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 — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

The disturbing decline of the Delaware blogosphere: a very unfortunate Around the Horn (even if it's not Friday)

I've noticed a change in my own blog-checking habits over the past several weeks, and I don't know if it's just me or the reality of the last month of a divisive political campaign. I automatically used to check out Delawareliberal first and several times a day, because it was where I could find edgy, thought-provoking, and (dare I say it) funny banter going on. These days visit several other spots first, and my visits to DL are both shorter and less engaged. Why? Because the combination of invading neo-con commenters with the stridency of some of the major contributors has led to such pleasant exchanges as a post dedicated to labeling another blogger racist by donviti, whose own sense of provocative humor is generally so far out there that he makes John Belushi doing Samurai bartender on the SNL look positively pro-Asian. Or I can find Delawaredem and jason periodically spewing the idea that anybody who is not a liberal or progressive Democrat is somehow a non-American,...