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

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...