A 'yes' vote on California Proposition 8 would amend the state's constitution to prohibit gay marriage. A 'no' vote would maintain the constitution, which the California Supreme Court ruled in May provides equal protection for gay marriage.
SurveyUSA and PPIC have new numbers out on the issue, with SurveyUSA having the gay marriage ban leading by 3 points, and PPIC having it trailing by 8 points. Field should have a poll out on the issue sometime next week.
Both the PPIC and SurveyUSA polls have Barack Obama leading by large (20+ point) margins, so I'm not sure that opponents of the measure can count on some sort of turnout surge above and beyond what is already reflected in the polls. There are evidently fair numbers of Obama/'Yes on 8' tickets, especially among the state's black and Latino populations.
Ballot measures are notoriously hard to poll, so we really have no idea where this thing is at, although it seems fair to say that it's chances of passing -- after a heavy advertising campaign by the Yes on 8 people -- are better than they were a couple of months ago.
There are also a couple of X-factors to keep in mind:
On the one hand, there have been suggestions that there is something of 'Bradley Effect' on polling on gay marriage bans, and that such measures tend to overperform their polls, although a more recent analysis refutes this suggestion.
On the other hand, because ballot measures are confusing, it is usually better to be on the 'No' side of them ... people tend to vote 'no' on things that they don't understand. In this case, that gives an advantage to the marriage equality folks. (It may even be the case that some voters vote 'no', thinking that they're voting no to gay marriage, when in fact the wording of the resolution is such that a 'no' vote protects gay marriage).
I'd peg the 'no' side as about a 55/45 favorite, but not more than that.
10.23.2008
Prop 8 a Toss-Up
@ 10:40 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
327 comments
Holy jamoli I just looked at today's polling. I feel like break dancing.
We need to vote No.
If CA bans gay marriage the movement dies or is slowed....
Nate: When you say No on Prop 8 is a 55/45 favorite, is that your prediction for the vote spread, or are you giving Prop 8 a 55% chance of failure?
There definitely should NOT be a ban on gay marriage. That's just selfishness of the religious right.
Gay's are people to, it's time to treat them like everyone else.
That graph looks oddly like a Jesus fish... that must mean Jesus supports gay marriage!
In all seriousness, though, I think you're very right about people thinking they are voting defensively when they vote no on ballot issues, though there is some evidence to wiggle in there that confuses that assertion (see Ohio 2006, Issue 4 vs Issue 5).
Please defeat this proposition Californians.
The graph looks like a Jesus fish!
Sweet, that chart is the Jesus Fish. Jesus would vote no.
I beat you guys in on the Jesus fish comment. :-p
I feel like poll dancing - and my shift doesn't start for another 8 hours! :)
l_d_o_f,
You evidently still care enough to post...yet you wonder why I wouldn't even waste the effort to spit on your rotting carcass.
Why should gay people be denied the right to suffer like the rest of us?
Ironically, it looks like a Jesus fish.
bookelly has a valid point.
Everyone give Mule a virtual hug, he needs one. /hug
Nate, I love what you do. But I think that you need to be careful here -- your agenda (which I share!) is reflecting in your comments. Not in the content of the comments, but in what you choose to write about. So you generally "debunk" polls that are favorable to McCain much more carefully than you debunk those that are favorable to Obama. I can understand this, given your sympathies -- you have a natural inclination to debunk the McCain stuff. But your value is in your objectivity, and that will inevitably be lost if your coverage becomes biased through an uneven choice of topic selection.
This proposition is very important.
In areas of the world where gay Marriage has been enacted, marriage rates are lower than the US (say Finland or Canada).
If prop 8 fails, it marriage will fade from society because no one will take it seriously.
Marriage should be a religious bond for both procreation and love. Gay marriage lacks the same meaning to most people.
Please go to wehatisprop8.com and study this for yourself.
I'm not surprised he's a faggot.
But you're not a bigot, just like you're not a racist.
Add that to not "believing in" evolution. The burning question now is, are you a young-Earther, too?
I want a cave drawing of one of Mule's ancestors ridin' rodeo on a Triceratops!
whatisprop8.com
"The only reason for Nate to stray from the mainstream races and delve into this arena is that he is homosexual.
I'm not surprised he's a faggot."
remember this post next time Mule Rider whines about others in the forum dragging down the level of discourse.
Nate this measure is clear
I am from CA.
It's about two sentences
Title
"Eliminate the right for gays to marry."
No one is going to be confused.
You know what is interesting, my company, Computer Science Corportaion, is now giving benefits to same sex couples. It's not a huge company but still. It's definitely a start and shows America is maturing enough to accept same sex partners.
Please, you guys, give me some hope that they're not going to steal the election again. I'm a total bundle of nerves. I'm voting on Tuesday the 28th in VA for Obama. :)
Nate was never even close to objective. He hasn't "gotten it right" with statistics. He just happened to have an open-ended bias for the candidate who was lucky and charismatic enough to run against the most unpopular administration in our lifetime.
He bleeds liberal blue and always will. If this were 1980, he'd be predicting a Carter victory with a 95% win share and 350 EV's.
He'll be shown for the clown and hack he is when the tide turns one of these days...if he hasn't already turned into a big pussy and abandoned political analysis.
Ban gay marriage, and Palin will have something to regroup around after an Obama landslide. (I think that's the subtext of her recent statement of support - she's preparing a refuge.) Protect gay marriage, and the last vestiges of the theocon/neocon alliance will be swept wailing into the outer darkness. Even a socially conservative Obama supporter should realize that this would be an upside worth tolerating a few queers.
Gay marriage nationally is split
two thirds support civil unions
It's about even between
NATIONALLY btw.
1: Allow marriage
2: allow civil unions
3: Nothing
Even if they ban gay marriage, they might get civil unions in CA.
Palin wants the federal uh-mendnment to ban gay murrige.
most people do not.
mitewo said...
This proposition is very important.
In areas of the world where gay Marriage has been enacted, marriage rates are lower than the US (say Finland or Canada).
If prop 8 fails, it marriage will fade from society because no one will take it seriously.
Marriage should be a religious bond for both procreation and love. Gay marriage lacks the same meaning to most people.
Please go to wehatisprop8.com and study this for yourself.
First off, marriage today has nothing to do with procreation, as there is no rule in any state where procreation or the ability to procreate is a condition of marriage.
Secondly, places like Mass. where there is gay marriage have a lower divorce rate than places in the south where it is banned.
Marriage will fade from society? What are you smoking? Gays who want to get married will. Straights who want to get married will. There's a lot more to marriage, such as over 1000 legal protections and benefits.
I have already voted NO on 8 (and NO on 2). I have also written an e-mail to the Pepperdine law "professor" (actually a right wing hack who got a job at third rung Pepperdine Law School because of his politics, not because of his intellect) telling him he should be ashamed of himself for his TV commercials.
The TV commercials try to strike some chord with the right wing base that if gay marriage continues to be permitted, our youngsters will be taught about it in school. (Shocking! Teaching kids about the real world.) In other words, they will be "indoctrinated" into the gay life style.
Sick. But when these people also think gays and lesbians can be "talked down" from being gay, I suppose it's predictable, too.
I don't know how allowing people of the same sex to marry somehow affects the marriage of heterosexuals (the campaign theme is "protect marriage -- vote yes on 8"). In fact, getting married more often leads to the end of a relationship than living together. If these bigots want gays to stop living together they should be encouraging same sex marriages.
"In areas of the world where gay Marriage has been enacted, marriage rates are lower than the US (say Finland or Canada)."
Google the phrase "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" and read some of the results.
If a ban is imposed, it will be sort of an interesting twist. There has been something of a tsunami of GLBT couples (both from in state and out of state) getting married (my partner and I will tie the legal knot on Friday) prior to the Nov 4 election - marriages which most mainstream experts expect to stand any legal test.
The result - post ban - will be a California with gay and straight married couples present and visible. My hunch, if there is a ban, is that there is a subsequent repeal a la Prohibition.
Mule Rider,
Yes Nate is biased, but that doesnt mean that the numbers are. Take a look at Real Clear Politics, a definitely right leaning site (more partisan than 538), and their predictions line up very much like Nate.
"One of these days"? How many we got left, again?
Palin can never win in 2012.
I know very few McCain supporters. One of them likes Palin because she's a woman. She used to like Clinton for being a woman too.
I told her Palin was picked for being a woman. She said what about all the men being picked for being men.
That's one argument for a woman candidate... but not Palin.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but the words, opinions, and rantings about me by blog-dwelling liberal scum will never hurt me and aren't even worth the steam from a fresh dog turd in the frost on a cold winter morning.
mulef*cker has himself in quite a lather today. I wonder why.
@mitewo
I would prefer not to have religion run my government. Bigot!
I guess all the control-freaks want to ban gay marriage so they dont have to leave their own spouses in search of a same-sex partner.
The ads I've seen seem to stress that kids in second grade could be taught a man can marry a man. If it's true, what's wrong with that? Do they think simply learning young that same sex parnerships exist will turn their kids gay? Or would that knowledge simply make their kids more accepting of a broader range of the human condition so they dont grow up automatically hating another whole group of people as their parents do?
Of course most zealots think homosexuality is a choice. I wonder at what age they decided which way to lean?
Jesse Radin, they already have civil unions, that's why the judge was called on to look at the word "marriage" specifically. The obvious rightness of his decision can be seen by comparing the wording "marriage" and "interracial union" for another sort of couple that used to be illegal. Separate is never equal.
I'm sure I missed all the discussion regarding the battle ground polls on the last thread but holy cow are those Ohio polls for real? Did both the pollsters seriously get something wrong?
"The only reason for Nate to stray from the mainstream races and delve into this arena is that he is homosexual.
I'm not surprised he's a faggot."
C'mon, don't get our hopes up like that. We're used to the hot ones being straight.
Man, I hope this proposition fails miserably. Or at least just plain fails. Marriage should be about love, period. not about procreation, because then you should say elderly couples and infertile couples can't get married either. Would that be fair? No, it wouldn't. Not to mention, love isn't just a heterosexual idea. Gay people love too. Love isn't just about making more babies to overpopulate the world. Nor is marriage.
And really, by bringing religion into this, then they may as well ban atheists and agnostics from being married, or prevent inter-religious marriages. I mean, hi, did anyone forget that interracial marriages used to be illegal? Outlawing those is as stupid as outlawing same-sex marriages.
Nate- Any thoughts on Florida's Amendment 2? I live in Tallahassee, and one of the problems here is that a core Obama GOTV target(black churches) will kill us(and by us I don't mean the Obama campaign, but like the forces of justice and right) on Amendment 2. The ACLU told me they have polling showing the bill running at ~55/45(60% required to pass), but the person I talked wasn't able to go into detail with their information.
Let them have civil unions. Two partners of the same sex is not the same as partners of the opposite sex. It shouldn't be defined as marriage but they should legally be able to abide together and such.
It is separate and shouldn't be treated as equal to a man/woman marriage.
Mule Rider is a perfect example of why abortion needs to be kept legal. Hey, mule, get back to work, the fries need to be cooked and there's an order for 2 Big Macs! ha ha ha ha ha
as a faggot myself, i ask those of you who support equal rights to donate to stop the marriage ban.
and if nate is a "faggot", as the mule suggested, then i'd totally do him. if i weren't taken, of course. ;)
Mule Rider-
What the hell is wrong with you? Please say that was a sock puppet. I know you have some weird thing going where you are "jealous" of Nate (which I suspect is a put on, but the "F" word is beyond offensive, and I do not mean "fuck". Would you use the "N" word too?
My take on this is pretty simple. I'm originally from Oregon, which has by far more voter-originated initiatives than any other state in the country. The threshold for putting an initiative on the state's ballot is extremely low: something like 5% of the state's population (180,000 people or so)
The simple rule of thumb for any polling on any voter initiative is that the "Yes" side has to clear 50% because any undecideds on election day break nearly unanimously to the "No" side.
It's possible that this rule is bogus, but it's the one I've always heard kicked around.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is brilliant that the graph for polling results on the Gay Marriage issue is in the shape of the christian fish symbol? A sign from god? karmic comedy?
Oh and mule, clean up the men's room, there's a smoking turd in it that needs to be taken care of.
I'll never understand why people can't realize the difference between religious marriage and social marriage. If a religion wants to ban gay marriage, more power to them. But to vote to limit these peoples' civil rights just because your religion disagrees with them is sickening. I can't see a difference between supporting that and supporting segregation.
Personally, I think marriage should not have any social status. It's not an area where the government should be involved. There are way to many areas where government recognized marriage has been imbedded into our laws that such a proposal would be impossible now though.
mule can't clean the bathroom. he's too busy cruising in it.
"Nate was never even close to objective. He hasn't "gotten it right" with statistics. He just happened to have an open-ended bias for the candidate who was lucky and charismatic enough to run against the most unpopular administration in our lifetime.
He bleeds liberal blue and always will. If this were 1980, he'd be predicting a Carter victory with a 95% win share and 350 EV's.
He'll be shown for the clown and hack he is when the tide turns one of these days...if he hasn't already turned into a big pussy and abandoned political analysis."
I take it you don't remember that, at the beginning of September, this site had Obama losing well over half the time.
Someone who is a-skeered of the gays said:
"This proposition is very important.
In areas of the world where gay Marriage has been enacted, marriage rates are lower than the US (say Finland or Canada).
"If prop 8 fails, it marriage will fade from society because no one will take it seriously.
Marriage should be a religious bond for both procreation and love. Gay marriage lacks the same meaning to most people.
Please go to wehatisprop8.com and study this for yourself."
___________________________________
You can't even get the link right. Sweet. It is great when the opposition is incompetent. Now I am going to find some 5th grader and tell them all about felching, because that is what Prop 8 is really all about if you listen to the Yes on 8 commercials.
By the way, since 8 is a consdtitutional amendment, doesn't it need 2/3 to pass?
A few points:
a) The Vote No on 8 people have been coming out with much better ads. I believe the Yes on 8 made the big mistake of lying to Californians. Voters tend not to be told obvious lies that are easily refuted as such.
b) Re Civil Unions versus Marriage
I know a sizeable majority is more for unions than marriage, but I don't think people fully understand that this really is separate, but unequal in terms of legal rights. The fact is unions would be a new institution unrecognized internationally, nationally or in an interstate sense. Companies would have a problem conforming their policies to it.
I am trained as a lawyer, and I am familar with legal history. The reality is that each time you bring a new class into the mix, like civil unions, it's a complicated and messy procress (including cost) to integrate the new class into existing law.
But, if you have a legal concept of marriage, and you simply include gays in that existing classification, then there isn't a need for all of the messiness.
Let met give you a practical example- we have a clear understanding of how to handle divorce with marriage because it has been around forever for most states, but what would that look like with a civil union? We have a clear understanding of benefits to spouses with companies in the private sector, but would there be any differences with couples engaged in civil unions? Would we have to change corporate policies with all the asscociated meetings, discussions,e tc.
Civil Unions maybe a step, but it's not the full thing due to the associated problems.
@ Ryan,
You beat me to the punch with the Jesus Fish line. Regardless of how this ends up, I'll definitely be saying the quote, "You stole my Jesus Fish!"
Obama, McCain neck-and-neck for rural vote: poll
Link
"Let's don't beat around the bush here you faggots. If it's fair for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to get married, then let's have a man and three women or any other combination with 3 or more people be allowed."
Hey, that's their own business. If they're all consenting, they're all happy, and they all love each other and treat each other well, why not? You didn't write the rulebook on love, kiddo. You might want to take notice of that fact.
Also, nice way to try and make us see your side by calling us "faggots". That's really going to endear us to your opinion, that sort of condescending attitude and name-calling. Works every time, yup yup.
Hey, folks, we are reaping what we sow here:
Q: Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
So there you go. And all of his supporters in CA heard this, and they are still voting for him.
If this ballot initiative goes through, it may not be the end of the world. Instead it may simply be the beginning of a constitutional legal argument. Now on THAT aspect, I think Obama will be more than supportive of saying it's unconstitutional.
Shit mule, your arguments are soooo persuasive, I think I WILL vote yes to prop8. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
I know 4 couples the recently married... 3 happen to be gay.
In all cases they report a beautiful feeling of joy and connection to their partners and life in general. It has been so good for them thus far.
Most divorces take place in poorer red states. Places that boast high morality and religiousness.
Finacial stress is cited as the number one reason for a marriage disolving. And the economies of the red states is typically worse than the blue. Republican polices have made it worse for these folks and so in essence have RUINED NOT REVERED "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage"
Think - For all his bluster about Joe the Plumber and the red state Republicans who have taken him up as their latest cause, what has McCain's party done for all the Joes and Janes for the last eight years? Where the hell have they been and why, if they love him so much, is he and other workers like him is such dire straights that even NEEDS TO BE a cause at this time?? If he was doing well they wouldn't have to hold him up as a symbol...
Every metric shows middle class wages stagnant or declining while those at the top get the wealth "spread" all over them by polices that favor wealth accretion (investors) over wage acceleration (workers).
Here's the take away - For eight years they neglect Joe (yes they fuck him in his plumbers crack) and then with four weeks to go in a failing campaign he is suddenly trotted out for their convenience and salvation. Sick.
These are the evil doers. This is the modern Republican Party. Cynical and power-drunk. Disgusting to behold - so much so that the honest amoung them are running for the exits.
This to paraphrase Cheney "is the death throes of a dying regime."
And the death of a philosophy that has us at the brink of ruin in our domestic economy and our international standing and clout.
mule rider, for once I'd agree with you. The government shouldn't be in a position to legislate marriage laws at all. It's a clear violation of the separation of church and state. I'd draw the line at age of consent laws. While religion might play a part in setting our social attitude on what the right age is, it's not purely based on religious dogma.
rasmussen:
38% Fear Crisis Early in Obama’s Presidency
isn't this a biased question ?
how about asking
do you fear a crisis early in McCain's Presidency?
or just
do you fear a crisis early in the next Presidency ?
just 30 min ago the same window was up on the site and had 58 instead of 38. Then they took away those who only "somewhat" feared.
Anyone else noticed it, or am I having hallucinations ?
"as a faggot myself, i ask those of you who support equal rights to donate to stop the marriage ban."
___________________________________
Already have and I am phone banking this Sunday.
But I agree, the whole argument is completely ridiculous. Ellen said it best yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/ellen-degeneres-slams-sar_n_136928.html
"i'm waiting for you to bring out the ridiculous bestiality argument. come on, i know you want to."
Now, now, ridiculous? You know perfectly well that dogs, birds, snakes, cats, and what-have-you (mules, perhaps, for our riding friend) can understand marriage contracts and pre-nuptials and vows! They're legal whizzes!
any more polls coming out ?
Now don't be so hard on Mule Rider (mmm...insert your own "rider" joke here). He's just hoping to fend off his inevitable, precipitous and permanent decent into irrelevance some twelve days hence (to the extent said decent has not already begun).
mitewo said:
Marriage should be a religious bond for both procreation and love. Gay marriage lacks the same meaning to most people.
This is SUCH a straw man argument! "Procreation" is completely different from marriage!
Mitewo, do you believe that an infertile person, such as a woman who had a hysterectomy ofter cancer, should be banned from marrying? Apparently you DO, because you seem to believe that only those able to procreate deserve marriage.
And what about Senior citizens? Should my widoed father and his also-widoed second wife not have been allowed to marry in their 70s and find happniess wiith each other? After all, they certainly aren't going to procreate at their age!
Unless you are willing to write something into marriage that bans marriage for ANYONE who isn't going to procreate (and how many years would you allow post-marriage before requiring them to start popping out the babies?), then your argument that marriage is for procreation holds NO water. There is zero difference in a gay couple and a senior couple, in that regard...yet society obviously supports the right for the latter to marry.
Mule says "If it's fair for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to get married, then let's have a man and three women or any other combination with 3 or more people be allowed", and for once he's right. Too many gay-marriage people have been throwing multiple marriages under the bus. Politics, yeah. So lets lock this one down and move on!
RE CHURCH AND STATE
marriage isn't a religious entity. It's a legal one. The legal state of marriage predates, as I remember, the religious one. Marriage was originally created as a method to address the disposition of property (and by property I mean women). That's the reality. I amazed that people can find this site, and not basic history. I am probably wrong on some details, but the thrust of my point- marriage as property law is correct. It's one of the first things any good law school teaches you in the historical lead up to modern property law. This is why I am often annoyed at conservative lawyers- they know this history, but conveniently ignore it in favor of idealogical arguments.
"If queers are given equal protection under any marriage laws, then I want to see it go full board beyond that.
I want multiple partners (i.e. 3 or more) to have equal protection. I want the restrictions loosened on the minimum age of consent. Anything goes. It's only fair if you're to truly have legal protection under the law.
Let's don't beat around the bush here you faggots. If it's fair for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to get married, then let's have a man and three women or any other combination with 3 or more people be allowed."
__________________________________________
Why not? What consenting adults do is none of my business.
Furthermore, the state banning a practice that several world religions condone that does not actually hurt anyone, is against the establishment clause, in my opinion.
paraphrasing reelgeist's argument:
"It would be a lot of work and people might actually have to think about the legal ramifications of having a class of unions - same-sex - that is recognized but different from the classical sense of marriage. Thus, let's just say 'fuck it' and call it all the same. Because, really, when you think about it, a man/man or woman/woman relationship is in no ways different, AT ALL, from a man/woman relationship."
Mule Rider, you are outed! You are clothe shopper robocaller extraordinaire Jeff Larson, aren't you?
mulerider: You are an idiot (and not of the savant variety). You demonstrate classic repressive acting out (i.e., unaccepting of your own attraction to men, you fixate on those who don't have a problem accepting themselves). And, if one prefers to descend into the gutter, a straightforward deconstruction of your ID reveals that you like to have sex with inter-species organisms. I suppose your God would prefer that to love between equals. WWJD?
Hey mule - I make $8.25 an hour NOT 7$ and I HAVE my GED. And it's crack, not pot. Get it right.
Studies have shown that African-Americans are the segment of society MOST against lesbian and gay marriage equality. So, ironically, as Obama drives up African-American turnout in California, he's also helping fuel Proposition 8.
Also, the Mormon church is heavily funding the Prop 8 movement.
D'oh! You ALL beat me on the Jesus fish! Fantastic irony, that Jesus fish...
Another CA No vote here.
I think the idea that some people vote No if not sure is probably valid. Especially during big elections when you have many less engaged voters. Also, there are a lot of ballot measures this year and the ones that come before 8 are largely big money spenders.
That said, we live in a slightly conservative suburb of the Bay Area (too close to Berkeley to be considered the Real America). I think that even around here it's a toss up. There will be more support for 8 in other parts of the state.
Interestingly, I think a friend of mine voted "YES I want gay marriage" on their mail in ballot, so I agree there is confusion over the proposition.
Personally I remain optimistic that, even if it passes, this one gets hung up in court and never actually affects the state constitution.
@jen - awesome. i don't live in CA, but my friend is working for the "no on prop 8" campaign and has been dismayed at the lack of interest among gay men in getting involved. he said lesbians and straight people are more enthusiastic than gay men, so i hope more people will get off their asses as we get down to the wire. it just speaks to the inherent problems in the predominant gay male subculture.
"Obama, McCain neck-and-neck for rural vote: poll"
____________________________________
But those are the Real Americans! Whatever is a panderer and his demagogue to do?
SUSA polls coming out ?
"If queers are given equal protection under any marriage laws, then I want to see it go full board beyond that...
I want the restrictions loosened on the minimum age of consent"
It would seem that someone with even a basic grasp of logic and the law would see the difference between allowing two adults to marry, and allowing children to be married. Of course, Mule Rider regular shows that he has a grasp of neither.
I just want to thank Nate for posting about the Prop 8 polls... and I guess I can see why, from the comments above, he hasn't been posting about it as much as some of us would have liked.
Thanks, Nate. Sorry the haters are hating.
mule - what makes you so angry? it's strange. and if this site gets you so incensed, why do you insist on sticking around?
oh wait i already figured out the answer to the latter.
i find it amusing that liberals get called the "angry left". it seems to me most of the negativity is on the other side.
RWD, I agree with you, but it's "post hoc ergo propter hoc" not "post hoc ergo proctor hoc".
On the bright side, CA already has a fairly robust domestic partnership law, which allows same-sex couples to enter into unions that provide almost all the benefits of marriage.
While I'd like to see same-sex marriage legalized (and I've already voted against Prop. 8), its passage would not affect the domestic partnership system, and thus wouldn't be a total calamity.
Survey USA doesn't have a good reputation on these issues according to Kos and others regarding proposition efforts
Has anyone else seen the pop up ad that looks like an Obama/Biden ad (logo and blue background) but is really a McCain/Palin ad? On this site. I am curious about the legality of using others artwork/logos. Any comments?
i was talking about state polls
oops, christopher, guess the high school latin is rusty after 20+ years.
sorry off topic, but they caught the tire slashers ...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/23/10356/541/78/639633
(and the local sheriff said something to the effect of, don't worry about us taking care of this - we're obama supporters around here)
an excellent overview of why we like obama -- very well done and .... well ... comforting ...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/23/995/69110/98/639589
Christoper and RWD:
I think-what with the subject matter-that the "proct"or was just a Freudian slip! ;)
I thought you were referring to the state polling regarding propositions.
People should also be aware that nearly $53 million dollars has been raised on both sides to promote and oppose this measure, in total.
On the YES side, nearly 70% of their 27 million has come from 60,000 individual Mormon donors (See CaliforniansAgainstHate.com). The Mormon church has basically instructed their members to "do all you can" to support Proposition 8. One religion is attempting to buy a constitutional amendment to the California founding document to enact their religious viewpoint on marriage and, in doing so, strip a minority group of a recently bestowed fundamental right. It is wrong and unfair to vote to eliminate the fundamental rights of any group. The Mormons should know better with their history of refusing to allow Black people as full members of their Church until 1982(!) and the history of discrimination against their religious beliefs by the majority.
As a Black gay man who married his partner on 08/08/08 and who is voting for Obama, I believe that Black people who turn out to elect the first Black President, will follow his lead and also vote NO ON PROP 8 and will refuse to single out a group of people by writing discrimination into the state constitution.
the language of the prop is pretty clear. thats required by the law of california. there was a time when people could fool voters, but if the voter reads the prop- they will know its to eliminate rights, not protect straight marriages.
Haha. Good one, sb.
one gay black guy to another -- congrats mad professah on your nuptials
Jen said...
What is wrong with you today? It is like you flipped the crazy switch.
If you disagree with gay marriage, then say so, but you do not need to use hate language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With the election just 12 days away, the reality of a Democratic/pro-American president is sinking in among the far, far, far right righties/anti-Americans.
I've been thinking for a while that the Obama/Blue wave may die out a bit when it hits the West Coast. Consider:
* The landslide we think/hope is coming will be seen early (Pacific Coast time), and will most likely have an effect on west coast races, including CA and Alaska.
* There isn't the same ground game or turnout org in CA (factcheck me, someone) which tends to support progressive causes together, although I recognize that this particular issue tends to break those normal coalitions
* Blacks do tend to support same-sex marriage bans higher than other races, which increases the likelihood of Obama support driving Prop 8 numbers up, absent a very unlikely statement of opposition from Obama
Gays in CA may be the one group, of all progressive groups/causes, that kinda get left in the cold this Nov. 4. I'm hoping and working that it doesn't happen (working with my local No on 8 group, donated money, talking to my friends and family), but I'm scared. I would hate to see such a great thing happen nationwide and see such a huge civil rights rollback locally.
Hopefully, the rumors of Feinstein's involvements are more than just rumors, and that ~$4 million fundraiser last weekend in Hollywood will start to do some good. As they always do, the Christianists lie about gay marriage and gays to the American people, and they're lying their way into constitutionally-enscribed bigotry as we speak.
I attended a wedding between two men in Spain, where same-sex marriage was signed into law two years ago. What I found interesting was that among the guests were many heterosexual couples with children who were not married, because they were opposed to marriage for ideological reasons (having to do with the Catholic church's role in Franco's regime, etc). What makes it possible for them to make this choice is that Spanish law provides health care for all, and parents and children are issued family documents that entitle them to family health care, regardless of marital status. So marriage is not the access for the some of the importnat legal protections and civil rights that is is in this country. Having said that, one couple did end up getting married because that would make it easier for them to travel and work abroad. The reason this particular couple got married was to celebrate affirm publicly to their families their love and commitment to each other after fifteen years of a committed relationship, as well as to have access to legal residency for one member of the couple who is a U.S. citizen.
If we offered all citizens basic health care as a matter of course, it would do more to support families that banning gay marriage!
If the difference between civil unions and marriage is not a LEGAL difference then there is no justification for government to be used to allow one and not the other. Obviously marriage has religious, social, and legal meanings. The only one government should be involved in is the legal aspects.
Atempting to legislate other people's relationships in a religious or social sense (as opposed to a legal sense) is indefensible.
I vote in California from abroad. I was not entitled to vote on the props, and am disappointed about that kind of disenfranchisement. Please fellow Californians DO NOT allow this form of religious and social bigotry to become law.
Watch these numbers. They could be pretty telling for statisticians to extrapolate data and guess what it all means. My sense is the African-American vote is not just inspired and enthusiastic, but very large. It might even be overwhelming in state like North Carolina and Georgia. Other states, where 1 or 2% matter, it could be the difference. The other thing is the enthusiasm gap is gigantic for all Obama voters vs McCain voters. Early voting tends to be about equal historically. This time it's closer to 2:1.
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html
Arkansas poll from the University of Arkansas:
M: 49
O: 36
This was based on 1,628 telephone surveys from 10/1-10/21. An unusually large date range, but still no overlap with the next most recent poll of AR.
I don't think these numbers are a surprise to anybody. But they are of some interest, since Nate's demographic model suggested the other week that AR might be tightening. This poll indicates that wasn't the case.
Link for the AR poll:
http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/13819.htm
Wait, so how does someone else getting married affect me personally again?
I wonder whether VCon is still supporting McCain - real joe, anyone else been over to forumcircle recently?
Real Joe: That AR report was to give you your fix. I hope that ties you over until the Ras numbers later today.
How cute - the Prop 8 graph above looks like a little Darwin fish.
There's hopefully a big No on 8 ground game
Rumor is Senator Feinstein is going to speak against it
a democratic senator
and a republican governor against it
That shold stop it.
In case there was ever any doubt, Mule Rider is NOT some Libertarian/third party/they all suck highbrow. He's just a social conservative after all and may be safely ignored.
What sick, twisted, disgusting views social conservatives have!! God bless your effort to keep that hateful and pathetic language out of the CA state constitution!
There is at least some anecdotal evidence that people are in fact confused about what a "yes" vote or a "no" vote would mean, with some folks pegging the amount of confusion at 10% of voters.
Apparently, the yes people are capitalizing on this, and when during phone banking they detect support for equality, they tell the person they called "Remember, voting yes means you are in favor of same-sex marriage."
Just as with their "What about the children?!" scare-tactic ads, the Yes on 8 campaign will lie, cheat and steal to make sure they win. Because they realize that if people know the truth, they will do the right thing and vote no to discrmination.
c'mon, guys, don't feed the troll!
Nate, anything to say about house effects in these polls? if you were to plot trend lines separately for surveyUSA and everyone else, the chart would look very different. i've read many sources say that the Field poll is widely respected; can you explain why?
i think what bothers me most is not the people who plan to vote yes on 8, but the ones who go out of their way to campaign for it--especially when i see a whole bunch of "yes on 8" lawn signs in a neighborhood. i get this sick feeling when i see that members of this vast majority are banding together and urging each other to help take away the rights of a minority group. and it's pretty sad that they're so willing to use their children as an excuse, i.e., "oh, i guess i could probably tolerate you guys having equal rights, but i just really don't want any children to know about it."
oh mule, don't be a troll today --
everyone - please stop responding to mulie
this topic has pushed him over the top
nate's just covering the news! so we don't need to get rabid about it
I repeat - please stop responding to hate stuff
Ignore the trolls.
Especially those that admit they are trolls and get their jollies off of trolling.
We are better than that.
I know it is hard. But...
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
"Mule Rider, you are outed! You are clothe shopper robocaller extraordinaire Jeff Larson, aren't you?"
Actually, Mule Rider is John McCain. He comes here to blow off steam, and he has a lot to blow off these days. As the election gets closer, we can expect that Senator "Mule Rider" will be back often.
Dr. Matt,
Dude. There is a PHYSIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE in analyzing three different types of "couples" - a man and woman, a man and man, and a woman and woman.
That is NOT an opinion and if we were debating this in front of a judge and or jury, you'd be laughed out of the room.
As I said, you can make a plain and clear argument that different "couples" of consenting adults should mean nothing in the context of the law and be treated the same in that manner, but it is COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS to suggest that a same-sex couple is EXACTLY THE SAME as a heterosexual couple.
You are a complete buffoon.
I'm a Californian, a Christian (mainline) and a Pastor. I've solemnized hundreds of weddings--some of which have been truly worshipful, many of which have been placeholder ceremonies on the way to a reception/bachanal. Of one thing I am convinced: it will never be in the power of our state or federal governments to define love...let alone ill-define it. I've always believed prop 8 was a lame excuse to bring republicans out to vote (garnering support of down ticket races in a lost-cause presidential state). The rest of this conversation should be left to your spiritual directors, pastors, or whoever Bill Maher would talk if he ever got tired of listening to himself. Otherwise, I like this site. :-)
mad proffesah:
Congrats.
Check - already done: no on 8. No on 4 too but yes on 2.
How about everybody that is disgusted by Mule Rider's sexism, racism, and homophobia donate $10 or more to the No on 8 Campaign right now.
Thank you so much for posting about this. This is a civil rights issue and deserves to be covered as such. My husband and I were married recently and no one should have the ability to deny us this right. To all the married people: imagine if a ballot initiative were passed denying your marriage. I have donated and volunteered with noonprop8 and encourage others to do the same, working to protect the rights of all people.
in case some people are unfamiliar with what a "troll" is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
it's a rather hard-to-understand phenomenon, but the bottom line is they're best ignored.
McCain has terse response on Palin shopping spree
i find it amusing that liberals get called the "angry left".
Usually that phrase is shouted by a doughy red-faced dude at about 10am, who then procedes to yell 'get a job!' to anything said back to him.
Bless their hearts, but social conservatives just aren't very intelligent.
le-sacre:
I have yet to see a "yes on 8" bumper sticker on a car other than a mini-van.
My mother will go out of her way to cut people with McCain or "yes on 8" bumper stickers. I just try to remember that they are misguided and probably being brainwashed by a mega church.
Mazza- I feel you. I have not yet filled out my absentee ballot (I am a PAV), but I will also be voting yes on 2, no on 4 and NO FREAKING WAY on 8. :)
Anyone notice that MR's original post using the "F" word (not the fun f word either) was deleted. I think they should have left it. Hate speech should not be hidden; it should be left open to the light of day for the ridicule it deserves.
Somebody's power-tripping today.
Your chart's backward. Take a look at the legend and then compare it your results.
michiganmaine said..
Michiganmaine - this means you - Don't feed the trolls!
That means, don't comment on their comments, don't comment about them, don't mention them .... they don't exist!
Don't even read - just skip past!
Go ahead and spend your $10. I'll save mine and buy groceries or do something else useful.
That way, I won't have to bitch and moan about how I'm being exploited and abused by people "richer" than me and that I don't have any money to take care of myself and the government needs to send me a freaking check to cover it all.
Suck a lemon, ass-clown.
Mule Rider takes ignorance, arrogance, and trivia, mixes well, and labels it 'intelligence'.
I hope you send $100. Hell, send $1,000. Put yourself in the poor-house getting Douchebama elected.
Then, when that clown bankrupts the federal government and there's rioting in the streets, I hope you're the first one shot or beaten to death by all the anarchy.
Boy, Mulie. No straw man is safe around you!
Blow it out your ass, fucktard.
There is an amazing amount of funding for "Yes on 8" coming into the state. There are people with signs on street corners every evening now. This is in red red Republican CA-50 in San Diego. And it definitely amped up right when the polls said the tide turned. I read on other sites this is the LDS church pumping money in from Utah.
It's just tragic and infuriating to see families out there. I wonder if they'll feel the same if their kids turn up gay or lesbian.
Yo Mule:
Calm. Go do some yoga or something. I hear it's a good way to meet women. Flexible women.
michiganmaine said...
"Actually, Mule Rider is John McCain."
Maybe The Googles got him here.
Conservative - A person who believes in your freedom to do exactly as your government tells you, except when it comes to money.
SIAP
"NRSC ad assumes Obama win"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_ad_assumes_Obama_win.html
Is that the "Jesus Fish" I see in the chart?
That old liberal may be sending a message...
Jesus told His disciples, "Love each other as I have loved you"
NO ON 8!
Bill P.
Whatever you say, hoss, whatever you say.
Reality DOES have a liberal bias. ALWAYS remember that.
Remember and live by these rules. Stay true to them, as they will see you through when nothing else can:
God does NOT exist.
America DOES suck and is at fault for EVERYTHING in the world right now.
Bush DID conspire to bring this country to its knees and is to blame for EVERY FAILED POLICY the last 8 years and should be blamed for EVERY FAILED POLICY the next 20.
Barack Obama WILL SAVE us.
We should ALL BE vegans.
Homosexuality is morally superior to heterosexuality.
Slavery reparations ARE NECESSARY to heal centuries-old racial wounds.
All rich people - ALL, I MEAN - exploit everybody who has less wealth than they do.
Does anyone else think that that graph looks like a Jesus Fish? Hehe. Maybe it's a sign.
blue in pa said...
SIAP
"NRSC ad assumes Obama win"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_ad_assumes_Obama_win.html
DAMN.
I live in Southern California and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the gay marriage ban passes. Remember, this state voted to have Kindergarten Cop be our governor -- Californian are clearly among the dumbest people in this, one of the dumbest nations on the face of the Earth.
And, no, I don't view this one as a matter of opinion. This is clear as day. If the Federal Government is going to legally recognize marriages of any stripe, than to deny gay marriages is clearly unconstitutional. There's just not much wiggle room here.
================================
"Oh, you want to marry Bob?"
"Yes, I do."
"Are you a man?"
"Yes."
"Then you may not marry Bob. Only a woman may marry Bob."
How in fuck is that NOT a case of gender discrimination?
=================================
Let's make the example about something else for clarity:
"Hi, I would like to be a teacher at your fine public school."
"Are you a woman?"
"Yes."
"I'm sorry, only a man may be a teacher in this public school district."
==================================
And the minorities who overwhelmingly vote with bigots and religious zealots can go fuck themselves, too. Nice how they are democratic and open-minded when it suits their needs. I have little to no respect for a group of people who should know full well the dangers of discrimination ---- VOTING FOR MORE DISCRIMINATION.
Perhaps if this passes, we can then move onto illegal immigrants not being allowed to marry. And blacks. No difference between that and the "gay" thing.
I'm pretty damn straight, but I would absolutely not ever presume my moral beliefs (whatever they may be) justify my telling others how to live their lives.
"In the United States, all men are created equal. Except Niggers and Native Americans and Women and Atheists and Immigrants and Faggots." Pretty much everyone else is cool, though we review and update the list often."
-- U.S. National Credo
Mule Rider -you lay out a good case for supporting Obama- with the resulting chaos, surely a guy with 'titanic balls' like yourself would naturally come out on top?
Mule Rider:
President Barack Obama.
Thank God for the end of your brand of sick, cynical, disgusting conservatism.
Joe, you nailed my thinking on the gay marriage issue. I see it as a gender equity issue plain and simple. That is why the "anything goes if we accept gay marriage" argument doesn't hold water.
I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but that polling data looks just like a Jesus fish. The shape that is - it is shaped like a big Jesus fish.
Bill P.
Your words are like hurling peas at a middle linebacker. Who gives a shit? Really? Does your mom even give a fuck about you? Probably not. You sick, twisted faggot-fuck.
Sit and spin on it, you shit-sucking, cum-guzzling queef.
I feel like this election could be a massive contradiction, a step forward in terms of equality in the presidency, and a step back for equality of the people
Since marriage is properly a religious rite (or sacrament, for some Christians), like baptisms and funerals, my opinion is:
civil unions for all (like birth and death certification)
marriages (and baptism/naming/memorial services/funeral masses) left up to the religious communities involved.
Until the U.S. gets on board with this idea, I support marriage equality.
(For the record, I am a Unitarian Universalist, and our denomination has been working for civil rights of all kinds and celebrating same sex unions for quite a while.) Vote to No on Prop 8, if you live in California.
Debunking the Bradley Effect, Again
Senate Projections: Democrats 59, Republicans 41
Massive Minnesota Polling Analysis
How the Base was Won
No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.
Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Look at Fiddler on the Roof, where the parents don’t fall in love officially for 25 years. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.
But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.
Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.
I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won’t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.
Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise–again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.
So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.
So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.
Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, not good.
MR:
Wow. You're really fucking crazy, aren't you?
prairiecomm: "Michiganmaine - this means you - Don't feed the trolls!
That means, don't comment on their comments, don't comment about them, don't mention them .... they don't exist!
Don't even read - just skip past!"
prairiecomm -- this means you. My point is not to respond, but to give to No on 8. You can ignore him and do that, or if you prefer just ignore him. You are commenting on him as much as me here.
bill p and mule rider: say 'sorry' to each other and shake hands.
Lost in the earlier discussion of the Big 10 poll:
The poll also included a nationally representative sample of 1,014 respondents, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. That survey shows Obama with a 9-point margin over McCain, 52 percent to 43 percent.
RCP seems to have excluded their national 9-point result, although Pollster.com got it.
This is AWESOME
http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=TFytyiFH0QUDGknjJxzsGjI5MTc1NTE-&referred_by=10926567-af.a5cx
Various subplots on Prop 8 from a gay Californian:
1) Civil unions might not be safe if Prop 8 passes - the way the CA SC made its ruling, it sounds that marriages were legal because civil unions were established as legal. So if marriage is only man = women, the next day the fundies will go to court and try to use Prop 8 to try to get civil unions made illegal
2) However, if it passes, it will be challenged - this is a bit complicated, but bear with me:
There is a provision in CA law that changing a fundemental right in the state constitution is a two step process: constitutional conventional first, then a popular vote. Anti-8 forces tried to get a SC ruling, but the court said, no, not now, come back to us if it passes, then we'll hear you.
3) If it passes, you bet we'll be back, and soon, and overturn this. But don't make us wait please.
4) It is unclear whether existing gay marriages will be ended. This will have to be litigated.
5) Ultimately, if it passes, and other states go along (as a few will), the next step has to be to strip Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage act of at least the provision that the federal government does not recognize the marriages. If other states still don't, well, over time we'll get that changed, but having marriage is a plus, but without federal recognition, it is only a small part of the battle.
"Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world."
I see that you are still clinging to your logical flaw.
Oh, another point behind the scenes. The huge Mormon money behind Prop 8 isn't really because they are homophobic (they are, but it's not the reason).
It's because their legal braintrust is petrified that gay marriage will ultimately lead to some court somewhere legalizing polygamy - and if that happens, the LDS church will face a huge internal crisis as forces from within try to go back to the original Joseph Smith/Brigham Young ideas. They are petrified of this.
McCain to America: Vote for me because the Republicans in congress will lose. Republicans in congress: vote for us because McCain's gonna lose!
Can we now talk about what kind of pie we will be making for election night?
Jo -- I would be absolutely fine with that...the main point being that *whatever the hell we call the legally recognized union of two people* absolutely should be not be limited based on race, religion, or gender. In other words: Agreed.
Another point: a woman at work tells me gays should not be allowed to marry because they can not procreate. I responded that under that argument, SHE should not be allowed to marry because she's already past menopause, and therefore can not procreate.
Let's join this woman and encourage a ban on marriage for all sterile men, frigid women, senior citizens, those who have had gender changes, and all women who have begun menopause!
Hijacking an unmoderated thread is kind of like stealing a car left abandoned on a desert road with the keys in it and the motor running, isn't it?
*pats MR on the head*
Good job, son.
bill p, assmole - don't comment - he doesn't exist - if you comment he won't go away
don't feed the trolls
argh
If a prohibition on gay marriage was ruled a violation of the equal protection clause of both the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution then this initiative will not necessarily ban gay marriage.
When the highest court in a state makes a ruling that can be supported independently by state law, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot consider the case on the federal issue. link For example, if the California supreme court said that prohibitions on gay marriage are unconstitutional under both the California and U.S. constitutions then a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue would not be granted. Changing the state constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage would negate the independent basis for the ruling in state law, making a U.S. Supreme Court ruling possible.
I am not familiar with the California Supreme Court decision, but I would assume that a decision based on equal protection would invoke the U.S. constitution as well as California's constitution. As such this would not actually ban gay marriage in California, but would make the issue eligible for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the U.S. Supreme Court grants cert and rules that the California ban does not violate equal protection then there would be a prohibition.
Again, I'm not familiar with the specifics here, but I'd guess that this is really a ploy to get the current incredibly conservative and factious Court to speak on equal protection for GLBT's. That decision, in turn, could limit the protections of GLBT individuals in many other areas.
Marriage should be a religious bond for both procreation and love.
Well, there goes my atheistic marriage. Want to make that illegal next?
Nate, thanks for the polling on Prop. 8. I was wondering how it was doing.
As a Californian, I make it a point to vote "no" on all initiatives (unless they are required by the state constitution, like the case of redistricting). Government by initiative is a complete failure.
Having said that, Prop. 8 is about denying civil rights to human beings. How is that any less of a sin than homosexuality (if you are of the belief it is sinful)? If your religion prescribes that you don't marry a person of the same sex, don't. But keep your religion out of my bedroom and my wedding album.
Well the PPIC poll has a LV sample of 1,186 compared to fewer than 700 from SurveyUSA. Also, the PPIC poll reads the actual ballot title and summary where as Survey USA uses their own summary. Lastly, their is the fact that SurveyUSA is a robocalling operation, while PPIC is not.
""On the YES side, nearly 70% of their 27 million has come from 60,000 individual Mormon donors""
I have an easy solution. Legalize polygamy then have a bunch of men and women marry, then they can just pair off as they wish beneath one large marriage umbrella. :)
I can't comprehend the low IQ it would take to get your jollies out of upsetting people. Disgusting, pathetic, and childish...typical conservative, in other words.
prairie, I think he's what's called a 'flamer' and that's not the same as a troll.
sfergus483--
Not true.
Polygamy is only allowed in the Mormon church when God says so. God stopped Polygamy, and he wouldn't start it just because people want leniency in love choices.
Before it was for bearing children and helping women, not for what it is now.
The church opposes this because it hurts marriage as I explained above.
hey real joe, do you have a link with mccains terse comment on the Palin shopping spree?
Hey mitewo, we have a much better marriage rate then Finland I suppose. Say, I wonder why that is.
In other words, what is **our divorce rate** in the United States?
It's over 50% if I'm not mistaken and actually a bit higher than average in the Bible Belt. Obviously, marriage and "family values" in this country were shot to hell long before this debate.
To summarize: to pin it on gays that Finnish straight people get married at a low rate is absolutely hilarious.
Please. Hit us up with a real, decent logical argument here. Not this slop.
Let's get this tread turned around. Big presidential campaign news! Governor Palin is going on Hannity again tonight to turn this thing around, explain why it's the fault of democrats and liberals that she needs $150,000 worth of clothing for a 2 month campaign, and that any criticism of her clothes budget is "class warfare". Suck on that you libs!
The graph has a Jeeezus fish, that's why it gonna fail. Cuz Jeeezus hates teh gay. He said so himself, didn't he? Oh wait that was Paul's Letter to the Romans. And also in Leviticus, sandwiched between the uncleanliness of woman, and prohibition of shellfish, cloth of mixed fibers and crop rotation. What was I thinking!?!? The fish means Jeezus luvs teh gay!!
Jen R said:
"Well, there goes my atheistic marriage. Want to make that illegal next?"
___________________________________
No, he/she wants to make the atheism part illegal. Believe, dammit!
Nate:
Thanks for posting about Prop 8. I'm a DC voter now but I grew up in California, and I'm very anxious to see what happens there.
By the way, I work for a politically neutral website and we get a *ton* of virulent comments by people who make assumptions about our political stance and want to tell us about what evil/stupid/misguided people we are. I think commenters just tend to be unusually angry people. But whatever, your site is great and I think you guys are doing an amazing job. So thanks for everything you do.
Gay marriage is a "when" question, not an "if" question. The bigotry overwhelmingly resides in the older generation. For kids today (and tomorrow's voters), whether someone is gay is about as interesting as whether they are left handed. As these generations come of age and the older ones die, the lack of acceptance will go the way of racial segregation.
I'd like to point out on the "marriage is religious" front, that there are quite a few religious groups that perform same-sex commitment ceremonies and would happily perform same-sex marriages.
The UU's perform same-sex blessings. There's controversy about it among Episcopalians. The United Church of Christ backs same-sex marriage...the UCC being the same denomination that Barack Obama is a member of, I do believe.
It's important for people to realize that the "marriage = religious ritual" argument is really about a few religious groups trying to enforce THEIR definition of marriage on everyone else, including other religions.
Obama up by a point in rural areas of swing states.
Work hard, because we need that landslide. Conservatism is about to be repudiated in a big way!!
(Leaving the troll to stew under the Bridge to Nowhere...)
After Gay Marriage started in Massachusetts, there was an outcry to be sure. But we haven't fallen into the ocean or turned into a hive of scum and villainy yet!
Anyway, my argument back then has not changed and probably will not:
To those who say Marriage is a Sacred Thing, I wholeheartedly agree! I also say "Fine. Here's what we'll do".
All documentation filed with the state to recognize your union with your partner is now under the banner of a Civil Union. Straight couple, Gay couple... Civil Union. You already have to fill out a marriage license, so we just need to change the title on it.
So, going forward, when you get married, your holy person of choice, or Justice of the Peace signs the license, just like they do now.
If you are a same sex couple, and have the ceremony at a religious institution that supports marriage between a same sex couple, you're married in that church's eyes. If not, well, that's between you and (Insert Supreme Being Here).
All couples who have filled out a Civil Union form, will receive the same benefits, straight or gay.
All couples who had a religious ceremony in a place of worship can be at peace that their marriage has the sanctity that they want it to have.
The religious right will have their holy matrimony without stepping on someone's rights.
Gay couples will have the rights that straight married folks like us take for granted, without feeling "separate but equal".
The government will not be denying rights. The sanctity of marriage will be preserved. Church and state will be neighbors, not bedfellows.
Chocolate will still be in peanut butter, and peanut butter in chocolate, because Reese's Cups are good.
Then we'll all have ice cream.
Jen R--
My statement above should clarify my earlier statement.
Mule Rider gave me a laugh today.
To be honest, I'm surprised he has time to do this. Shouldn't you be enjoying your massive 55K/yr salary? Don't you have karate class today, son? I'm just thrilled that he fit 538.com in to his busy day, what with all his high-living and all the fights he has to attend with guys he threatens over the internet. Of course, Muley's a karate and taekwondo master, so I'm sure he will win each and every one of them and then go back to the palatial mansion he bought with his huge salary.
MR is incredibly amusing.
Nate,
Is there any chance you'd be willing to share your opinions on the rest of California's propositions on our ballots this election?
Bill Maher put it best:
We all know that, as John McCain and Sarah Palin believe, marriage is a sacred institution that should only be allowed between two unwilling teenagers.
So I open up the mail today and there's a pamphlet in there from Pueblo, Colorado. And it's entitled "Do you know what the queers are doing to our soil?"
Now, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example.
Look at the soil around Des Moines. You can't build on it, you can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming.
But I know what's really going on. I know it's the queers.
There has been speculation here in CA that the Yes on 8 folks ad focusing on the famous Gavin Newsome line: “It’s inevitable, this door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not” may have partially caused a swing toward prop. 8 passing.
Here is a clip with that line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms0hugRkgv8
The Mormon church is the leading contributor to the Yes on 8 campaign. It's going to be a battle... it would seem the vast majority of voters voting for Obama would vote against Prop. 8... but who knows.
Or how about question 2 in Mass? I haven't seen jack on it...Has anyone seen polling on it?
(linky.
For those of you making the argument that because Barack Obama and Joe Biden are opposed to "gay marriage", I urge you to consider the alternative -- Sarah Palin -- who thinks there should be a US Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Here's a case in point. Many pro-lifers are for Obama even though he would never try to overturn Roe V. Wade - Why? Because they believe that though abortion is wrong, he wants to reduce the number of abortions through improving options to alternatives and improving quality of life among the poor and lower middle class.
Ultimately, since it appears the need is there, our US Constitution should be amended to include the right for all to marry -- it shouldn't be a states rights issue, because the right to marry is one of our most basic fundamental rights, and we need to keep pushing until its recognized as such.
It's probably best he doesn't, Falowyn.
So when is it that the presidential polls are supposed to tighten? They haven't moved gfor like a month, except for noise, and if anything the numbers are heading in Obama's direction again. We all say its going to get closer, but I wonder if it will.
And am I alone in not really being bothered either way about this whole gay marriage thing? Just can't get excited about it.
Ted Striker-
Is your screen name an homage to "Airplane!"
Ummm .. is that a joke that the graph looks like the Jesus fish? It's certainly ironic.
this is going to be some landslide; found this article:
Racists for Obama
New polling and a trickle of stories from the battleground states suggest that Sen. Barack Obama's coalition includes one unlikely group: white voters with negative views of African-Americans
here's the link
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14691.html
McCain Buys His Own Clothes
The Arizonan doesn't have much to say to reporters about the RNC's purchasing some of Palin's clothes -- except that they don't do the same for him.
Marriage = privilege
Not a right. Sorry.
Post a Comment