10.30.2008

Field Poll Shows Close Call on Gay Marriage Ban

The Field Poll's final numbers on Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot in California, are not out yet, but a statement put out by the No on 8 folks provides the following tease:

"The Field Poll shows that Prop 8's deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all. Prop 8 is trying to run a campaign to get to a Yes vote, yet they have remained in this and other polls well below the 50 percent margin necessary for success. We are running a No campaign, and we are successfully keeping our opponents below 50 percent.
"We are highly energized across the state and we believe this will be a close election. We reject any suggestion that there will be a last minute surge for Prop 8 in a year where California is expected to go overwhelmingly for Sen. Barack Obama.
"In fact, today Prop 8 Campaign Manager Frank Schubert released a blog statement fretting that the presidential election would be called early on the East Coast, thereby depressing conservative voting in California.
"Finally, we note that the Field Poll has a stellar record on initiatives and has been accurate 94 percent of the time."
Field's previous poll in September had the 'No' side winning 55-38 ... a 'no' vote protects gay marriage in California. From reading this memo it looks like ... the 'no' side is winning 50-45 or somewhere thereabouts? We will know shortly.

EDIT: Per a commenter, the measure is trailing 49-44. My guess was pretty good! But ballot initiatives are notoriously hard to poll, so this is probably best considered to be a toss-up.

180 comments

Citizen # 1 said...

FIRST!?

http://ohcitizensforchange.blogspot.com

Citizen # 1 said...

What happened to the state charts? I CAN'T SEE THEM!! I need my fix!

Robert Cruickshank said...

Way I read that release the Field Poll will show a Yes on 8 lead, with both sides under 50.

Which would confirm most recent polling trends and be something of a depressing outcome on the eve of the election, give the big lead we had in the last Field Poll.

NC_voter said...

Watch out - A post involving gay marriage will draw the ire of homophobes such as Mule Rider

Chris said...

For what it's worth, I've seen a ton on "Yes on Prop 8" yard signs and only a couple "No" stickers. I do live in a rather conservative area, though (Eastern San Diego County).

No Neck Joe said...

Look, if Jill and Jane in Fresno aew in love and they want to get married I DON'T CARE! I'm happy for them. Get governmwnt out of our private lives. No on 8.

PeteKent said...

nc_voter is so bitter. Why? Not only will North Carolina stay RED for McCain, it's also going to elect RED Governor McCrory, and re-elect RED Patriot Dole, all because of her great mudslinging! haha!

Bitter liberal hippy!

Hayford Peirce said...

"Gai, gai, marrions-nous!" as they've been saying in France for many years now in a NON-gay context, hehe.... (Gay, gay, let's get married!)

(Geez, even my verification word here is French: "propre" = clean....

NC_voter said...

Petekent parody: Please, you don't even sound like the real petekent. At least he has an air of elegance to his posts, no matter how crazy they are.

Spend more time on your work. Quality over quantity!

RWD said...

PPP: WV is solidly red for McCain.

O well. I never saw this as much of an Obama opportunity.

PeteKent said...

See, look how bitter he is! He knows he's about to get swamped by a RED WAVE!

Haha, I bet you were so hopeful for Kay...she might've won too, if she wasn't permanently branded as GODLESS! HAHAHAHA

SAY HELLO TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL, LIBS. HE'LL BE SURE TO STOP ANY HUSSEIN AGENDAS!!!

Stephen said...

Channel 2/KTVU news in SF just reported that Field poll shows 44% in favor, 49% opposed. 3.3 margin of error. Among Protestants, 60% in favor, 33% opposed. Among Catholics, 44% in favor, 48% opposed. Those were all the numbers released tonight by KTVU.

sfergus483 said...

Proposition 8 losing would be great news for...

JOHN McCAIN and JOE THE PLUMBER

Stephen said...

The KTVU broadcast also noted that, among those who had already voted, Yes on 8 was in the lead.

Micifus said...

Dear god-

I hope Prop 8 FAILS.

I can't imagine another state placing inequality into its Constitution.

PLEASE donate to No on Prop 8 so that equality prevails. Every dollar counts:

https://secure.ga4.org/01/equalityforall

Todd said...

hopefully the 'No' holds, after that, it will be only a matter of time before same sex couples are recognized nationally. If same sex marriage gets banned in California, it will set back marriage equality years if not decades. And really that is what is at stake here - equality.

Cody said...

Make the Trolls pay!

I'll encourage other to play along....

My spouse and I have decided to give $5 to the NO ON 8 campaign for every troll comment on this thread. We have the money put aside.

Anyone willing to match?

We encourage others to do the same (for BHO and/or Prop 8) between now and election time.

Make the trolls pay for their sick bigotry and wasteful use of our time and resources by giving money to the team that will bring home this election for the rational, secular, kind hearted part of this nation that sounds a death knell for the reign of Rove, McBush, Darth Chaney, Kristol and the rest.

Natalie said...

Obama wrote this sweet letter to a second-grader. The kid sent him a "Flat Stanley" doll to spend the day with him at the Senate.

Flat Stanley's Day (PDF)

PeteKent said...

I oppose Prop 8.

Real Joe said...



California

Protect Traditional Marriage !

VOTE YES ON PROP 8 !

YES WE CAN !!

even Sen. Obama disapproves gay marriage

Doug Beeferman said...

I am relieved to hear that No on 8 is leading in the polls, but why are they issuing a statement about it? Isn't it generally better to create a sense of urgency by downplaying the polls, as Obama is doing?

Cody said...

Keep it comin' Trolls, this will be the most enjoyable donation I've ever made.

Descrimination folded into the constitution? Excellent!

idiotdogbrain said...

Here in OC, I see way more Yes on 8 than No on 8 signs. In fact, I know very few people who have said they will vote No. It makes me sad, but I'm not at all surprised.

Jen said...

"For what it's worth, I've seen a ton on "Yes on Prop 8" yard signs and only a couple "No" stickers. I do live in a rather conservative area, though (Eastern San Diego County)."

___________________________________

I am in the OC and I see the yard signs. However, one of my more churchy friends said his church is pushing him very hard to put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker. He said no, but he says, even though he is voting no, he still almost put one up just to get them off his back. I would not get worried based on lawn signs.

Calues. Calues are California values like letting everyone marry the person they love!

Seretse said...

Gay marriage is 2008's interacial marriage. Nonsense.

PeteKent said...

The issue of gay rights/marriage is important to me. It's the only issue I disagree with the Republicans on. My Mom was a lesbian and my dad was a homosexual, which was why they broke up and I was adopted. I also am attracted to men. It was not a choice and we need equality!

Vote no on 8!

Teena said...

Not this time. Everyone has a right to be who they are.

dk_brown said...

As much as voting for Obama is a no brainer to this straight, white, married man, voting NO ON 8 is even more obvious. How is my marriage threatened by what my gay and lesbian friends do? How are my kids threatened by their friends having two moms or two dads? As a native Californian (and Berkeley resident), I will be so disappointed and depressed should our constitution be amended by such a hurtful proposition. NO ON 8!

Real Joe said...

petekent said...
The issue of gay rights/marriage is important to me. It's the only issue I disagree with the Republicans on. My Mom was a lesbian and my dad was a homosexual, which was why they broke up and I was adopted. I also am attracted to men. It was not a choice and we need equality!

Vote no on 8!



now i see why you are CRAZY

LOL

p.s sorry about your parents

Jen said...

"Proposition 8 losing would be great news for...

JOHN McCAIN and JOE THE PLUMBER"

___________________________________

sfergus483 I think I love you. Best post of the night.

Berld. The berld will be a better place with an Obama presidency.

mc9cain said...

Natalie,
That Flat Stanley letter is so cool. Are we supposed to know a doll by that name from cartoons? I don't keep up with TV characters...

Jerad said...

Cody: Good on ya! I wish I could afford to contribute.

I'd try and post a trollish post, but just the thought made me throw up a bit.

PeteKent said...

mc9cain, how will you feel when Patriot Dole is re-elected?

Real Joe said...

teena said...
Not this time. Everyone has a right to be who they are.


BOOOOOO

Values First !

|The_fragile_99| said...

ok

[clears throat]

hey libtards semper fo, red surge, blah blah, patriots, PUMA, Husein, terror palling, barry, whitey, Ayers, PLO, repeat to fade, flog dead horse, waste valuable time. Make me chortle.

done.

oh ps - put me down for $50 ;D

wv: "quesoled" does that come with sour cream and salsa?

sfergus483 said...

What we could use in CA:

1) A clear statement from Schwarzenegger. He opposes 8. But he has made no move to push his opposition.

2) A Michelle Obama radio spot hitting the airwaves sometime around noon on Monday. Saying she is speaking for herself, but if she were in California, she'd vote no on 8.

Those two things could make a difference.

Natalie said...

Flat Stanley is from a book. The kids in the class sent their "Flat Stanlies" to famous people. So far Obama's the only guy who's written back.

Concern Troll said...

What happenet to the real PeteKent? There have been so many sockpuppets lately.

Clarissa said...

Is the fifty percent needed fifty percent of ballots with a vote on Prop 8 or is it 50% of all ballots cast making an undervote an effective no? Because 7 props before that and some voters are just going to vote pres and house and then say fuck it leaving the props undervoted.

Zenu said...

I read Franz Schubert instead of Frank Schubert and giggled and now I'm going to go off to listen to some Schubert and ignore the long gay cul de sac argument that will follow.

no on 8, stop contributing to hate!

beamman said...

I live in Los Angeles area, generally with KNX (the CBS radio news station) on in the car. I have NEVER in my life heard more disgusting and misleading campaign ads than the ads in favor of Prop 8. Specifically, there is one ad (of a few) sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, that--to the ill-informed--would lead one to think that failure to pass Prop 8 would allow the State to make illegal SIMPLY HOLDING THE VIEW THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG! In other words, not just that public accomodations, etc., cannot discriminate against gay married couples, but the very thought in the head opposing gay marriage would be verboten.

I'm serious. I wish I had a link so you could hear this.

PeteKent said...

What are you talking about? I'm the only PeteKent in this topic. Click on the names of all of them and they all go to the same page, if you don't believe me.

Dumb liberal hippies...

Megan said...

I see tons of "no on 8" buttons and signs, and very few yes. Of course, my usual people watching involves strolling across the campus of UC Berkeley, so take that with an appropriately sized grain of salt.

A rather amusing bit I witnessed the other day: College Dems and College Repubs, both out with rolls of stickers with their candidates name on them. The dems have a small crowd around, waiting their turn to get an Obama/Biden sticker. The Republicans, well, quite literally couldn't give away their McCain/Palin stickers.

Bridge said...

Er, for some reason my last comment didn't post.
Anyway, all I said was that here in Mass, we've had gay marriage for a few years now and it's become such an accepted part of life, that I barely remember what life was like without it. Anecdotally, it really isn't even seem like a big deal anymore, even to the people who were opposed to it, for the most part.
I hope it passes!

InkStain said...

"That Flat Stanley letter is so cool. Are we supposed to know a doll by that name from cartoons? I don't keep up with TV characters..."

I dunno if it started anywhere, but it's a pretty popular thing for young classrooms. It's just a paper doll you send all over to get people to take a picture of it in some new environment then send it back.

Concern Troll said...

Which is more likely?

The presidential race is called early for Obama, conservatives give up and don't go to the polls

or
The presidential race is called early for Obama, Democrats don't bother to vote because their guy already won, but conservatives still come out to vote yes on 8

??

Real Joe said...

Mrs. Obama will never do a gay marriage ad

LOL

cane said...

"Real Joe said...


California

Protect Traditional Marriage !

VOTE YES ON PROP 8 !

YES WE CAN !!

even Sen. Obama disapproves gay marriage"


Oh, no! Real Joe, I even asked my wife for permission to marry you in California. But it wouldn't work anyway. Undocumented gays cannot marry!

Balls Explode!!!!!!!!

Real Joe said...

VOTE YES !!

yes we can !

god bless you all !

Li said...

I'm going to vote even though California is going D. Prop 8 is very important to me.

Teena said...

Boo. Come on Real whoever. Is that all you can come up with? Ugh. Please.

bobnsj said...

As sometimes happens in the crazy world of propositions, you have to be careful that you vote the way you really want the result to be. This was in yesterday's LA Times:

Speaking out recently against Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown made an appeal for the importance of protecting the rights of same-sex couples. And then he urged his audience to vote yes on the proposition.

Brown misspoke. He intended to advocate a no vote. But he isn't alone in confusing which side is which. As election day nears, both supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 worry that voters will be confused by a choice that can seem counterintuitive: Voting no on the initiative means voting yes on gay marriage, while voting yes means gay marriage would be disallowed.

If Willie Brown, one of the smartest politicians this state has ever seen can get it wrong, almost anyone can.

Teena said...

How about no to this one. Prop 8 denies people their right to be who they are. Go away Real Joe. Join the McCain campaign.

John McCain is my Love Child! said...

Lets see...
2.8125% of my annual income on Obama.

Now an additional 0.25% on defeating Prop 8.

Life was easier when I used to just volunteer time...

Urvate: What this makes me feel.

Xander said...

Nate,

When I went phonebanking against prop 8, they had a memo with a strange statistic: apparently as many as 10% of the people who are for gay marriage are confused and think a 'yes' means 'yes on gay marriage'. Whether or not this was simple misunderstanding or if there was a campaign of misinformation is anyone's guess. We spent most of out time trying to reverse this.

Would this show up in the polls? What is the exact wording they use? If they ask people how they'll vote on prop 8, that's fine, but if they ask people whether or not they'll vote to ban marriage, it might overestimate the 'no's.

Is there a way to sort this mess out in the projections?

blue november said...

Is there any recent polling on Prop 5 (prison reform)?

sfergus483 said...

Tony Perkins - who runs the political arm of Focus on Family - says that Prop 8 is the most important election in US history.

The Mormon Church has pumped in $20 million alone (in part because they have the weird thought that this will let courts allow polygamy).

If it passes, I'll post some thoughts about what happens next (hope won't be lost), but if it does, the same forces that pushed this will go to court immediately and claim that the wording of the CA Supreme Court ruling means that civil unions are also illegal (and they may have a legal point, since it was the state-recognized existence of CUs that formed their opinion). If that happens, the backlash will be huge.

Booze Fiend said...

xander,

The proposition was worded that way precisely for that reason. These things are never done without immense planning.

Kelly said...

The presidential race is called early for Obama

Unless Obama runs the table and gets just about every state he's competitive in (and those states are called right away instead of after a few hours), the race won't be called until polls close on the West Coast. CA+OR+WA+HI = 77 EV and Obama is likely going to need at least one of those states to put him over 270.

So it may be obvious early on that Obama will win, but I really doubt the election is called before polls close in CA. Which is not to say that an obvious outcome won't effect turnout in CA....

John Evo said...

No matter how you feel PERSONALLY about homosexuality, it's worth reminding yourself that the same people who oppose gays getting married today are the same ones who opposed two races marrying each other 50 years ago.

Also, the far and away most supportive group for Yes on 8 - are religious fundamentalists (of various religions).

You lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas...

kirby96 said...

No early Zogby leak on Drudge. Must have been a good Obama day, we'll soon see!

Jessica said...

It's terribly sad and shocking to me that people don't realize marriage (between two consenting adults) is a stabilizing, economically beneficial relationship that allows for the better cared-for and better educated raising of children.

I know so many happy, stable gay couples who would love to marry and adopt, but can't get there without the legal protections of a real marriage.

I know I sound like some nutty mom-type (hard drinking chef type, actually), but what about the families?

No on 8.

(veri word: Harlin, the name of my first bf!)

Troy said...

Real Joe,
Is there any chance we can convince you to vote no on prop 8?

I'm all for letting same-sex couples get a legal marriage, and get treated the same way with regard to taxes, employee benefits, etc.

On the other hand, I have no desire to have laws force churches to bless such marriages.

Vinny said...

I support gay marriage...but adoption? I'm sorry...I just don't think it's right.

Seretse said...

Gay couples are more monogomous than are straight couples, however gay males are not.

politicalcynic said...

When a similar proposition passed previously in another state, the result was, in fact, court rulings that made recognition of domestic partnerships illegal-which in turn led to the loss of partnership benefits from employers-including things like health insurance. Which, in turn, led to not just adults, but also the children of same sex couples losing those benefits.

If, in fact, as I suspect, Prop 8 supporters have similar goals then they are complete hypocrites. You don't protect families by denying children health insurance and the benefits of a two parent family-regardless of the gender of those parents. You also don't "protect the family" by teaching intolerance and permanently ensconcing discriminatory practices in your constitution.

And now I'll be adding my donation against prop 8, and I hope all of you who are able will as well.

Juris said...

PROP
8

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES: A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Marriage between individuals of the same sex would continue to be valid or recognized in California.

Rupert said...

@ Real Joe--

God gave you a brain. Use it. Prop 8 is immoral. Homosexual activity does not compromise values or morals any more than heterosexual activity.

And if you think homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the bible, you should probably read the rest of the old testament and find out how much "morality" is actually there. If you can do it without throwing up.

NO ON PROP 8!!!

bobnsj said...

Vinny

Adoption by gays is legal in lots of states (or not illegal). Only Florida expressly forbids it. Gays are much more likely to be able to adopt than they are able to marry.

Troy said...

I like the interracial analogy. It's a good counter to the "slippery-slope, we'll be marrying farm animals" argument used by the other side.

Vinny said...

Marriage isn't legal...but adoption is? That's like skipping your first hurdle and jumping over the second one.

syncbox said...

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is personally against gay marriage.

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
------------

So, the person above is WRONG. If a state allows gay marriage, Obama thinks that the state has that right.
-------------------

I personally kicked down about 20 of these YES ON PROP 8 signs today in Santa Rosa, CA. while out on a walk.

What IS it about two people of ANY gender, race, persuasion, etc wanting to share their life together that causes such an uproar?

Marriage IS A PROPERTY LAW started by MEN to keep women as property - it got HUGE under organized religion because such groups wanted to control women (that darn catholic misogyny thing...)

I think ALL marriage should be banned in both state and federal law... make ALL unions civil contracts and let churches do whatever they want... but church only ceremonies wouldn't be a real contract.

I think gays should have just as much right to get divorced as heterosexuals...

beamman said...

Let me be very clear about my views before I go on, so there is no misunderstanding: I am a straight, married man with a gay brother and many gay and lesbian friends, and I am pretty sure I support gay marriage.

I think, however, that the nation is NOT ready for gay marriage, and it raised its head as an issue WAY too early back in MA and then that dingleberry Gavin Newsome's off-the-reservation move to promulgate gay marriage in San Fran. I consider gay marriage the Ralph Nader of 2004.

This premature pushing of the issue completely backfired. Rather than allowing attitudes to evolve more organically towards the goal of gay marriage via the path of civil unions, etc., the push triggered an immense backlash--leaving dozens of states with bans on gay marriage (and, in some cases, even civil unions) enshrined in their laws or even constitutions. And, as a side benefit, the push for gay marriage helped energize the conservative base and hand an undeserved second term to GWB.

So, what did all this accomplish for the cause of gay equality?? NOTHING! It just created serious obstacles in the law that just didn't have to be there, and may have materially set back the cause 10, 20 or more years. Even now, though probably not as significant an element in the 2008 political scene, gay marriage has about an even chance of being banned in the California constitution.

This will not be easy to undo. This is an object lesson that social change needs to be done evolutionarily.... NOT revolutionarily.

David said...

My wife and I voted NO on 8. Here at UCI (in Orange County) it's hard to find any students who seem to be supporting it; I overheard 3 grad students talking today about how none of them knew anyone willing to vote "yes". UCI may be an island of liberalism in a more conservative sea of Orange County, though.

Rupert said...

@politicalcynic
Just gave the No on Prop 8 fund a hundred bucks. I hope it helps.

There are just too many people who are either self-important slimeballs, or hypocrites, or just plain ignorant. It shouldn't surprise me that it is mainly the "small government" nutjobs who want the government to stick their nose into private matters that are none of their business. Hypocrites.

Garnett said...

@Rupert: St. Paul (a NT guy) also spoke out against it, according to most translations.

But personally, I think that people concerned with the sanctity of marriage should actually be voting against Prop 8. It was a mistake to give the Government control of a sacred institution to begin with, and now that "civil unions" are becoming popular the most logical thing for someone concerned with the traditional concept of marriage is to make it so government ONLY gives out civil unions - whether to gay or straight couples... that way, the government would no longer be able to control the definition of marriage (the power that made this law a "necessity" to begin with). But in the meantime, we shouldn't be sticking this stuff in the Constitution, because laws defining marriage will make it harder to take back control of the instution when the time comes.

TL;DR version: a vote for Prop 8 implies that the government can define marriage in the first place. If the sanctity of marriage is to be protected, that's a really bad precedent to set.

Troy said...

Rupert,
Please don't insult Real Joe.

Yes, we disagree with him. A lot of people here do. But he is always respectful, and contributes a lot.

Teena said...

Thank you Garnett.

Matt said...

So I have a question because I'm not that familiar with CA's amendment process.

What sort of "threshold" would this measure have to meet in order to pass? Majority of all votes? At least 50% of the vote? I ask because I used to live in Indiana and we had our own thresholds for ballot measures.

Rupert said...

@beamman
I don't think you have to worry about prop 8 being the nader of 08. Obama will take CA. :) Personally I think one has to take a stand on certain principles. Bigotry is wrong and immoral. Period. Equality for all.

donna said...

We did a "No on 8" rally for rush hour this evening in a very conservative area and outnumbered the "Yes on 8" supporters 4 to 1. Lots of new signs going up, and I handed out another 10 bumper stickers there this evening. Many of those driving by were holding up "No on 8" signs in their car windows as they went by!

It was a very encouraging evening for the "No on 8" supporters.

Garnett said...

@matt: 50% of the vote.

beamman said...

"Matt said...
So I have a question because I'm not that familiar with CA's amendment process.

What sort of "threshold" would this measure have to meet in order to pass? Majority of all votes? At least 50% of the vote? I ask because I used to live in Indiana and we had our own thresholds for ballot measures."

Remarkably, just 50% of all votes cast for the particular measure + 1additional vote is all that is needed to amend the CA constitution.

bobnsj said...

Matt

In CA a proposition needs 50% +1 of the votes cast to pass.

aria said...

I hope they get this proposition thwarted in its track and make pavement for the rest of the country. It's 21st century and we are still trying to define unification of two consenting adults under the sphere of religion. Marriage is rightfully defined by religion, however, the unification of two individuals have been instituted long before the monolithic creeds. Therefore, it is evident that to preserve the constitutional right of an individual and also relinquishing the yoke of government's control on one's pursuit of happiness, we should forgo of 1st century mentality and embrace the new mantra.

Vinny said...

The U.S. is backwards. It's a shame that American Conservatism even still has a voice in our government, much less be one of the two dominant parties.

sfergus483 said...

It's majority of votes cast on the specific issue, irrespective of total voters in the election here in California.

Rupert said...

@garnett

St. Paul also said (or at the very least implied) that it was OK to keep slaves. The NT has some immoral parts too.

Troy said...

The St. Paul comment on homosexuality is questionable to many biblical scholars. There are not any words used in biblical times that mean the same thing as homosexuality does to us today.

Rupert said...

@troy
I didn't insult Real Joe. I insulted his religion. ;)

Joey said...

I'm curious, and Donna maybe you can answer this since you're involved with the "No on Prop 8" initiative...

How many people out there have the idea of this bill backwards and think that a YES vote is a vote FOR gay marriage?

Is this a big problem that's being encountered?

DCM in FL said...

FL has it's own anti-gay marriage canard this election called Ammendment 2

it was put up just to help drive the evans & cons to the polls to ensure a GOPer win in Nov...

BUT they overplayed their hand by changing the rules to require 60%+1 to ammend the FL state constitution

and while the ammendment will most likely get over 50%, they may not reach the 60% threshhold

haters, serves ya right

my word is 'be red'

UGH - NO WAY, FL is going BLUE

been there [red], done with dat...

we are gonna rinse that red right outta our sunshine state

Yvonne said...

Real Joe, where in California are you? OC?

JMNorris said...

Every morning I wake up thinking: "My marriage is failing! I don't know what is wrong with it, but it must be failing. After all, there are two gay couples living on my block." Then I remember that they aren't married and think: "Phew. My marriage is safe for another day. That was close." So, for the sake of my marriage, please Californians vote Yes on Prop. 8.

(In case the humor impaired can't tell, I'm joking.)

politicalcynic said...

Thanks Rupert-and everyone else who's donated.

Garnett-that's a REALLY interesting way of looking at this issue. I'll have to think about that one.

beamman said...

" Rupert said...
Personally I think one has to take a stand on certain principles. Bigotry is wrong and immoral. Period. Equality for all."

Yes, but how to get there when most of the states have now thrown up massive legal roadblocks, that just didn't have to be there?

Equality is a worthy goal, but when it involves some rather massive social engineering, you can't just close your eyes and wish really hard.

The first time many in this country probably ever saw positive depictions of gay/lesbian folk in movies and TV was in the 1990s, and acceptance is a series of baby steps.

But MA and Gavin Newsome scared the shit out of everyone, and they reacted. Such a shame: I think if that hadn't all flared up when it did, by now there probably would have been widespread comfort with and acceptance of the concept of gay civil unions with effectively full marriage-like rights.

Then, after another 10 years or so (maybe less), once everyone saw that the ground beneath them wasn't torn asunder by gay persons living as families, then, perhaps, full-on gay marriage could have come into being with little mainstream resistance.

That ain't going to happen now; certainly not as smoothly or as soon.

Unfortunately, I gotta go for now. Bye.

Troy said...

Then you probably insulted my religion, too. Although I'm one of the many Christians who don't think homosexuality is a sin.

HappyIdiot said...

These are biting words, which would amend the state Constitution to eliminate the right of same-gender couples to marry. Ironically, these words would be placed between our state's equal protection clause and the guarantee of nondiscrimination in business and the professions.

Vote no on Proposition 8.

reelgeist said...

Prop 8 is failing as per PPIC. The only poll showing it even close was SUSA which had suspect internals. Here are the numbers from PPIC:

52 against, 44 for. The LA Times write up about it seemed like it was trying to hedge its bet.

Here's the other reality: The No on 8 people have pushed that this is close despite numbers showing its not because they want to get up with the money arms race, and not because the polling data remotely shows this close.

Nate- to be frank- I am disappointed on your post here. You are better than this.

The fact are these-- in CA- any proposition with Prop 8's numbers would be considered headed to failure.

here's a recent diary about the reasons why Prop 8 will probably not pass by someone actually trying to use the carrot rather than the hysterical approach to the issue:

"According the most recent PPIC poll (the gold standard poll in California), Proposition 8 is trailing by a 52%-44% margin. While the margin has tightened up since September, key crosstabs give us reasons to feel optimistic. Independent voters are trending in No's direction. In September, Independent voters were opposed by a 53%-42% margin. In the most recent polls, Independent voters are opposed by a 58%-39% margin. Additionally, there has been significant movement among Latino voters. In September Latino voters were opposed to Prop 8 by a 50%-46% margin. They are now opposed by a 53%-43% margin. So where has the gain for Prop 8 come from? Republicans. They were in favor by a 62%-34% margin. However, they are now in favor by a 70%-26% margin. That's still not bad news for our side. Considering the ads the Yes on 8 side ran, the fact that over a quarter of Republicans are still voting no means they have essentially dug in their heels and will vote No (many of them have probably already voted No). "

This discusses trendlines, etc.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/27/22322/436/604/643175


I personally dont see why with this issue our side is engaged in hysteria when the numbers dont' agree with you in any polling data thus far.

Garnett said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Garnett said...

Also worth noting: in several states (CA included) civil unions and marriages are functionally identical already; the only difference between them is the name.

Jerad said...

Just to make clear the adoption thing as it pertains to CA: Publicly funded adoption programs are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Prop 8 wouldn't affect adoptions, which are already happening.

And there's no way it would change anything with regard to religious organizations either. The case the yes side states was about improper use of public land.

rays251 said...

Why the hell would obama waste his time writing to a 2nd grader?

He's not going to acccomplish ANYTHING if he is president, if he cannot focus and priortize.


Any WHY would an 8-year old want to spend a day in the Senate anyway?

rays251 said...

"Here in OC, I see way more Yes on 8 than No on 8 signs. In fact, I know very few people who have said they will vote No. It makes me sad, but I'm not at all surprised."


That's because people in the OC are more educated than the poorer urban areas.

Yvonne said...

NEW THREAD: NEVADA

rays251 said...

"As much as voting for Obama is a no brainer to this straight, white, married man, voting NO ON 8 is even more obvious. How is my marriage threatened by what my gay and lesbian friends do? How are my kids threatened by their friends having two moms or two dads? As a native Californian (and Berkeley resident), I will be so disappointed and depressed should our constitution be amended by such a hurtful proposition. NO ON 8!"


Your kids are threatened because they generally view their friends' ways' of life as comparable to their own and this could encourage them that it's ok to give in to your urges.

Craig said...

Garnett:

Civil Unions are not functionally the same as marriage. This is one of those things that if you aren't a lawyer you wouldn't understand. I happen to be a lawyer. I don't want to get into it, but basically anytime you introduce a new entity into the law it takes decades to integrate that concept. There are a million questions that come up that results in a lot of costs to those involved in the new entity that someone involved in marriage would never have to address because marriage and the laws for it are well defined. If you want to understand what I mean- look at NJ and its experience with civil unions. Like separate but equal the problem is that legally there is no way to make this new entity equal given the way the law works.

inthehouse1111 said...

Proposition 8 is disgusting. I stumbled on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1GRQGc5GQ0

Same-sex marriages can be equally strong!

I am a poor graduate student, so I will be diverting my weekly tithe away from my hateful church and instead donate to the "No" campaign.

rays251 said...

"2) A Michelle Obama radio spot hitting the airwaves sometime around noon on Monday. Saying she is speaking for herself, but if she were in California, she'd vote no on 8."


Why is it that SHE has importance, but most thought Bill Clinton should back down, and he was PRESIDENT before!

What has she done?

Keith said...

I'm a Californian, and I know Obama will win, but I'll be sure to vote anyway. My vote for him may not have any effect (I hate the electoral college), but I still want to know that I voted for him.

And I'll also be voting NO on 8. The last few days I've been seeing people with "No on 8" signs at the Caltrain stations. Haven't seen anyone showing support for 8 here in the bay area. No, wait, there is a house I drive by on the way home that has a "Yes on 8" sign, but I know he's got to be a moron because he's also got a McCain/Palin sign.

Just say NO to the Christian Taliban. Don't force others to obey the rules of one religion.

Keith

WC: embra - verb - to put on a device for supporting the breasts.

rays251 said...

"Flat Stanley is from a book. The kids in the class sent their "Flat Stanlies" to famous people. So far Obama's the only guy who's written back."


And this speaks volumes about obama's lack of focus.

Troy said...

How are we using different terms?

Are we seperating religious marriage from legal marriage?

Are civil unions a weaker form of legal marriage?

I didn't pay much attention to it, but when Obama/and/or/Biden talked about civil unions, it almost sounded like they were talking about something similar to legal marriage, and didn't want to have people think they were going to force religious institutions to marry same sex couples.

Craig said...

RE ORANGE COUNTY and RACE

The biggest source of funding outside of the Mormon church is coming from the OC according to one source that I've read. The actual reason why this has a chance of passing is the money being provided by wealthy WHITE contributors. When people try to break this down, let's try to be honest rather than racialize it. It's a discussion you would lose given the facts.

Rupert said...

@troy
Respect people, not ideas. Religion is an idea. Ideas should always be questioned.

rays251 said...

"other words, not just that public accomodations, etc., cannot discriminate against gay married couples, but the very thought in the head opposing gay marriage would be verboten."


I wouldn't take that garbage.


gay couples don't deserve any rights at all.

I'd swallow the fine if it was imposed. I'd rather pay the fine, then give in to tyranny of the liberals.

Rupert said...

@rays251
No, it's not because the OC is more educated. What a laugh. It's because there are more religious bigots there.

Get your big government social agenda out of people's private lives.

David said...

One of my friends posted this a couple days ago on Facebook; I thought the story was worth sharing:

I went down to the “No on 8” HQ in Hillcrest yesterday to hold signs against Prop 8. You might be wondering why we were preaching to the choir in Hillcrest instead of going to a place like National City; I know I was. The San Diego branch says they’ve made a lot of gains already talking to undecideds, so now the goal is to clarify what a vote on 8 means to the base. According to their internal numbers, 10% of people who would mean to vote “no” might accidentally vote “yes.” Yikes.

This issue is causing a ton of confusion. I was holding a sign on the corner of Robinson and 7th Ave, and this lady put her head out of a car window and screamed that we needed to get the f*&% out of her neighborhood. Then a few minutes later she walked back over and said, “Uh, my girlfriend told me you’re actually the ones trying to help gay marriage . . . I thought you were the other guys.” Then she held a sign with us. Apparently, this sort of thing happens all the time, on both sides. People who want to support equal rights feel they should be putting in a “yes” vote, and people who want to eliminate gay marriage feel inclined to mark “no.” I wonder if this was intentional strategy on the part of the “yes” group. It seems likely to backfire, since most people tend to vote “no” when they either don’t understand or care about an issue, and I’d put money on sympathetic but uninformed “no” voters getting it right more often than similar voters on the “yes” side. After all, reading comprehension is involved.

To give you an idea of the general make-up of the “no on 8” field worker, during the debrief one volunteer commented that “there seem to be too many gays holding up signs. We don’t look very diverse. Does anyone know any straight people?” You could hear the crickets in response, crickets who were also apparently gay. This was kind of a running gag for me all day. I’d introduced myself as straight when I got there, but since I was wearing my Communist worker hat and Frida Kahlo hoodie, the label didn’t seem to stick. After I told one worker that I’d recently gotten married, she patted my hand and said, “Stay strong!”

We need more help if Prop 8 is going to be defeated. If you want to get involved in the final push to get out the vote against 8, next weekend there’s going to be a huge phone banking drive statewide, as well as a large visibility demonstration in Hillcrest and Normal Heights. It’s all part of a counter-event to “The Call,” where 40,000 “yes” advocates (many from out of state) are expected to flood Qualcomm Stadium to pray and fast for 8’s passage. You can go here for more info about “The Call”: http://www.thecall.com/Articles/1000038100/TheCall/Get_Involved/Facedown_40/Day_6_Video.aspx

Here’s the info if you want to get involved in “Making the Right Call”: http://www.noonprop8.com/events

rays251 said...

"I see tons of "no on 8" buttons and signs, and very few yes. Of course, my usual people watching involves strolling across the campus of UC Berkeley, so take that with an appropriately sized grain of salt."

College kids generally are generally very liberal and very lazy.

"A rather amusing bit I witnessed the other day: College Dems and College Repubs, both out with rolls of stickers with their candidates name on them. The dems have a small crowd around, waiting their turn to get an Obama/Biden sticker. The Republicans, well, quite literally couldn't give away their McCain/Palin stickers."


That's because obama supporters feel the need for everyone to know about their "savior."

Hopefully someone smacks them in the face to snap them out of their delusion.


Whereas McCain supporters don't feel the need to be cheerleaders.

rays251 said...

"The presidential race is called early for Obama, Democrats don't bother to vote because their guy already won, but conservatives still come out to vote yes on 8"


Hopefully this one and McCain wins because of laziness of obama supporters, which WILL happen.

if 20 year olds never voted before, why is it likely they'll wait on line for 3 hours when they're probably drunk from the night before?

Rupert said...

rays251 siad:
"gay couples don't deserve any rights at all."

Go back to Iran. Bigot.

Here we are, in the 21st century, in the country that is the home of Enlightenment principles. You should be ashamed.

Craig said...

Troy:

Although I support Obama, he's being disingennous on this issue.

here is a commission report on the subject matter as it occurs in NJ:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/nyregion/20union.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=gay&st=nyt&oref=slogin

It doesn't go into enough detail. But the core problem in a nutshell is what happens when one has to interpret the law for some issue regarding the relationship such as say divorce, or a business deciding on whether someone qualifies for benefits, or if DOMA Is eleiminated- how does one address the federal rights issue for civil unions considering there is no such entity. How does one address the associated cost to gay couples who may not have the money to cover anhy legal costs for defining things not defined under statute. These are just some thoughts off top my head.

I support Obama because he's better than the GOP by a million miles. But his equation of separate but equal being equal here is inaccurate due to the fact the institution of civil unions is new, and the law has never dealt with it. The law isn't good with new entities and it takes along time and a lot of money to figure it out. Whereas with marriage we know the parameter fo the rights already. Its far easier to include gays in the existing framework for law income gays than it is to stick them into a new one.

damitajo1 said...

To some of my Democratic colleagues: you are being complete hypocrites. While you say that defeating Prop 8 would also defeat McCain, Obama has said he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, although he opposes Prop. That's empty support. He can keep it. His position is analogous to saying "I don't believe in the right to an abortion, but if a state wants to recognize it -- that's fine with me." Odd that so-called liberals buy this baloney, simply because it comes from a Democrat.

Clearly,the Obama movement does not really represent the end of social conservatism. If it did then the vote on Prop 8 would not be as close as it is; Obama is up by 22 points in California. The Obama movement only represents the end of Bush, not conservatism!

PS: McCain also voted against Bush's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/split-ticket-what-californias-battle.html

rays251 said...

"No matter how you feel PERSONALLY about homosexuality, it's worth reminding yourself that the same people who oppose gays getting married today are the same ones who opposed two races marrying each other 50 years ago."


Well naturally. You want to keep your roots pure, instead of having everyone mixing together to form one bland composition.

Also, culturally speaking, interracial mariage rarely works.

rays251 said...

"It's terribly sad and shocking to me that people don't realize marriage (between two consenting adults) is a stabilizing, economically beneficial relationship that allows for the better cared-for and better educated raising of children."



What IS terribly sad is how much people feel compelled to let people do ANYTHING, just because they have an urge to.

This is a dangerous precedent to set.

rays251 said...

"If, in fact, as I suspect, Prop 8 supporters have similar goals then they are complete hypocrites. You don't protect families by denying children health insurance and the benefits of a two parent family-regardless of the gender of those parents. You also don't "protect the family" by teaching intolerance and permanently ensconcing discriminatory practices in your constitution."


You can't have a family if you're gay.

DCM in FL said...

ZOGBY stable

50.1 43.1 = +.1 O

rays251 said...

"I personally kicked down about 20 of these YES ON PROP 8 signs today in Santa Rosa, CA. while out on a walk."


And what gives you the right to kick down people's personal property?

I love how liberals' don't realize their own double standard!

DCM in FL said...

Released: October 31, 2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 50.1%, McCain 43.1%

'Race stuck in neutral'

"The race for President appeared to slip into neutral Thursday, as support for Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain moved only slightly in the last 24 hours, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking telephone poll shows.

Part of one day's worth of polling came after Obama's 30-minute televised campaign pitch to voters on Wednesday, but voters didn't seem to react one way or the other. The contest remained static with Obama garnering 50.1% support, compared to McCain's 43.1%.'

FWIW

rays251 said...

"So, what did all this accomplish for the cause of gay equality?? NOTHING! It just created serious obstacles in the law that just didn't have to be there, and may have materially set back the cause 10, 20 or more years. Even now, though probably not as significant an element in the 2008 political scene, gay marriage has about an even chance of being banned in the California constitution."


This is GREAT news.

*Have a cookie.*

rays251 said...

"The U.S. is backwards. It's a shame that American Conservatism even still has a voice in our government, much less be one of the two dominant parties."


The Conservatives should just secede from America.

It's not like we're likely to get along with the liberals ever.

Things are just going to polarize more and more until a civil war breaks out, so why not do it peacefully?

Mad Joy said...

It's worth noting that Connecticut is also, to a much subtler extent, voting on the gay marriage issue. About every twenty years there's a vote on whether to have a Constitutional Convention to update the CT constitution. With the recent court decision that it was unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage her ein Connecticut, there is a push from conservatives to vote YES to the Constitutional Convention - which would allow them to amend the Constitution to prohibit all marriage that isn't between a man and a woman.

Protect marriage equality in Connecticut! Vote no to the Constitutional Convention.

rays251 said...

"Every morning I wake up thinking: "My marriage is failing! I don't know what is wrong with it, but it must be failing. After all, there are two gay couples living on my block." Then I remember that they aren't married and think: "Phew. My marriage is safe for another day. That was close." So, for the sake of my marriage, please Californians vote Yes on Prop. 8.

(In case the humor impaired can't tell, I'm joking.)"


I would be concerned because look at the kind of crap that's living around you.

Rupert said...

rays251 said:
"What IS terribly sad is how much people feel compelled to let people do ANYTHING, just because they have an urge to."

That is what liberty is. One of our founding principles. If you don't like it, leave.

Obviously we don't let people do ANTHING, though--no one feels compelled to make murder legal. As a guiding principle, we limit a liberty when the exercise of said liberty obstructs with another person's life or liberty. Murder does that. Gay marriage does not. Discriminating against gays is the act of a tyrant.

subks. ray251 subks. And blows at the same time.

rays251 said...

"And I'll also be voting NO on 8. The last few days I've been seeing people with "No on 8" signs at the Caltrain stations. Haven't seen anyone showing support for 8 here in the bay area. No, wait, there is a house I drive by on the way home that has a "Yes on 8" sign, but I know he's got to be a moron because he's also got a McCain/Palin sign."


Why is it ok for obama supporters to bash McCain supporters, but when it's the other way around, it's called trolling?


"Just say NO to the Christian Taliban. Don't force others to obey the rules of one religion."


I'm pretty sure no organized religion actually condones homosexuality.

momo said...

The haters aren't going to win this time.

rays251 said...

"No, it's not because the OC is more educated. What a laugh. It's because there are more religious bigots there.

Get your big government social agenda out of people's private lives."


You're letting people be immoral...that's like condoning crime!

You should be ashamed!

rays251 said...

"Odd that so-called liberals buy this baloney, simply because it comes from a Democrat."


That's because obama is like a savior to the democrats, so anything he says must be true?

Rupert said...

rays251 said:
"You're letting people be immoral...that's like condoning crime!"

No, it's not. It really amazes me that people can still confuse their private ideas of "immorality" with the laws we make in a SECULAR constitutional democracy that values freedom and liberty. Why do you hate America?

Brooks said...

I count seven posts by rays251.

I considered how I felt about them, and in direct response to them I just donated $35 to the "No on 8" campaign.

Rays251, I agree with you that kicking down people's yard signs is wrong. That's about all I agree with you on on this issue. I disagree that letting two people of the same sex get married -- which most of them do after lots of thought and consideration -- is "letting people do anything just because they have an urge to". Did you get married "just because you had an urge"? And, fundamentally, I disagree with you that gay people are "crap", and I consider that a deep insult.

Ted Striker said...

rays251 said...

"You can't have a family if you're gay."

So you are saying gay people don't have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and they can't adopt kids? Because they do and they can... so technically, you are wrong. It usually goes without saying that if someone is a bigot, they are quite ignorant to boot. You fit the mold superbly.

I just don't understand how anyone can possibly think that they have the right to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else. It's so incredibly arrogant and just makes everyone who doesn't share your specific beliefs immediately discredit you as a backwards person.

I heard a moderate radio talk show host (who is against Prop 8) last night say: "In all of recorded history, whenever religious beliefs are opposed to and, furthermore, will suppress basic individual liberties, religion always fails. Every. Single. Time. Sometimes it might take a very long time for individual freedom to succeed, but eventually it happens. It's always been this way, and it always will. So no matter what happens on Tuesday with Prop 8, eventually we will look back at this just as we now look back at any other esoteric form of discrimination... and we will say something like - wow, I can't believe back then it wasn't legal to [fill in the blank]..."

dk_brown said...

rays251: I have to believe that you are bs-ing, just trying to be provocative. You have mentioned giving in to "urges" a couple of times. Did I do that when I married my wife (17 years ago, now with 4 kids)? How is what I did any different than what a gay person would do with someone he or she is in love with? You still have not mentioned how my heterosexual marriage is threatened by gay marriage?

And now you are going off on interracial marriage? What about interfaith? What about between tall and short people? Fat and thin? Blond and brunette? Native English speaker and native German speaker (probably OK since much of your philosophy seems to be traceable back to a German leader of the 30s)?

[I do agree that people should not kick over signs simply because they show support for the other side of an issue or for the other candidate]

Ted Striker said...

rays251 said...

"The Conservatives should just secede from America.

It's not like we're likely to get along with the liberals ever.

Things are just going to polarize more and more until a civil war breaks out, so why not do it peacefully?
"


If you are talking about the social conservatives, well then I couldn't agree with you more. Social conservatism is based on the idea that the ideals and values of a particular (mainly religious) belief system is of such utmost importance that not only do the people who follow this set of values believe in it for themselves, but rather they believe in it so strongly that they wish to impose their set of values on everyone, including everyone else on earth that do not have their set of values.

And although they consider themselves patriotic and part of "real America" because they put God and country in front of all else... it's a complete Wizard of Oz - little man behind the big green curtain - fraud. Ironically, by strictly imposing any specific set of values and ideas on a population in general, they are practicing governmental controls that are the absolute polar opposite of the tenet that this country was founded upon - liberty.

People have always come to this country to have the freedom to believe what they want and do what they want... free from ideological persecution at the hands of others.

Now, as far as your "conservatives" comment, it should not apply strictly to financial/economic conservatives... it's the social conservatives that should start their own country and only accept people who share their beliefs. The rest of us will be glad to take all your cast offs. We'll take the two coasts... you can take the middle.

caswell said...

there are other states with similar things, like florida's 'marriage protection act' which bans gay marriage, civil union, and anything that is legally or culturally similar.... why do these get no attention or publicity? are they certain to fail?

Jay said...

Prop 8 will likely be found to be an impermissible "revision" to the California constitution (requiring 2/3 of the legislature to place on the ballot or a constitutional convention) rather than an "amendment" that can pass by simple majority. A revision is anything that substantially alters the fundamental workings of our government. Since the CA Supreme Court already ruled that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to gay people, the proposed amendment would have the effect of stripping a fundamental right.

For example, if Californians attempted to pass an "amendment" that prevented anyone who was Christian from having an abortion, this would be seen as a "revision" to the basic right of privacy targeted at a suspect minority, and therefore would require 2/3 of the legislature to place on the ballot (to say nothing of the fact that it would violate the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution).

Although the California Supreme Court declined to rule on this question prior to the ballot measure being approved for the vote, it did not actually hear the arguments (probably because it was hoping the voters would vote it down anyway and the court would not have to step in.)

Mark my words, if Prop 8 passes, there will be a lawsuit filed to stay the proposition's effect immediately, and it's chances of prevailing are fairly decent.

Aaron said...

I really hope proposition 8 does not pass... I was recently one of the groomsmen in a gay wedding, and I would really hate to see my friends' marriage be nullified over some stupid untrue shit about teaching children about gay marriage in schools... and that my friends would have spent $10000 on a big party for nothing. Notably, I got really drunk arguing with one of the grooms' brother about proposition 8 since despite him being the best man (!!) for his brother, he's still going to vote yes.

Cugel said...

I am entirely comfortable with prohibiting gay marriage! And also stoning! Stoning women is good, especially if they don't wear the Chador. Harlots!

VW: "Byronity" as in "that post was so eloquent it was pure Byronity!"

obsessed said...

Prop. 8 - a bunch of polygamists looking down their noses at gay monogamists.

Jesus H. Christ, Prop. 8 people - mind your own freaking business. what a bunch of busy-body morons.

Les said...

My daughters and I put up our No on 8 sign just this afternoon. We were kinda nervous about it, as we live in a fairly (socially) conservative neighborhood in San Diego, as witnessed by the 6 Yes on 8 lawn signs, just on our block. (There's also a scattering of Yes bumper stickers, but I haven't counted them.)

My partner and I have been together for over 20 years, and have two teenage daughters. We've lived in this neighborhood their whole lives. My younger daughter, 16, was walking home from the gym and saw all these signs, and told me, "I don't feel safe here anymore."

I did the parental thing and reassured her that she was "safe," meaning from physical harm. But she clearly was not feeling emotionally safe or welcome, in her own neighborhood anymore. And she and her older sister, the very excited to be voting for the first time 19 year old, decided they needed to push back.

So we got a sign, and went out this afternoon with it to set it up (which took a bit of fiddling, because, you know, it had to look fabulous). We got it planted, just as the neighbor across the street came over and said, in his southern drawl, "I wondered when one of those would go up." Then he glared down a couple houses to the Yes on 8 sign and growled, "Bigots." And the two boys, around 10, playing basketball in the street looked over, and yelled, "Yay! No on 8!" And the basketball got flipped around between us all for awhile, and then me and my daughters floated inside to make dinner.

Whatever happens next Tuesday, that was a very comforting experience for my kids. And my eldest has said, "If 8 goes the wrong way, it's not over, you know. We'll all have equal rights some day. My generation will make sure of that."

And, ironically, my WV is "beard." As in, "Gracious, Crist certainly has an attractive beard. Do you think he'll actually get around to marrying her?"

Jerad said...

"I am entirely comfortable with prohibiting gay marriage! And also stoning! Stoning women is good, especially if they don't wear the Chador. Harlots!"

We also must not touch women during a certain time of the month. And we also break a rule if we sit in a chair they sat in.

Oh yeah and if they can swim they're a witch.

Nicholas said...

Long time reader, first time poster. Let me just start out by saying that I love this site and cannot get enough of it.

But to the subject at hand...
I am 100% wholeheartedly in favor of gay marriage and consider this an affront to the basic tenets of individual liberty. What two consenting adults choose to do with their lives is their business and the government has no right to decide whether the commitment they are willing to make to another person is "acceptable" or not. That is why I am voting against Prop 8 and volunteering every weekend to ensure its defeat.

Here is what scares me though... deep in my gut, I think this thing will eke out a win. I hope on hope it doesn't happen, but I just have this hunch. I live in the SF Bay Area, eastern Alameda County and driving around my city the "Yes on 8" signs outnumber the "No on 8" signs probably 5 to 1, and this is even giving less emphasis to the signs just posted at intersections. Unless I am just witnessing a very vocal minority, I just don't think that the "No" crowd can "run up the score" high enough in the urban coastal areas such as San Francisco, Los Angeles to overcome the astronomical numbers the "Yes" crowd will run up in counties such as Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and the Central Valley (except *maybe* Sacramento). Heck, even LA County outside of LA City worries me.

Now suppose that Proposition 8 does fail. This is not over by any means. Just like Proposition 4 on the current ballot requiring minors to notify parents prior to abortion, this issue will be back on the ballot in June 2010 for the gubernatorial primary. This is the third incarnation of the parental notification measure. So we will be reliving this drama for many elections to come because...

California makes it *WAY* too easy to amend its state constitution by the initiative process. Under current law, proponents of an amendment need only gather valid signatures from 8% of the total number of registered voters in the last gubernatorial election. Based on 2006 turnout (the last election for governor), you would need just under 700,000 valid signatures. This is not too difficult in a state of nearly 40 million people. Having the threshold set this low allows some of the fringe elements to hijack what was intentioned to be a check on legislative abuse or inattention. While suggestions to reform this process abound and I will not expound on them here.

Second, and final point, correct me if I am wrong but the way that I read this language, I am not so sure that civil unions would be permitted under this law. Something tells me that civil unions would pass the "duck test" (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...) and therefore being legally equivalent to marriage under the law, they would be ruled for all intents and purposes marriages thence illegal. Domestic partnerships, I think would still past muster since they do not afford *every* right guaranteed by marriage and therefore legally (and morally) unequal. Perhaps someone who has more legal experience than two semesters of Constitutional Law can clarify this for me.

-----
portics (n.) - the politics discussed over a heavy bottle of wine.

Fair Minded said...

Okay deal. I will give up my gay marriage in California for everyone in america according the the bible sinners that have been remarried from a divorce to have there marriage stripped away.

Fair Minded said...

So are we game america . My marriage for all the divorced amerians sinners as we are all called. I am a christian to disolve their marriage. So again my marriage as a gay man never married first time for all the other sinners according to bible taken literally including you to John McCain to make your marriage void.Lets do it.

John B said...

I respect Joe Biden's view. He supports gay rights but understands that changing the definition of marriage goes too far and threatens religions liberties. People shouldn't be forced to endorse homosexual relationships if that is contrary to their belief system.

We've already seen Catholic adoption agency in MA close rather than being forced to place children in same sex homes.

Schools in CA and MA have started to teach young children about gay marriage. Courts even struck down parent's right to opt out in MA.

If proposition 8 passes we will have the situation that Joe Biden supported in the vp debate. Same sex couple will have all rights of married couples (per CA law) but religious liberties will be protected.
Vote yes on 8!

Fair Minded said...

Okay John B you have it wrong again. I have 8 nieces and nephews all ages and they do not teach that. Lieing will put you in hell. I am a gay christian. I am so happy they did that for kids need a home. Who are the molesters. 95 % heterosexual men. What percentage of the children raised by gay parents end up gay, less than 1 percent. Kids learing about different family values will never happen here. The pta controlls that. Get involved with your schools and make sure that never happens. Parents need to be held accoutable. YOu have the choice. Be a good parent. By the way the highest percentage of gay children come from right wing familes like mine. Maybe there is a correlation.no on 8

Fair Minded said...

By the way . Just so you know Neither Biden or Obama will let there real feelings out now. They would be stupid. Just like McCain all of the sudden non pro choice. What a laugh.

Jerad said...

"We've already seen Catholic adoption agency in MA close rather than being forced to place children in same sex homes."

You're kinda right, Catholic Charities in Boston voluntarily ceased adoption service, though they are still quite active http://www.ccab.org so they can't really be called closed, because otherwise they would have to choose between being privately financed or not allowed to discriminate against same sex households or risk a lawsuit.

Current California law says that adoption agencies have the option of being privately financed or not allowed to discriminate against same sex households or risk a lawsuit. This is one reason Catholic Charities doesn't operate in California.

Prop 8 wouldn't change that.

It should be noted that LDS Family Services operates in both California and Massachusetts without government funds and in both states have never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for that. That won't change with prop 8 either.

Tatarize said...

Loving v. Virgina was settled on the grounds of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. If I have the right to marry a white women then everybody must have the right to marry a white women... even a black man. The same argument equally applies to same-sex marriages. If I have the right to marry a woman then everybody has the right to marry a woman, even another woman. Without a constitutional ban on gay marriage the constitution and the courts will push equality towards full legalization. And it's only a matter of time.

I have wondered at times if the yes on prop H8 people are shooting themselves in the foot. Isn't this a way to fast-track a supreme court appeal and having the court strike down all anti-gay marriage laws throughout the US? It really is only a matter of time and it seems that full acceptance of civil unions (which are likely also unconstitutional) might at least make having standing difficult and postpone the eventual supreme court smackdown.

The constitution makes inequality a difficult thing to maintain.

Julian Morrison said...

Yay for gay people. Fight fight fight!

MisterEd said...

The "No on 8" campaign hasn't been run very well. They've either failed to push back on the lies from the Yes side, or taken too much time to do so.

Being framed as the gay marriage "demon" has probably killed any chances of a Newsom run for Governor.

activistmom said...

Thank you to those who made me think about Prop 8 this morning! As a former Cali girl (NYC mom now LOL) I read the trollls here and went and donated $100 to fight Prop 8. Thanks for raising it this morning all!

GO OBAMA!

WV= pamat= where I'll be election day=in PA going to the mat for obama :)

Greg said...

I'm surprised at how reluctant opponents of Prop 8 are to acknowledge that it will have sweeping consequences for American law far beyond 'getting government out of people's bedrooms'.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191&sc=emaf

NRP is about the only media outlet I've seen willing to talk about the conflict of legal rights.

If Prop 8 fails there will be a lot of unanticipated consequences.

Voice of the Midwest said...

Prop 8, like a lot of stupid California referenda, has a 99.9% likelihood of being thrown out by the courts.

Direct democracy must die. It is killing California. 83% of the California budget is tied down by referenda. Not to mention that the schools are forever hurt by Prop 13. The legislature of California needs to grow a set.

Voice of the Midwest said...

"Being framed as the gay marriage "demon" has probably killed any chances of a Newsom run for Governor."

Why would he want to be Governor of California? He already has the best job in the world.

THE Bob said...

NRP is about the only media outlet I've seen willing to talk about the conflict of legal rights.

Ah but that article shows there is no legitimate conflict. You have a right to your religion, you don't have a right to pretend other's share your religion in a public accommodation or in a state regulated/financed business.

If your religion proscribes you from being married to a same gender person then don't marry one. If you think that only some legally married couples are really married then either don't offer perks for any married couple or hold your nose and do so for all of them.

I mean catholics don't think divorced people that remarry are 'really married' yet they have no problem with adopting kids out to them, or hiring them in secular jobs, or providing spousal benefits. Why the double standard?

dk_brown said...

The problem, voice of the midwest, is that Prop 8 would change California's constitution so that, at least under CA law (which is generally more expressly progressive on civil rights than the Fed constitution), this discrimination could not be thrown out by the courts. The argument would have to be a federal law argument and until the face of the US Supreme Court changes, it is likely too risky a case to bring (risky if one is in favor of gay marriage (or, rather, in favor of equality under the law)).

Ted Striker said...

@Greg

I'm confused. Why do you and NPR think that the current state of the law in CA (which would continue if Prop 8 fails) would cause unanticipated consequences?

NPR states...

"Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment."

I'm not familiar with state Constitutions... but the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution requires a state (i.e. government) player to be implemented. I may be mistaken regarding state level stuff, but it was my impression that you can't bring a case of discrimination against a purely private entity (such as a church). The only way you can bring discrimination charges against a church is if the church has accepted public funds. Otherwise, they can choose to accept or not accept whomever the hell they want. Correct?

And if this is the case, then if a church doesn't want to include gay marriage within its ideology... well then just don't take any government funds.

On the other hand, I don't believe sexual orientation discrimination has been singled out as a specific type of discrimination under Constitutional Law - Level of Scrutiny analysis. It's definitely not Strict Scrutiny (e.g. race). Rather, unless the SCOTUS specifically calls it out at one of the higher two levels in a new case, it's likely to be covered under Rational Basis analysis, which is not a hard test to pass. E.g. If a church taking public funds were to discriminate against a person due to the fact that they are gay, they would just need to show that the discrimination (challenged classification) is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. With the current make up of the SCOTUS, I don't think that would be too hard a test to pass.

That doesn't mean the SCOTUS would disallow gay marriage, all I'm saying is that even if an anti-gay marriage discrimination charge against a church were to make it to the SCOTUS, it's definitely probable that the resulting ruling may allow a church to discriminate unless it is decided that sexual orientation discrimination should be viewed as a Strict Scrutiny or Intermediate Scrutiny suspect class.

Ted Striker said...

@dk_brown

I'm not sure I agree with this. There have been many cases (at least at the federal level) which pit two different parts of the Constitution against each other.

I would suspect that a case could come up where this new Amendment would be challenged against the CA Equal Protection clause. When two separate laws butt heads, that's a legitimate question of law, which seems like it would allow the CA Sup Ct. to rule as to whether the new Amendment is Constitutional. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my two cents.

Xaqnir said...

Everyone who votes yes on Proposition 8 hates gays.

dk_brown said...

@flipting

I think the initiative process in CA is structured to "protect" against that. This would essentially be amending the EPC under the CA clause. I would hope you would be right but I am pretty sure if 8 passes, it requires another constitutional amendment to repeal it.

Laurie... said...

It makes me sick how religious wackos go after gays and isupport John McCain who's been SPREADING AMERICA'S WEALTH to corrupt FLDS polygamists in Colorado City, Arizona who practice tyranny over women and children and receive 25-30 million a year in taxpayer handouts.

Watch the video:

http://www.bankingonheaven.com/

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

Oh ye hypocrites!

reelgeist said...

I REALLY WISH NON-LAWYERS WOULDN"T TRY TO TALK ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES.

Here we have a poster talking about the Catholic Charities and adoptions.

The central issue isn't whether one is gay or not. The central issue is whether said charities can be deemed acting as an agent of the state by taking state money. This rule regarding non-discrimination applies to non-gay situations as well.

For example, there are some who still believe that the Bible says the races should be segregated. If they are private companies, there is nothing anyone can do about that. It is only when they take public funding, and thereby making the govt complicit in their discrimination that there is an issue.

This is classi right wing framing. taking a situation in which you either benefit or some else is harmed, and pretending you are the one being harmed or someone else is benefiting. It's a lie.

Any half way honest first year law student who has taken con law could see through your arguments. This is the core problem in this country. Too many idiots taling as if they have expertise in everything. You have the right to speeh and an opinion and even to being an idiot. I just wish some of you would respect reasoned discussion over lying.

It is funny to watch Christians bare false witness (one of thos big sins) in order to stop what they think is another sin. If you are so worried about souls, perhaps you need to start worrying about your own because there is nothing in the bible that says you get to commit a sin by lying like you do in order to stop other "sinners."

Brian said...

Call or email everyone you can to spread the word to vote No on 8!

The last proposition (Prop 22, which was overturned), had a lack of support until the Sunday before the election when pastors instructed their faithful to head to the polls to vote No.

My parents church today did the same and had buses to drive over 10,000 members to the polls.

Proposition 8 is Unfair, Wrong! Vote No on 8 and spread the word.

Reamworks said...

If you are interested in what True Christians believe, please see RavagedFaces.com
and Baytzim.com. Thanks!

VO said...

First off, I cannot imagine an amendment to the constitution that creates inequality.

Secondly, why in the world does it only take a simple majority to change the state constitution? Is this true for most states?

nunnieboo82 said...

I think it is unfair to those of the same sex that would like to marry. The government shouldn't have the right to take away peoples privileges to get married, Nor should any other person besides the gov. If thats what they choose to do then the people should have no say in other peoples marriages. So what happens to the people that have already gotten married. we just take that away from them or what???

egapre said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

徵信社robin said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信

徵信, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, , 徵信公司, , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, , , , , 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, , , , 徵信, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

徵信社robin said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信

徵信, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, , 徵信公司, , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, , , , , 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, , , , 徵信, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

平平 said...

^^ very nice

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,