Not sure if this justifies a seperate thread but figured what the hell.

Washington Initiative 1000:
Allow Doctor-Assisted SuicideWashington Initiative 1000:
Allow Doctor-Assisted Suicide
Full results »Updated 11 minutes ago
County Results | Map
Exit Poll
Yes 758,989 58%
No 548,403 42%
43% of precincts reporting

Hell yea! Looking good so far, hopefully this passes.

I'm worried about the California Gay Marriage Ban though:

California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay MarriageCalifornia Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage
Full results »1:44 a.m. EST, Nov 5 '08
County Results | Map
Exit Poll
Yes 2,299,918 53%
No 2,042,109 47%

Also looks like Florida voted massively for their gay marriage ban, /sigh.

AZ:

Ban on Gay Marriage
Passed

Sheriff Joe Re-election:
Re-elected

Pay-day loan stores:
Shut-down in 2010 instead of being extended

CNN is STILL not calling the California Gay Marriage measure. It's not looking good with 52% yes/48% no, with 77 percent reporting, but there's still hope I think!

Not really, there hasn't been for awhile...though I'm still hoping. One of the unreported areas was LA...and it was largely 'Yes on 8' due to the voters who belong to the churches who were strongly against it.

It's a very sad day for civil rights.

_________________

ugh

Epic failure. I just don't understand how we can so blatantly discriminate.


I am happy about I-1000 passing here in WA though. The right to end suffering is as fundamental to humanity as any I can think of and I am greatly pleased to see it recognized.

Yea, Arkansas also with the banning of gay couples adopting children. Heaven forbid.

There are a few good pieces of news though IMO. Stem Cell research and Medical Marijuana pass in Michigan, I'm still a bit on the fence about the abortion limitation measures in Cali and South Dakota... I think a very good argument could be made that both of those laws are too restrictive, particularly the SD one. Both got a no.

And turning to more important and pressing matters, Maryland has indeed overwhelmingly decided to allow video lottery machines. WHEW, I can rest easy.

I'm going to bed. Prop 8 needs 300k votes to be defeated and I don't see it happening.

This fight isn't over, and I'm sure as hell not done fighting it.

And for those keeping track, today was a shitty day for civil rights around the nation:

California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage
PASSING (and I'm afraid it will pass. I want to throw up.)

Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage
PASSED

Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage
PASSED

Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
PASSED

Shameful.

_________________

Gay is the new black.

America will look back one day and be ashamed.

You should look at the exit polls. It's odd that african americans came out against the measure 70/30 when we just elected the first african american president.

Two steps forward, one step back. Still, at least we overcame one barrier yesterday. Baby steps are still steps.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

I've always been disappointed by the positions of the majority of African-Americans against gay marriage. You'd think we'd understand.

Wow, those exit polls seem to indicate it passed because of African American votes. Staggering numbers voting for it.

It's a moral and religious issue more than anything else, suprised its passing in Cali, not suprised at all

it passed other places.

Like was pointed out numerous times last night


Overall , the US is still a Center-Right nation

In CA, it will go back to courts and be ruled unconstitutional, again...

Its an Amendment as far as I read, courts can't touch it if it passes

Hence why they are ammending the constitution to put their bigotry into law.

What will be interesting about this is what will happen to all of the people already married, as it will be an uncomfortable position for the state to take away someone's rights after they have already had them.

_________________

Nothing will happen to them. Just no new marriages.

It's the marriage equivalent of "IBTL"!!

possible, though some of the reports are saying they will just roll them over into recognized civil unions instead of "marriages" for official recording purposes to abide by the new law.

MSNBC is reporting that prop 8 has officially passed

Draconi, I have to disagree that this is a religious/moral issue, rather than a civil rights issue.

There are over 1,100 distinct rights and responsibilities mentioned in Federal law alone. This disparity in economic potential between heterosexual and homosexual families goes far beyond who you name in your will. And those 1,100+ distinct legal mentions are at the Federal level only, not the individual states.

Social Security and ERISA-based plan benefits are specifically restricted to those who carry the term "spouse." Spouses are primary beneficiaries for those who die intestate. Spouses have de facto power of attorney and medical power of attorney for each other. Single-earner same-sex couples simply do not have the same provisions in terms of financial security for the non-earner that married couples do.

Children being raised by same-sex couples who are not adopted by the non-biological parent (and there are states where that isn't allowed) run into problems acting as a parent in relation to schools. There have been multiple custody cases won by relatives of deceased biological parents taking children away from their "real" but not "legal" surviving same-sex parent.

These are very real day-to-day ways in which families headed by same-sex partnerships are treated inequitably under the law. Until the legal / civil definition of the word marriage is changed, same-sex headed families are second-class, both de facto and de jure.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

It's the gays fault all three of these passed. Stop having flamboyant gay rights parades with men wearing assless chaps, flamingo outfits and the like and change the proposal to be Civil Union instead of Gay Marriage and maybe, just maybe, people will take it seriously. Until you get the picture of a bunch of queens feeling each other up for the cameras out of Jimmy-Joe-Bobs mind you will never get anywhere.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

The "civil union" thing would only work if, at the federal law was amended to replace "marriage," "husband," "wife," "spouse," "surviving spouse," etc. with some sort of language that extended all of the rights and responsbility to people who are "unioned" in addition to "married."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

In Florida, even that won't work now.

Amendment 2 says that marriage is only between a man and a woman AND that no other civil union equitable or comparable to marriage shall be recognized in the state of Florida.

Basically sealing up all the holes.

That only holds so long as two things do not happen.

1. DOMA is repealed and/or challenged under the "full faith & credit" clause.

and either one of:

2. The US Constitution is amended to make same-sex constructs the law of the land

or

3. The US Supreme Court declares a that fundamental right to marriage / civil union exists regardless of gender, which strikes down the antigay amendments.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

That's hoping for a lot. =(

I don't think either you or I will see that in our lifetime.

I disagree. The constitutionality of DOMA has never been challenged, and it clearly violates full faith and credit.

I'd rather see it repealed legislatively than challenged judicially, though. I'd rather avoid a Roe v Wade scenario where, 30 years out, its still a huge deal societally.

Not to betray the red-state gays, but I'd almost prefer to just have the Federal ban portion of DOMA repealed. that's the part that forbids the federal government from recognizing or extended any federal benefits to same-sex couples.

If people in states with either gay marriage or civil unions could be equitable in terms of Social Security, the IRS, pension-plan survivorship, employee benefits, etc., that would be huge. And then each state could decide for itself how to define things - marriage, civil union, whatever.

Does that put people in Florida, Michigan, Texas, etc. at a disadvantage? Yep. It would also highlight those disadvantages on a day-to-day level of basic fairness.

I don't disagree entirely with Khan. For me, personally, having the legal and financial equitability is much more important that what word you use to describe it.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I have to agree with you Khan. Speaking outside my personal beliefs, I can't help but feel people have a different impression of the homosexual community than they understand. I do not think the general public view them as anything that merits any serious consideration. Just to work off your point, I doubt anyone would grant the opportunity or right to "bunch of queens feeling each other up for the cameras" to adopt a child.

Marriage is a little different but I think builds off the same premise. I think the majority of America isn't ready for that decision because they do not "understand" the gay community. It's unfortunate that good people regardless of their beliefs or way of life receive punishment as result of other (bad) people's actions.

Yeah, because straight people never do strange things like pull their shirts up or other crazy things in front of cameras. Nope.

Or, to put it another way, it's wrong to try to excuse bigotry and discrimination just because "Gay parades are kinda weird." ...that's not an excuse. That's just a crappy cop-out.

Goes to show America is still extremely conservative.

Well, I suppose we could start by nullifying the marriages of every heterosexual who has ever gone to Mardi Gras, Carnivale, Spring Break, or appeared in a Girls Gone Wild film. I swear, the example you people set!

_________________
Hope is the new black.

If we had put it up to a vote, blacks would still be suffering under segregation. Fuck the mob.

There's a huge protest tonight in Hollywood, and I'm not going because frankly I think maybe we need another Stonewall. And so perhaps it's best I'm not there. I feel too much like throwing something through a window.

_________________

I agree with Tarot. This is an issue where government should be stepping in to protect the minority from the majority. I have to say I am surprised by the vote. I thought gay marriage was one of those issues that people lied to pollsters about, kinda homophobia-driven but deep down realized that it was a just & proper right so would vote down the California proposition. Very disappointing.

I don't like making generalizations, but the black community, in general, is more deeply religious than others and the black community, in general, holds homosexuality in very low regard.

A large core of the very people that came out in much higher numbers to elect Obama seemed to be the ones that overwhelmingly voted in these measures.

That's something that's being said a lot of places, and it's causing huge problems.

BLACK PEOPLE DID NOT DO THIS.

Yes, I know the exit polls in some places showed that black people on average were 70/30 on gay rights issues.

Yes, in "the black community" there is a lot of homophobia still. One walks cautiously when speaking in general terms about lumps of people because 'general terms' can quickly morph into either being or seeming like prejudice or racism. So understand I'm speaking in only the BROADEST of terms. Many people in the black community are either deeply religious or have close ties to their faith through their church and other groups. Many of these churches have been speaking out for 'Yes on 8'.

So sure, those are things that are being fought within the black community. Now let's focus on the good.

The NAACP in many regions came out PUBLICALLY for No on 8, in support of the GLTB community. They, and many others (including some religious folk) were among the first to point out that oppression of the GLBT community is no different than the oppressions blacks fought a generation before. They extolled the community to support their 'gay brothers and sisters' in this historic fight.

Obama has said he's not for "gay marriage" and I've taken issue with that, as frankly it seems to be just politically expedient. Because everything else he does shows he's for it. EARLY ON Obama said publically that he did NOT support Prop. 8 and did not believe the rights of marriage should be taken away. Unfortunately the 'No on 8' campaign didn't start using his statements and image until late in the race. It took a bit to get the focus on the right track IMO (civil rights).

So we have many in the black community who stepped up and stepped out. This loss CANNOT be laid at their feet, and to do so is pretty fucked up.

Let's talk about apathy. SAN FRANCISCO WHERE WERE YOU?! There was extremely low voter turn out among voters who absolutely supported No on 8, and are very GLTB friendly.

We lost, by my count last night when I gave up and retreated to bed, by 300k. That's it. And we had terrible turn outs in SF and areas of Los Angeles which are GLTB friendly.

It was so close every vote mattered, and if we're going to lay this at anyone's feet...well we have no further to look than a mirror for some. (I voted, and voted early with mail in. And I harassed everyone I knew.)

And I place a substantial amount of blame on two specific churches who funneled an obscene amount of money into this issue: The LSD (Mormons) and the Catholic Church. Shame on them both, and I hope they lose their tax status for their repeated politicking. And shame on ANY church who tells their people how to vote from the authority of the pulpit (whether on my side or not, it's wrong and shameful).

I'm angry, and I feel sick over it. But I'm not shocked. I've never had faith in 'the mob', in fact like many of our founders...I fear it. Sure it's nice when the mob is on your side, but except in times of crisis from external pressures our 'United States' tend to be pretty fragmented.

No group should ever have the right to grant or take away civil rights by numbers. A sad role of our government is to protect us at times from the tyranny of 'The People'. And we've seen evidence of that when a group of soliders had to ensure that children of color could enter a school unmolested. There are many other examples, but I think that's one image no one has trouble conjuring up, and that all but a few feel deep sympathy and shame over.

Today's a new day, and the fight will continue. I know many people don't think it affects them. I'm a woman married to my partner who is a man...it doesn't affect MY marriage. But this issue affects ME. And it affects you. I truly believe that all of us are only as free as the most oppressed among us.

And if you don't stand up for them, who will be there to stand up for you when your turn comes?

_________________

Should be 'LDS' not 'LSD'...obviously. So tired today.

_________________

I hope like hell you people in California are able to fix this terrible wrong, because I have little hope that people in Florida ever will unless the federal government does its job and reiterates to the American people that it is not acceptable to deny equal rights to people based solely on "ick factor".

I see this bullshit as no different than what we corrected with Loving v. Virginia.

As far as all the recent measures concerning gay marriages.....I'm not shocked at Florida, Arizona, or Arkansas, they all sway fairly conservative, and two are Bible belt states, and Arizona is McCain country.

California though.....I live here, I would say So Cal is definitely more conservative than No Cal, but I am kinda dumbfounded Prop 8 passed. San Francisco has to be like the Gay Capitol of USA, the entire state has been leaning left for at least 2 decades (when was the last time Cali went Republican? Reagan? I don't remember, but it's been a long time). We continously pass "feel good" measures. Let chickens walk an hour a day? PASSED BY ALMOST 2:1. Last time around we passed a measure raising income taxes to support the mentally ill. We have Hollywood, a large gay media community, I find gay tolerance in Los Angeles to be good (hello West Hollywood, I'm looking at you).....I haven't seen gay bashing, anti-gay anything for over a decade. When gay marriages were first allowed, and you saw people like Ellen DeGeneres getting married......small protests, that's it.

Its going to take act of Congress to change it nationwide. Cant leave it up to states with all the bullshit that spews forth.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

DOMA was passed in CA Nek well before this, back in 1998 (or maybe 2000, tho I think it was 98). And that passed with 61% majority.

I'm also pretty pissed off at those who were obviously MIA in this fight. Kathy Griffin will never get a dime from me. She's so over the top about "her gays" but didn't donate a penny to No on 8, and didn't volunteer or speak out about it.

There are others, but not worth ranting about here.

And there are those who did donate. Brad Pitt was the first celeb. out there with a checkbook giving $100k and slamming Hollywood for not being involved. Google donated, as did Apple. As did MANY others. Huge kudos to them.

_________________

The point is all this is simple.

Stop being gay.

I think it was 2000, same time as Bush's first election. That's what I'm talking about......in 8 years, California has gotten more conservative? No fricken way. Like I said before, I think the state has gotten more liberal in the past few decades. Hence my surpise at the way this vote turned out.

*Maybe* it's more about the backlash about how people want their vote counted, and not have things left up to some judges. Some of the people who voted yes that I know of were more pissed of about the fact that "some judges" decided on this whole issue.

Tarot, post a list if you have it on your blog, please. Or e-mail.

is it just me or do some of these ballot issues seem.... i dunno..

Like when the smoking ban happened in Ohio, all I could do was say "that's not fair, how can they do that??"

I mean, can you just make up any bullshit and get it passed on a ballot as long as a Christian majority votes for it?

_________________

Sadly, yes, as long as it doesn't violate the United States Constitution. It can even violate federal law, though if it does you can still expect the feds to come looking for you regardless of what your State Constitution says.

Khan, Muligan...I had a pretty strong reaction to your posts, but I waited a bit until I could say what I need to say without drawing knives.

Your posts, to me, are about the same measure as telling a woman beaten by her husband that she obviously deserved it because she burnt dinner and that if she were a good wife, he'd treat her better. Or most of white society telling blacks that if they only acted or looked a certain way, everything would be ok for them.

Discrimination is not ok. And there's no justification for it. And any commentary about how we deserved it?

Thems fighting words as far as I am concerned. Gay people would not even BE where they are today if it hadn't been for DRAG QUEENS. The rest of gay society? They were content to keep muddling through the shit lives they had at the time. It took one of those "bunch of queens" to throw the first beer bottle that started a riot that got us to where we are today.

There are extremes of any side of the coin. There are plenty of moderate "christians", just as there are some really whacked out Jesus freaks (God Warrior woman comes to mind). Except there's a difference. You don't see me trying to strip them of their rights because of the extremists in their camp, but they are more than happy to do it to me. And do, consistently.

But it's ok because we're the freaks? And we deserve it because we have an extreme side to our culture, the same as any group of people?

Fuck you.

The blame for this lies solely on the shitheads that decided they would strip away the rights of a people because of their religious hang ups. Nowhere else.

_________________

Yes, but I'd point at environmentalists before Christians on that one. The secondhand smoke argument was pushed down folks throats for decades so it was only a matter of time really. It's very odd because of how difficult it is to tell a before and after difference in Baltimore. I guess the bars here have great ventilation by virtue of being small.

Obama and the Huxtables are proof of that.

I am very pro-gay marriage. That being said, I think one big reason it has a hard time but bans pass easily is because it skeeves people out. And it does.

It's not like a medical marijuana issue where you can put a nice old lady with glaucoma on a poster. When you say "gay people", people think of "that one time" they seen something that made them uncomfortable.

The bottom line is, you need more representation in media to desensitize the common voter to the idea - until that happens, you are climbing an uphill battle. Think of what Colin Powell and Condi Rice did for black folks. They helped Obama get elected because they put a good, professional face on black folks - and helped get rid of that stereotypical black guy image. (be it flava-flave or Rev. Wright)

In a perfect world, we would embrace those that are different from us, but the fact is, most people just know the stereotypical flamboyant gay guy, and it skeeves them out.

_________________

They can be skeeved all they want. It still doesn't give them any justification to take rights away from them, and when they do it, it doesn't mean it is the fault of gay people.

_________________

Rugen, this staement of yours: "It took one of those "bunch of queens" to throw the first beer bottle that started a riot that got us to where we are today." made me realize how ignorant I am of the history of the gay rights movement. Do you know of a good/accurate site/book?

He didn't say it was right for them to get 'skeeved out', just that it was their reaction and that more exposure to it would dampen and eventually erase any negative reaction.

There really aren't any openly gay professionals in national politics that I can think of. Anytime a gay politician gets outed they are demonized because they were usually sneaking around with someone behind their wives back. Maybe if Obama put a gay person somewhere in his cabinet where they would get national exposure, or even better if he selected a gay press secretary. Put a gay face on a highly popular presidency. People wouldn't be able to resist rethinking if they were exposed to an openly gay person every time they got good news from the white house.

It's nothing personal. Just an overview. I was pointing out that most people observe the situation much as Khan did in his post. My point is that people judge people based on their experience and what little bit they see. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with Khan but to be honest, I just think it's wrong so I was attempting to step outside my belief an comment on the situation.

I have nothing against the people or will I ever judge anyone but, if you are wanting to general public to start handing out rights, changing laws, or what have you, then it's better to make sure that America understand what they are doing and truly who for.

Your correlation with a man beating a wife and strictly out of line and nothing to do with the perspective shared in these posts. A more appropriate example would be racism toward African Americans. In my experiences it still exists simply because people still see the worst in them every day. This is why you have the Bill Cosby's coming out and telling them if you want respect you can't talk like an idiot, fail to get an education, sell drugs on the street, and even if you become successful remain an idoit. Now, all these things other races are guilty of as well. Which is why I said, it's unfortunate anytime someone judges an entire group of people based on the isolated experiences they have with them.

In my personal opinion we are Americans no matter who or what you are. Therefore people should be treated as Americans. Being a Youth Minister it's no secret that I feel homosexualty is wrong but, it's not for me to judge and I love them no different than anyone else. However, when it comes to their rights, my religious beliefs have nothing to do if they are American. Therefore, you totally misread the posts. I can't speak for Khan but, it's true, even I would be slightly hesitant to vote one way or the other on such a change due to my experiences but you know, you can justify it in heterosexual marriages as well. There are bad people in every walk of life just as there are good. No matter what you believe or how you live doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.

Hope that clarifies.

two things I can point you to right off the bat...

The wikipedia article on the Stonewall Riot that I referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

And a REALLY great "This American Life" about the events that led to the APA removing homosexuality as an "illness":
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_E ... sched=1188

And if you have the chance, I strongly suggest you check out the new movie about Harvey Milk, or at least read about him. I'm sure you've heard of the "Twinkie defense" before, but perhaps didn't realize where it came from.



As a few starters. I'm sure Bearne could weigh in here on more books, as his library was much more extensive than mine.

_________________

Snarky,



Barney Frank is the only one that really comes to mind. The Dems need to leave him in the House because of his seniority.

I agree with you, putting an openly gay person prominently in the administration would help.
I'm sure it is surprising to know that I do support gay rights, I have my reasons.

I think Chris Rock said that "Gay people should be allowed to be just as miserable as married straight people."

I guess this is a part of what's so appaling about the public at large.

Who they're doing it for? Gay people are human beings and Ameican citizens. What more do they need to know? =(

Hey Rugen, fuck you too bud. I was giving you one of many probable reasons why people voted this down. You sit on here whining poor me and my gay friends yet get combative when ever someone gives you an outside view of what people are thinking.



Bearne, big difference there. People who attend Mardi Gras, Carnivale, Spring Break go to see the craziness. It is their choice. You want a serious movement, then get serious about it and stop presenting it to the world and some kind of big party.

Which gets more credibility and serious dialog?


or

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Thanks Rugen, I knew "Stonewall" the term had something to do with the gay rights movement but not much else.

Even if it had no chance of causing cancer, you can't tell me that all the chemicals in second-hand smoke are perfectly safe for the human body. It's one less very preventable threat, and I'm happy to say that more and more cities and states are adopting such measures =) The one here in WA went over pretty well.

The EPA is no longer one of the lonely sole "official" sources agreeing with the idea that second-hand smoke causes cancer. The U.S. National Toxicology Program along with the International Agency for Research on Cancer both came out with their own independent studies linking cancer to second-hand smoke. It's a lot harder to nitpick at the EPA studies because they forgot to dot an I or cross a T, and be credible.

The metallic chemicals in SHS in particular have particularly well-founded links to cancer.

Most of these laws are not even that harsh. Under a good number of them you can still smoke in public. It's just you cannot go into specific areas with a significant portion of people in closed-in spaces(such as bars), which makes perfect sense.

If your habit affected no one else, no one would take issue with it. As the saying goes: Your freedom ends where my nose begins. When you can show me that those 200+ chemicals in SHS are all safe for the human body, then I will start to come around. The red herring argument of "there's other stuff that's bad to inhale already, should we stop driving cars?" doesn't quite hold water considering that while there are a number of chemicals that both share, SHS has more(as well as those classified as carcinogenic), and also ignores the fact that smoking is far more of a choice than a near-necessity in the modern economic world.

I'm honestly more and more proud of our country each day a smoking ban is passed. It demonstrates how far we've come from the relatively ignorant society that made the same excuses and arguments against first-hand smoke causing cancer 50 years ago.

Even the most casual observer can agree that it's unlikely all carcinogenic airborne compounds are miraculously disappearing the very moment the smoke exits the persons mouth.

You're one fucked up son of a bitch, if you think you did anything but lay the blame for prejudice at the feet of the victims rather than the perpetrators.

_________________

Simple question Khan:

If Martin Luther King Jr. had never had his "serious" march and speech, and instead hosted "black pride parades" with celebrations, drinks, funny clothing, etc would that have been reason enough to note afford blacks rights?

I'll assume no, so basically, you're just pointing out that the public is extremely stupid and will vote against a group of people's basic civil rights based on the fact that their parades aren't serious enough. I think we already understand that the public is stupid after this ban was approved.