirtyeight.com about how the surge in minority turnout is probably not responsible for the passage of proposition 8:

Prop 8 Myths
Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.

To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What Gays are trying to do here is change the definition of a word to accommodate an agenda. The important thing is that they are given equal rights. It is not up to government to legislate the meaning of a word. IT is governments responsibility to ensure its citizens are treated equally under the law.

Yeah, damn those black people for trying to change the definition of marriage so they could marry white people. How dare they have the government legislate the meaning of a word.

about how the surge in minority turnout is probably not responsible for the passage of proposition 8

It really isn't. It's part of the majority, but in NO WAY enough to actual have changed the outcome. But its a way for folk to try to twist the eye of Obama voters (and I wasn't one, but I can see the fallacy of the argument)

[Naked Gents Rut]

Yeah, damn those black people for trying to change the definition of marriage so they could marry white people.

That's not what happened. The definition of marriage never restricted black men from marrying white women and vice-versa. That's why states passed anti-miscegenation laws to make interracial marriage a felony. The courts struck down these types of laws; the court didn't change the definition of marriage at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
That's not what happened. The definition of marriage never restricted black men from marrying white women and vice-versa. That's why states passed anti-miscegenation laws to make interracial marriage a felony. The courts struck down these types of laws; the court didn't change the definition of marriage at all.

It changed the definition of marriage in the Southern states. Anti-miscegenation laws defined what marriage was in the South.

Besides the "traditional definition of marriage" argument is idiotic. Traditionally marriage could occur between 12 year olds before states changed laws. Marriage definitions has never been static. It has always changed.

Keeping tradition simply for tradition sake isn't a virtue either.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It changed the definition of marriage in the Southern states. Anti-miscegenation laws defined what marriage was in the South.

No, it didn't. If the definition had been changed, black and whites couldn't have gotten married in the first place and there would've been no need for anti-miscegenation laws to punish those who did get married.

Keeping tradition simply for tradition sake isn't a virtue either.

Abandoning tradition for reform of questionable social utility is hardly a virtue, either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
No, it didn't. If the definition had been changed, black and whites couldn't have gotten married in the first place and there would've been no need for anti-miscegenation laws to punish those who did get married.

So anti-miscegenation laws didn't change the definition of marriage? It was always the same even though blacks and whites couldn't marry one day and then the next they could?

As black slaves were property, you really couldn't marry property now could you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Abandoning tradition for reform of questionable social utility is hardly a virtue, either.

If there is any social utility (and IMO, there is quite a bit here) in changing a tradition, which change does not harm anyone, then it is a virtue.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If there is any social utility (and IMO, there is quite a bit here)

Enlighten me as to this social utility of which there is quite a bit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Allowing individuals in our society to be treated equally allows them to be happy and helps to end social prejudices. People weren't thrilled with blacks being able to marry whites, but overtime, as they came into more contact with them and the government pushed forward in treating them with equality, old standing prejudices dissipated. In the short term Loving v. Virginia didn't win any approval for these marriages, but over time it had a strong impact.

That and equal protection for all Americans is something that is in the core of US values (whether it actually exists or not). By denying that is denying a fundamental part of our believed character.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Happiness and living up to "core U.S. values" is all you've got? Lame...

You at least should've mentioned the ability of gay couples to provide stable homes for unwanted children. It's not much, but it's a hell of a lot more concrete and defensible than your mushy reasons.