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
"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."
Finland has one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. Most people who live there speak Finnish. Maybe you should campaign for banning Finnish. Wouldn't that stop this low birth rate?
@Jen
Yes, I was debating between this one or Roger Murdock, Rex Kramer, et al.
One of the best movies of all time. :)
Falown, was there anything behind that question? Seriously. Are you implying that since he chose that issue, he should have an opinion on every other issue that appears on the ballot in the spirit of fairness?
Some things are worth more mention than others. Prop 8 passing could implications on how this issue is handled nationally for a long time.
There are plenty of sites dedicated to the discussion of Calfornia ballot issues. The fact that Nate mentioned that particular one, doesn't mean he needs to give equal time to them all.
I think you're on to something, michiganmaine.
Hungary has an extremely low marriage rate as well.
PROTECT THE FAMILY! BAN FINNO-UGRIC LANGUAGES!
thanks real joe
Joe,
There is a high divorce rate in Finland too (40-50%). Sorry, high divorce is not the reason marriage rates are higher here.
We value marriage more here, because marriage is a bond. They don't value it as much. They used to, but it's faded.
It is already becoming less important to be married here. I am trying to prevent radical change on the basis of "equal rights."
"I hire people like you to wipe my ass."
I expect the episode of "Dirty Jobs" to air on Discovery any day now.
Personally, I would be a little uncomfotable if someone else was wiping my butt. It is a private moment between my butt and the toilet paper.
Mule, can you really hire someone to wipe your ass at the pittance you call a salary?
One of the best movies of all time. :)
___________________________________
Agreed! Even after nearly 30 years, it still cracks me up.
Fine mule rider - expand upon your view that it's a privilege. Privileges are usually earned what did you do to earn the privilege of marriage, that I didn't. Nothing. You can't earn it! Try again.
"Marriage = privilege
Not a right. Sorry."
Sure, sure! We'll just need to cut the WORD out of our laws and make everyone have Civil Unions...which ARE a right. Then you can make your religious requirements for your religious ceremony be "Man and woman only" if you want. But step back, because other churches exist who DO recognize it, and will use the word marriage.
And the rights of the same sex couples will be the same in the state whether they go to a church or not :) Oh Happy Day!
Surely you don't think a church is required for marriage to be valid do you? I know some athiests who might be kind of sad :( They're nice people! They are even heterosexual and have kids! Please don't hate them :(
Yes, Danny, I have nothing at all. No money. I make it all up. My salary is low and I never can go on vacations or have a nice home or drive nice vehicles.
You got me. My life sucks.
*snicker*
Marriage is between a man & a women
off topic:
Using the 2004 NC election results and NC early voting stats here:
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html
I have done some calculations.
In 2004 early voting represented 21% of the R vote and 35% of the D vote.
In other words, the final 2004 tallies were:
(registered R early voters)*4.8=total R
(registered D early voters)*2.9=total D
The higher R multiplier is taking into account that many registered dems vote repub for president, as well as early vote %.
Applying these same ratios to the 2008 early voting numbers so far projects the final result as 49% D and 40% R.
This assumes a lot, but looks good for Dems!
yea!
Ah! So Mulie is a cranky old coot who lives in a nursing home, thus the need for constant ass-wiping. Now it all makes sense!
Reality has a liberal bias.
mitweo, please address the glaring logical flaw in your finland argument. do you have any actual evidence of causation? do you even understand why your argument is flawed?
is finland the only country in the world that allows gay marriage? or the only one that allows you to use your flawed argument?
My wife and I have already voted no on Prop 8 via absentee ballot.
It's very upsetting to watch these yes on 8 commercials: instead of saying, gay marriage is wrong which is what they believe, they're showing a couple in Mass upset about gay marriage taught to their children...when did Mass=CA? And they are really big on this "you won't have a choice bullshit...you can't prevent your kids from learning about it!"
I tried to sign up to phonebank for "no". I would be a "no" partisan anyway, but this is very personal for me: my two nieces love their two mothers, and I love to be able to say "sister-in-law". But they don't give you a phonebank list unless they can call you, and I live in Guatemala - I think they might suspect I am a scammer trying to hit them with some fishy long-distance charges. So I have to sit here impotently, writing letters to the editor which never get published (and I really can't afford money on this issue). Please, anyone who reads this (CA or non-CA): if you care about "the sancticity of marriage" and "for the kids", PLEASE PHONEBANK FOR NO ON 8. DO IT FOR MY NIECES. (My sister started a preschool and has a waitlist of 80 kids or so - she is probably the most qualified parent I know.)
http://www.noonprop8.com/action/phone-bank
Huh. While everything I say is obviously golden *snicker*, I've noticed that the garbage bin icon is no longer there. Are our posts now preserved for posterity without ability to delete?
And I am simply using Finland as an example.
We are also fighting this because we don't want the rights of individuals to worship how we please infringed on. California's Supreme Court just said that doctors are legally required to inseminate lesbians as well as normal couples. so this ends up conflicting with personal freedom of religion.
"normal" couples.
Heh.
Jeff NYC Dem,
Nope, you're wrong. Just like it is a privilege to be able to drive. It's not a right.
What did you do to "earn" the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on government-funded highways? Have at least 20/40 vision and pass a piss-ant test or two?
Sorry, try again.
It's not all that different with marriage. The government decides who to give the "privilege" to...the government is controlled by the people...if the "people" do not think it is a privilege that society needs to have - i.e. same-sex unions - then they can decide.
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Remember?
Watching the end of Obama's (massive) outdoor Indianapolis rally - I've never seen so many Secret Service agents surround a candidate (easier to tell since they are all in suits wearing sunglasses). I can easily spot 15 in a medium shot of about 100 supporters, darting their heads around constantly.
Nice that these guys are going to get a couple days off.
"And I am simply using Finland as an example."
Agreed. And picking one example, while ignoring other examples that may go counter to your argument, is yet another well-known logical flaw.
Perhaps it is time to admit there is no logical reason to ban gay marriage. It is based purely on religious objections.
Marriage is between a man & a 'women'? Freudian slip there, Real Joe?
Sorry Real Joe, marriage in the eyes of your god may be between a man and a woman. The government, according to the establishment clause in the constitution should have no right to impose the religious definition on a government institution.
And anyhow, if you believe this man and woman crap then you should expand it to what it means today: "Marriage is between a man and a woman, no matter how little or how much love exists between them, no matter what their rationale or their motive. Marriage is between a man and a woman, even if its because a man is forced to marry his woman because he knocked her up, or because she'll get him legal residence in this country. Marraige is between any man and any woman, even if the man is 80 and the woman is 20 and is only marrying him because she hopes he dies and leaves all his money to her!"
Now, Real Joe, if you're still reading, even in the most religious sense. Where is a loveless marriage motivated by factors having nothing to do with a spiritual union between two loving people more sacred than two people who TRULY LOVE EACHOTHER and want nothing more than the right to live as every other citizen does, with the same fundamental rights?
Wow, I'm quite shocked at all the hate people have gotten for being for Prop 8. I am in favor of civil unions and equal rights for all US citizens but firmly believe marriage IS different and shouldn't be re-defined. Anyone who feels this way is automatically assumed to be an idiot/Southern/intolerant yet this is the same position as Obama and Biden and they aren't receiving the same amount of hate.
Mule Rider -- driving a car and marrying are not even close to the same thing.
Also - what ever happened to "certain inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Try again.
mule rider said...
Marriage is between a man & a 'women'? Freudian slip there, Real Joe?
no that's what i believe
mitewo said...
"And I am simply using Finland as an example."
But because of your flawed logic (or rather lack of logic) your example does not prove what you think it proves. Show us the causation. Time to put up or shut up.
Soe Real Joe is a mormon and mule rider is an arse? See how much we've leaned today?
new polls ?
Jeff NYC Dem,
Nobody is saying they can't be together and have rights.
It's just NOT a marriage. There's a difference in the argument, and you are using an ample supply of straw men to make your case.
..."What about 80 and 20 year old men and women?" "What about a loveless heterosexual couple?" What about...?"
What about them? It's a man. It's a woman. It's a marriage.
It's a man. It's a man. It's a union.
It's a woman. It's a woman. It's a union.
It's that simple.
Shaka -- it's not hate, it's just a fundamental belief that a selective religious definition of a word should not be the basis of laws that seek to provide the exact same breadth legal protection to all legal couples. If it's not illegal to be gay, it should not be illegal to marry your partner.
markymark said...
Soe Real Joe is a mormon
LOL
i'm not a mormon
So what I'm curious about is why African-Americans are so homophobic. Is it because AA males are expected to be more aggressive and macho by their subculture and the overall US culture and believe that homosexuals are a threat to their masculinity?
Here is mitewo's argument in song form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Mule rider -- see my comment to Shaka. You have to get off this idea that the religious definition of marriage should have any bearing on how the state defines it for purpose of law.
Incidentally, mule your argument about marriage being a 'privilege' makes no sense what so ever. See I would probably vote no in California, if I could, just because the anti gay marriage crew had wound me up so much.
new thread
rwd,
fair enough. I would argue that social policies lead to outcomes. These are, of course, more than Gay marriage. Economic, social, and religious believes of the nation/state all play a role. You would of course, agree with this, as well as add a factor or two of your own.
California is financially very liberal (but less than Finland, unless I am horribly wrong), so if they keep moving left, we cannot make a financial argument as to why it is different. Religion fortunately still plays a role in daily life. I addressed social roles earlier.
Now, people who are religious tend to support marriage. But with each new generation, the more they are taught in school and social structure that religion/marriage is not important.
I don't care if prop 8 legally mandates teaching gay marriages in schools, I know many teachers will mention it. Since most teachers will be supportive of it, (forgive me, most teachers are liberal) it will be supported.
So ultimately there will be more confusion about what marriage is because the prominent churches teach one thing and society teaches another. Thus, people will be less likely to get married, as they don't identify with its worth as much.
I live in Mass (the first state with gay marriage). It's ruined everything here. We also have a black governor. That too has ruined everything.
It this is how Mass has been ruined, I look forward to the rest of the country joining us.
It would be nice to have separation of Church and State. The government should only recognize Civil Unions. Each religion and community can recognize what it considers a marriage. Of course existing marriages could automatically be grandfathered in as Civil Unions.
Why is does a marriage license, a civil document, require an ordained minister or a judge? This brings the government into what is and isn't ordained.
The Civil Union should be recorded by a notary public. Ministers that want to continue to be a legal in addition to spiritual officiant can get a Notary license.
i don't think "yes" will win
hello its California !!
Don't worry real joe, was just a joke based on the typo mule pointed out.
(Not that there is anything wrong with mormonism, if thats how you choose to show your faith.)
Real Joe,
I was commenting on your use of "women" versus "woman." That's what caught my attention.
Jeff NYC Dem,
Yes, those inalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And the last I checked, nobody is stopping gay people from getting together and falling in love and living "happily ever after."
So the issue is over a few more rights, tax breaks, etc. Give it to them. But the will of the people shall not be denied. And the people do not want same-sex unions recognized the same way as heterosexual unions.
Saying you have "equal" rights but can't use the word "marriage" is not infringing on anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
Get a grip.
mysticlaker said...
I live in Mass (the first state with gay marriage). It's ruined everything here. We also have a black governor. That too has ruined everything.
It this is how Mass has been ruined, I look forward to the rest of the country joining us.
WOW
"Marriage = privilege
Not a right. Sorry."
It bestows rights which are exclusive to it, therefore making it a right itself. Sorry.
mysticlaker -- I hope you're being facetious. Your posts before have been very rational and agreeable.
mule rider said...
Real Joe,
I was commenting on your use of "women" versus "woman." That's what caught my attention.
LOL
TYPO
and if people think there are other factors that play a role in marriage rates, please give me a shot at addressing them.
The biggest threat to marriage is divorce, and how easy it is to obtain one (not that I oppose this).
Opposition to gay marriage is a red herring for homophobia - that is, the idea that somehow if gays can marry, then more people will "choose" to be gay.
Gay marriage, and the extent that it will make gay relationships more acceptable, is actually a help to straight marriage - it will ultimatelyly decrease the number of man/woman marriages in which on partner is actually a closeted gay.
Most instances of predatory behavior of men towards underage boys (which of course are a small % compared to the number of men toward girls) are committed by either men married to women, or men deeply closeted (like priests) who feel they cannot openly be open.
Gay marriage actually will strengthen marriage overall. It also will ultimately decrease the civil union matter (which in some states and many businesses extends to unmarried straight couples).
So please, stop trying to hide hate behind supporting traditional marriage. It won't fly once you understand facts, not bias.
@ Jeff.
Completely! Just a joke. Our state is doing great. We still have decent growth, and Gov Patrick is doing an excellent job. He has a rough first few months, but recovered really well!
Mule rider -- there was one time when the will of the people was to enslave people they felt were inferior to them by birth. The will of the people does not supercede the responsibility of the Government to implement laws that do not discriminate against classes of people. Churches have every right to discriminate against who they do or do not allow to marry within their church, the government, however, does not enjoy the same right. Legal rights and definitions are and should be completely separate from rights and definitions.
VOTE YES !!
SAVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
GOD BLESS YOU ALL
sfergus483,
um, people can choose whether or not to be faithful to marriage bonds. I would argue straight men cheating is a much bigger problem to marriage then what you described.
and I am out of here...I have a life.
(I may be back later)
-Mitewo
Texas Rasmussen:
McCain 54
Obama 44
I don't understand why people who want to "save the sanctity of marriage" support bills that imply the government can define what it is and isn't. Doesn't that make the precedent that marriage isn't sacred at all, but just some status defined and handed out by the law?
This whole issue confuses me.
Real Joe said...
VOTE YES !!
SAVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
GOD BLESS YOU ALL
Sorry dude - God has no place in our laws. Establishment clause and such. Read the constitution.
I mean really, if you wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage from government redefinition, the best way would be for the government to only give out civil unions, and stay out of the marriage business entirely. But that's never gonna happen.
Christopher -- that's at the heart of the whole thing. The "sanctity of marriage" is a spiritual proposition, which should exist between people and their faith.
The "right of marriage" should be sex-blind in the eyes of the state. And to that end - if people are so concerned about "marriage" being between a man and a woman, why not make all "marraiges" civil unions and allow the traditional definition of "marriage" to exist within the bounds of people's faith.
wow, christopher, we were on the same page on that one
Shaka -- it's not hate, it's just a fundamental belief that a selective religious definition of a word should not be the basis of laws that seek to provide the exact same breadth legal protection to all legal couples. If it's not illegal to be gay, it should not be illegal to marry your partner.
But a Civil Union is the exact same bredth legal protection as a marriage. And if it is not I DO disagree with that. All Americans regardless of straight or gay should have the same rights i.e. hospitals visits, insurance, etc... which is the basis of the legal battle. But I have to agree with mule rider(unfortunately), I have a personal objection to same sex marriage and don't agree with it. It's my right and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I like the earlier suggestion of the US treating all marriages from a legal standpoint as Civil Unions because when you involve marriage its quite different
AllState / National Journal
10/16-20/08
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Minnesota 402 RV, 4.9%
Obama 50, McCain 40
Pennsylvania 412 RV, 4.9%
McCain 41, Obama 51
Wisconsin 405 RV, 4.9%
Obama 53, McCain 40
Jeff NYC Dem said...
Christopher -- that's at the heart of the whole thing. The "sanctity of marriage" is a spiritual proposition, which should exist between people and their faith.
The "right of marriage" should be sex-blind in the eyes of the state. And to that end - if people are so concerned about "marriage" being between a man and a woman, why not make all "marraiges" civil unions and allow the traditional definition of "marriage" to exist within the bounds of people's faith.
That's what I'm saying :)
Also, "Separate but Equal" is like "Separate but equal water fountains, movie theaters, hospitals..." to me. Don't want it, Don't need it.
First thing on my to do list this morning was "send Nate Silver an email and ask him to provide polling on Prop 8" and then, magically, he does!
Thanks so much for considering this.
Also my personal apologies to all affected by this hate speech coming in on the comments.
The supreme court disagrees with you:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"
CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN, 1967.
The supreme court disagrees with you:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"
CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN, 1967.
If another couple's marriage has a profound effect on your own, you should not be married.
It's also not sacred in the eyes of the law. My very secular marriage is just as legal as the most devout Evangelical's.
Difficult issue... I think the word "marriage" is the problem here. I can follow, but not agree with the logic of religions that say that homosexuality is a path to damnation. So "marriage" in the RELIGIOUS sense is not a right. A religion is correct to discriminate gays if they outlaw homosexuality - every religion discriminates all the time.
Is it narrow-minded of me? No, it is narrow-minded of the religions that preach that. These religions do not grasp the full extent of the creation of which homosexuality is a part of - they reduce themselves to the old tribal cults.
There are several other problems. Is the religious right correct to claim ownership of the word "marriage"? If yes, shouldn´t it be up to each single church to ban or allow gay marriage? Isn´t a legal ban an extension of religious views across constitutional terrain? Is there a possible compromise that would grant gay couples exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples but without the word marriage? I don´t know enough about the difference between civil unions and gay marriage, but what exactly scares people of gay marriage? The word "marriage"? The ceremony?
I agree, once more, with the Obama/Biden position. And a gay marriage ban is certainly not something that should become a law.
I would also like to agree on the irony that Obama´s record turnout among minorities might lead to a YES on prop 8. However, the country is certainly moving away from the evangelicals in that regard. The Reagan-era of hypocrisy is about to die very soon.
"So what I'm curious about is why African-Americans are so homophobic. Is it because AA males are expected to be more aggressive and macho by their subculture and the overall US culture and believe that homosexuals are a threat to their masculinity?"
___________________________________
It is nor just African American males; all the African American females that I know are rigorously anti-gay (and not just marriage). I think it is a religious thing and not a cultural thing. With a few exceptions, nearly all the black people I am friends with are very religous and very uncomfortable about or around gays.
Mule Rider:
Why do you care so much? Are you a self-hating homo? Or just a bigot.
Syllogism:
If you hate gays, or deny gays the rights of everybody else, then you are a bigot.
Mule Rider might hate gays, but he definitely denies gays the rights of everybody else, so he is a bigot.
Think your way out of that one, Mr. Self-Hatey Pants.
This is absolutely fantastic news. Nate, thank you for running this story.
One question I do have though is what effect should we expect early voting to have on the final outcome? The SurveyUSA poll last thursday that showed prop. 8 ahead (but not clearing 50%) also showed 19% of voters had voted already under California's vote by mail program. If Yes is ahead while that first 18% votes, does No need to get extra ahead for the remaining 80%?
Have you seen any polls on questions 1 & 2 in MA?
Entertainment Weekly poll finds 18-24 year-olds say they spend about one-third of their time in front of the TV watching election coverage
Mule Rider is the closet bone smoker and pussy boi who got all wound up one day and claimed he'd be flying over to Raleigh to "kick my ass". But when pushed to actually do it he of course wimped out like the woman he is. What a fucking joke you are, Mule Rider. Hilarious!
The main reason the polls have shifted is that the Mormon and Catholic churches have contributed loads of cash in support of the measure, funding misleading ads about it.
Even if you don't live in CA, you can still help defeat this measure. Head over to http://www.noonprop8.com/ and donate some money to help them counter the misinformation campaign.
joe, as for Question 2 in MA: http://mpp.convio.net/site/MessageViewer?em_id=16601.0
At my campus (UCSD):
The pro-8 people set up a booth on campus with signs like "OBAMA IS A MARXIST" and, right next to it, "No smears -- just truth". They were really trying to merge the Yes-on-8 and NObama routine, a very bad idea. And to top it all off they had a bunch of religious pamphlets with them. Most everyone who didn't just ignore their station were yelling at them.
Meanwhile, a canvasser with a clipboard from the No-on-8 campaign found me out, and got me to sign up to volunteer for them.
Keep in mind that San Diego as a whole is a bit more conservative than the California average and that UCSD has both a Communist bookstore as well as about a dozen christian organizations. I've been seeing way more Obama activity out here than McCain.
Here's hoping the no-on-8 campaign can take a few pointers from Obama and get the ground game to turn things around before it's too late.
im not too confident that it will be voted down... well, its hard to be confident about it where i live =P there's yes on eight signs everywhere
That's not a Jesus Fish, that's a Snark Fish. Kudos to Nate!
Just look at that Sign of Jesus right there in the chart! Proof indeed that Jesus supports Proposition 8!
http://paliban.org/blog/blog1.php/2008/10/23/cali-prop-8-jesus-says-yes
Hey, I'm voting against 8 today ... but, I'd really rather just get government out of the "sanctified" marriage business.
Government should enforce legal contracts (can't enslave yourself or someone else etc) and then having kids by whatever means creates a contract for the support of that kid.
Then religious groups can have whatever ceremonies they want for whomever they want (No blacks in church X, only mixed marriages in church Y, only gays in Z) and we, the people, don't have to decide further on this.
It is my understanding that a large amount of the funding for the Yes on Prop 8 folks is coming from the mormons the past two months. Why would they care? Because they don't want the more extreme pluralist sects of their religion to use this as a campaign boost for plural marriage. SO, the amount and energy of funding going toward passing Prop 8 actually has very little to do with gay people marrying. It's a double whammy from extreme religious groups trying to further their own religious agenda- that actually has very little to do with gay people having the right to marry. But it has ALOT to do with me, since I'm gay & am planning on getting married to my partner. VOTE NO ON PROP 8 - IT'S ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS. Let the religious sects figure out their own bull and leave me out of it!
So the poll data looks like a Jesus fish....does that mean God is indecisive on prop 8?
To heck with using the establishment clause in support of gay marriage as so many here seem to want to do. The haters can just claim societal history rather than faith to get around it. Don't argue civil rights either, since, as the bigots are fond of pointing out, marriage isn't a right, but a privilege.
Actually, marriage neither a right NOR a privilege. It's a contract, and, as such, the real issue is entirely secular and a well traveled area of normally mundane law. That's the REAL concern for those who are eager to get prop 8 through.
You see, the handling of contracts is explained quite clearly in Article 4, section 1 of the constitution...
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
If California grants the contract of marriage to any couple who wants it (not just their residents), then the rest of the states are REQUIRED to acknowledge it. This is why the forces against it are so desperate. Just as happened with interracial marriage (last century's 'threat to traditional marriage') any crack in the ceiling will let the rain in.
By the way, legal gay marriage also means that the federal 'defense of marriage' act is unconstitutional, but this has yet to be challenged.
Personally, I'd love to see Antonin Scalia step on his tongue trying to explain why a 'literal reading' of the constitution in this case doesn't require Texas to acknowledge a California gay marriage! My guess is that he'll hang his hat on the clause 'and the effect thereof', but he'll be setting an AWFUL precedent if he does.
So remember people, a vote for gay marriage in California is a vote for it in Mississippi!
Contracts for all! Vote NO on 8!
Seems to this gay Virginian that someone with a name like "Mule Rider" might be a big ol' closet case, anyway.
I sent $125 to no on Prop 8 in your very queer name, Mule Rider.
Yee-haw!!!
Another X factor that concerns me is that, if Californians witness an Obama landslide developing, our voters (in opposition to Prop 8) might be less likely to go to the polls. Proponents, often motivated from the pulpit every Sunday, are more likely to vote regardless of the presidential race simply due to this one issue.
David Hart
http://www.tips-q.com
Blogger seer said...
Mule Rider is the closet bone smoker and pussy boi who got all wound up one day and claimed he'd be flying over to Raleigh to "kick my ass". But when pushed to actually do it he of course wimped out like the woman he is. What a fucking joke you are, Mule Rider. Hilarious!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Best post of the day! :)
Male Rider said...
You got me. My life sucks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you came out of the closet, you might be happier.
Male Rider said...
Marriage = privilege
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's not a fact, that's an opinion.
SUSA
PA:
Obama 53
McCain 41
Kansas:
McCain 53
Obama 41
The ban on gay marriage will pass by a few percentage points because Blacks and Hispanics are more opposed to gay marriage than Whites are in CA. If you add the anti-gay black vote and Hispanic vote to the conservative inland whites you get a majority that will defeat coastal liberal whites on the anti-gay marriage initiative.
Today, the most accurate pollster in 2004 -- TIPP -- has an outlier with Obama ahead only 1, and the worst pollster in 2004 -- Zogby -- has an outlier with Obama ahead by 12.
RE RACE
SUSA
WHITE 48 Pro/47 Against
BLACK 58 Pro/ 38 Against
there is a 10 point difference. The rest is the fevered imagination of racists and cw.
I continue to be amazed by the level of racism that is so easily proven false. If blacks , who have no been really brought into the gay rights conversation other than to tell us what we think , are only 10 points behind whites, and whites make up the numbers in most of the states of which bans have passed, the issue isn't about race. It's about homophobia.
Divide and conquer- that's all some people know.
WHY MR RIN IS AN IDIOT
another piece of shit poster talking about race.
African Americans make up 7 percent of the population of CA- there is no way that AAs will affect outcomes given their pro and against numbers. DO THE DAMN MATH AND STOP LETTING YOUR RACISM DEFINE EVERY CONVERSATION.
It will not be race that decides this. It will be homophobia found in all groups.
Again, simple test of your position is the passage of gay bans in states with little or no minority populations.
RE LATIN VOTE
Until this week no one bothered to reach out to them, and even there, the numbers are 47 for, and 40 against as I remember.
The reason this may pass is that amongst the white audience- the only audienc that the No on 8 reached out to- the numbers are 50/50 after years of outreach. I could pretend thats about how white people will never vote for gay issues or I could do the right analysis and thinka bout it terms of homophobia rather than race. The reason it is the right analysis is because of fact that we as political junkies no that targetting of an audience matters with regard to getting out an message.
I made a donation to NoOnProp8.com today. I wasn't paying too much attention until I heard the news about the Yes movement being funded significatly by out-of-state Mormons. I decided to give an out-of-state donation to the other side.
kind of interesting that the graph looks like the Christian "fish" symbol
Over the past few years the Religious Right has taken over the government, trying to strip away the separation of church and state. Bush helped with his outlandish, "God wants be to be president." Well, hell, if that's true, God must be more anti-American than bin Laden! Look what's happened to our depreciated reputation in the world, our record unemployment, our disastrous economy, the increase of stress-related illnesses -- and now suicides!!! With the Yes on 8 crazies I'm compelled to vote against the proposition. If they had logical, non-hysterical arguments that didn't depend on twisted scripture-quoting, I might vote Yes. But no way. We're Americans and we grant rights (and marriage IS a right granted by the California Constitution despite what Mule Rider claims), we don't take them away. We ain't the USSR of the 50s. We're America -- where you can disagree with me and I can disagree with you.
That graph rather ironically looks like a Jesus fish. Go no!
michiganmaine: "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."
I put in $50, because I was way more than disgusted.
Mule Rider said...
Marriage = privilege
Not a right. Sorry.
I agree with you. So lets ban marriage: civil unions for everyone.
With all this confusion going on between civil marriages (filing at the courthose and the rights it gets you) and religious marriages (a ceremony done to bless a couple who love each other), combined with the fact that some religions will bless homosexual couples and others wont, sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to find that the two are inextricably connected and that thus the use of the word "marriage" in any federal statute is unconstitutional under the separation of CHurch and State. See how the fundamentalists like it when the SCOTUS takes away their marriage license and replaces it with a "license of civil union".
What we need in California is a broadcast spot in which Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger take turns telling the state's voters that they both oppose discrimination, that they both oppose Proposition 8. I worry most about that "Obama/Yes on 8" gimmick. Obama says that he is not ready to support same-sex marriage, but he is on record against Proposition 8.
Don't discriminate,
vote No on 8.
There are tons of people are street corners everyday waving signs 'Yes for Prop 8' here in Orange County with silly appeals to what children will be taught and protecting families. Fear, the favorite tactic of the right. They even have little kids standing on street corners waving these signs as if they have any clue what it is about. The other day kids no older than 10 were alone on a corner where I stopped at a red light. If they didn't feel people were looking at them enough they started wandering towards cars yelling and waving the signs spasticly. This is a major blvd mind you....what would their irresponsibly corrupting parents say if they got hit by a car while trying to marginalize homosexuals?
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
See Sean's post a few days ago about the "We're voting for th N***er" phenomenon.
Hoo boy, the Republican's have really messed things up over the last 8 years when that happens...
What we need in California is a broadcast spot in which Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger take turns telling the state's voters that they both oppose discrimination, that they both oppose Proposition 8.
I believe both of them have already said this publically and on camera. The No on 8 folks could make that ad without needing to get either of them into a studio, just using existing footage. Heck, they could probably throw in Boxer and Pelosi too -- I imaging they've both come out against it. And they could probably fibd at least one other prominent rebublican who's agaist it on the grounds that it's a constitutional amendment.
Mitewo, if "we value marriage more here", then why do more than 50% of marriages end in divorce?
It would seem to me in a country that supposedly "highly values" marriages, that the decision to enter into such a commitment would be taken very seriously. Such unions would likely not end in divorce **a majority of the time**.
Do you really think the gentials of the participants is a key determinant in how valued or successful a marriage will be?
And if so, why do a majority of marriages -- in which the gentials in question are as you prescribe -- ultimately fail?
If valuing the marriage is the key question, are you in favor of a lengthy interview or test prior to marriage, to determine the extend to which the parties in question really love and value each other?
Perhaps a three-month waiting period before a marriage license will be issued? That extra time to think would certainly cut down on the number of quickie or "shotgun" marriages.
If "high value placed on marriage" is what is trying to be preserved here, shouldn't we instead be enacting legislation to shut down quickie wedding chapels?
What about elopement? Shall we make that illegal? Does not intentionally running off to marry in secret as quickly as possible exhibit some lack of proper marriage valuation? Over the long run, doesn't an excessive number of these sorts of marriages devalue marriage for others, at least as you have defined the term?
((Side note: we should certainly ask Sarah Palin about this -- especially as it is probably not a good example to her children -- particularly, perhaps -- the one who got knocked up.)
All of which to say the long-term society-wide devaluation of marriage argument simply doesn't hold water.
First, it assumes a penis-vagina combo must somehow necessarily be more committed and worthy of union than, say, a vagina-vagina combo. I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Second, it assumes gay marriage devalues marriage in general, which is laughable considering both the things we DO currently allow and the strong evidence (divorce rate) that our society doesn't value marriage anyway -- at least not in practice.
Re: The "teaching gay marriage in schools" issue.
The California Superintendent of Schools, Jack O'Connell, has come out saying that this is bogus. "Marriage" of any type is simply not in the curriculum, and this certainly wouldn't change that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE
Not that I would mind my kids being taught about, you know, reality (as someone above said). But whatever.
"as a faggot myself, i ask those of you who support equal rights to donate to stop the marriage ban."
I just pledged a thousand to No On 8, and got people on another message board to match me, for a total of two grand. That's in addition to the couple thousand I've already donated to No On 8.
Also, I phone banked for No On 8 last night, and have done In Person Volunteer Recruitment for the No On 8 campaign every single Thursday night since July. I'll be doing it again tonight (in about 4 hours).
And I'm not even a faggot!
If you believe in equal rights, please join me!
If you can donate even just a few dollars, please do so here!
If you live in California and can can shake free just three or four hours for marriage equality, please do! Start by contacting your nearest "No On 8" office. Just click here and call the No On 8 office closest to you.
Thanks, everyone!
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
The United States Supreme Court begs to differ with you, mule rider. They've been saying marriage is a civil right for nigh on a century now.
Nate, what's the margin needed to pass this? Simple majority, or two-thirds?
I am a Californian. I am voting No on Prop 8.
Is it just me or do others have a problem with ballot propositions and other forms of direct democracy related to legislation? I don't have the time to figure out the details and nuance embedded within the extensive legal language of each bill. I don't think other have time either. It is the biggest waste of time and money that exists in our government.
What the hell are elected officials for if not to decide what is best on any given piece of legislation? What the hell are my very high state taxes paying for?
Is polling like this weighted for Party ID? Seems it should be since it is tied to a very political election.
that graph is a spoof, right?!
I just voted.
+1 Obama
+1 No on 8
Is it just me, or is it a bad omen that the trendlines look like a Jesus Fish?
Very bizarre coincidence. Am I the only one who noticed that the graph of support, for and against Proposition 8 looks like the Christian fish symbol?
In any event, real Christians should also vote against Proposition 8, as should people of all faiths. The idea of this type of discrimination is disgraceful.
Anyone else notice what design the Prop 8 graph is showing?
A friggin' icythus. How perfect.
@Mitewo,
Those who think that what our society needs is more married families with kids should be attacking the number one cause of adults with kids not being married -- i.e. divorce.
Start working on illegalizing divorce... and when you're done with that... THEN you can worry yourselves about gay marriages, which will be statistically tiny compared to straight divorces.
Personally, I find this idea that families with kids are inherently good for society perplexing, to say the least... considering that most of the real problems facing the world today, including global warming, food shortages, poverty and disease come from overpopulation :/
Everyone's quick to scream "Seperation of church and state!", and I wholeheartedly agree. Marriage was not instituted by any civil system, but as a binding contract between man, woman, and God. I don't think the state has the right to define marriage - that's to be done behind church doors.
Some supporters of Yes on 8 might be bigots or homophobes, but for me and my family its a chance to defend the seperation of government from faith. I don't think that gay couples should have any less legal/civil rights than any other couple (procreation standing or not).
My suggestion is the same as some other's in these comment pages: everyone gets a civil union, so that regardless of your sexual preference you are entitled to the same legal and civil rights as any other law abiding citizen. Those who desire to enter into the religious-based union of marriage may do so under the dictates of their faith.
Leave the two (marriage and civil union) seperate and unique, without denying rights from any group.
What's truly reprehensible about those Yes on 8 ads with the kids is that they did not get the parents permission to use those images in the ad. Search "no on 8 parents" on YouTube to see how those parents feel about that. The trip to the wedding was treated as any other field trip. Parents needed to sign a permission slip. Some parents opted not to send their kids, which is their right. For the record, the kids did not even attend the ceremony. The purpose of the trip was to surprise their teacher by being there when they left the courthouse. The kids were happy to be there and had a great time. Then the Yes on 8 folks made them a symbol for a political campaign fir something the parents are opposed to. That is just vile.
I would think that this would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment as upheld by the Warren court. What I do not know is that if a states constitution runs in conflict with the federal law, does the federal government still hold the ground as the higher authority. Vote no on 8 vote no on hate
Liberty needs to be forever extended not be kept clinging in the hands of an ungenerous host like the last bottle of beer at a bad party
In CA, a REVISION of the state's constitution requires a 2/3 vote but a simple majority suffices for an amendment. Thus, perhaps there is a chance the prop 8 amendment will be challenged (if it passes) by applying "strict scrutiny" to the measure.
http://www.advocate.com/print_article_ektid57945.asp
Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, AMENDING A CONSTITUTION for the sole purpose of TAKING RIGHTS AWAY from people goes against everything this country stands for. If Prop 8 passes, the words "with liberty and justice for ALL" will be empty, if not totally void.
Mule Rider is gay. Duh.
ONE OF US.
ONE OF US.
GOOBLEY GOBBLEY
ONE OF US.
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, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 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, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 視訊交友網 美女視訊 視訊交友 視訊交友90739 成人聊天室 視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 情色視訊 情人視訊網 視訊美女
一葉情貼圖片區 免費視訊聊天室 免費視訊 ut聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 影音視訊聊天室
辣妹視訊 美女視訊 視訊交友網 視訊聊天室 視訊交友 視訊美女 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天室 成人聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室 辣妺視訊 A片 色情A片 視訊 080視訊聊天室 視訊美女34c 視訊情人高雄網 視訊交友高雄網 0204貼圖區 sex520免費影片 情色貼圖 視訊ukiss 視訊ggoo 視訊美女ggoo
080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室ut ut影音視訊聊天室13077 視訊做愛 kk777視訊俱樂部 上班族聊天室 聊天室找一夜 情色交友 情色貼片 小瓢蟲情色論壇 aio交友愛情館
哈拉聊天室 洪爺影城
情趣用品 情趣用品 情趣用品 情趣 情趣用品 情趣
Post a Comment