Skip to main content

The decision not yet (we hope) made: will California's Prop 8 remove civil rights?

The final results are not in, and both side say it will get closer before we know for certain.

But with 63% of the votes counted Prop 8--the measure to remove the civil rights of same-sex married couples in California--is up 53.1% to 46.9%.

This is a national disgrace, and President-elect Barack Obama's reluctance to throw his weight behind the defeat of this measure is more than disappointing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Agreed. One of the major beefs I have with Obama is his limp stance on gay rights.

We have a group of Americans who do not enjoy the same rights as the majority. How is the fight against that hard to get behind?
I found this result very surprising. I'm not sure what to make of our electorate; they seem to be giving mixed signals.

Simlarly, in San Francisco of all places, a measure to decriminalize prostitution was defeated. Huh? I think that the way it was written wasn't the best, but just found this odd.
Anonymous said…
I didn't find it surprising at all. Lots of Democrats are homophobes, and Obama campaigned vigorously with homophobes.
Anonymous said…
Tolerating and legitimizing are whole different animals.
Tolerating and legitimizing are whole different animals.

So are Jim Crow laws and real civil rights.
Anonymous said…
The issue is economic: should the homosexual partner of a co-worker get spousal health care coverage? That is, are you willing to expand your group to include the costs of another member? Are you willing to support the government giving an entitlement you must pay part of to someone without your consent?

Someone other than a bigot/homophobe may vote "no."
If someone currently in your group decides to marry a person of the opposite sex, you now have no right to veto their selection vis a vis coverage, do you?
Anonymous said…
No, Steve, I do not have veto option.
I would LIKE to have a vote, though.
Anonymous said…
The issue is economic: should the homosexual partner of a co-worker get spousal health care coverage? That is, are you willing to expand your group to include the costs of another member? Are you willing to support the government giving an entitlement you must pay part of to someone without your consent?

That's funny, because health benefits are private -- and my employer pays them to everyone because they want smart and experienced people like me to join the company and make them money (rather than a competitor).

As for the social redistribution argument, lots of LGBT people are slowly waking up to the fact that a great deal of the anti-gay agenda on this issue is a form of redistribution from the families of gay people to others. And it's starting to make them question their electoral support for the Democratic Party... something that could cost Democrats close elections in future contests.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?