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.
9 comments:
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.
I didn't find it surprising at all. Lots of Democrats are homophobes, and Obama campaigned vigorously with homophobes.
Tolerating and legitimizing are whole different animals.
Tolerating and legitimizing are whole different animals.
So are Jim Crow laws and real civil rights.
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?
No, Steve, I do not have veto option.
I would LIKE to have a vote, though.
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.
Post a Comment