Prop 8

Well if nothing else perhaps this will put an end to this absurd assumption that African American support can be taken for granted by those on the left.

Well perhaps this sill put an end to the absurd @ssunption that African American support can be taken for granted by those on the left.

Roberta McCain was right — Mormons are trouble!

Yawn. Ana Marie Cox, pimping for the unwatched freakshow hostessed by Kief Olbermoronn, announces that Olbermoronn will have an “all-new” Special Education Comment on Prop 8. Tonight, Olbermoronn will denounce California for not recognizing, like its lawless, loony, so-called “Supreme Court”, that the United States and California constitutions include the “funamental constitutional right” to “marry” as many dogs, oak trees, paramecia and door knobs as any Democrat wants to “marry”.

There you again textee — your inability to learn from defeat spell disaster for your side of the aisle if it becomes the SOP of the GOP. Your position would be a bit more debatable if you didn’t present it by first personally castigating your opposition. Trust me most stopped listening at “yawn.”

In a time when a huge barrier of inequality was knocked down in the election of President Barack Hussein Obama (how you like them apples, textie?), it is heavily ironic that the African American voters of California would vote in overwhelming numbers to strip one last group of their civil rights. It is very sad and unfortunate that homosexuals are the last group in America who can be openly discriminated against and have their rights retracted and not expanded.
.
For shame.

boooo moderator-bot. down with moderator-bot…
.
In a time when a huge barrier of inequality was knocked down in the election of President Barack Hussein Obama (how you like them apples, textie?), it is heavily ironic that the African American voters of California would vote in overwhelming numbers to strip one last group of their civil rights. It is very sad and unfortunate that homo$exuals are the last group in America who can be openly discriminated against and have their rights retracted and not expanded.
.
For shame.

one more try, this is starting to get extremely aggravating:
.
In a time when a huge barrier of inequality was knocked down in the election of President Barack Hussein Obama (how you like them apples, textie?), it is heavily ironic that the African American voters of California would vote in overwhelming numbers to strip one last group of their civil rights. It is very sad and unfortunate that gays are the last group in America who can be openly discriminated against and have their rights retracted and not expanded.
.
For shame.

your moderator is a total jerk. this site is worse in every way than it was before the crash a few weeks ago. pretty pathetic Time.

Textee is back! Tell us how you have been handling this past week.

I saw someone earlier today (on CNN, I think) compare Prop 8 to a mid-twentith century law banning interracial marriage, which the US supreme court struck down as unconstitutional. It gave me pause, because that’s the first time I’ve seen anything similar (a stance that some marriages were “not right” or “immoral”) being reversed.
.
In fact, the United States Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia struck down all state laws banning interracial marriage, declaring marriage “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’”
.
If one looks at the state of gay marriage now, and compares it to the state of interracial marriage then (I read an awful piece on a white man who married an american-born girl of chinese descent in California, moved to Missouri, and was told that all marriages between a white person and a Mongolian were null and void, regardless of where the Mongol was born–seriously, a Mongol!) it’s difficult to see how Prop 8 is constitutional.

I can’t find a single word in my post that has @ss in it, and it’s still in moderation. WTF?

My eighty five year old mother talked about gay marriage the other day – she uses plain old common sense when talking about the Constitution. ………

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/02/old-women-talk-politics/

usersherbrain, I couldn’t imagine why my post in the beginning of this new world was held until I realized I said that this was testing our puzzle solving sk!lls.

gay might be a bad word

I just confirmed that the word g@y is picked up by the moderator

This is easily the most depressing result of the election. Being biracial, marriage equality is a huge issue for me. It’s unfortunate that so many African-Americans were unable to see the parallels with racist marriage laws.
–
usesherbrain, well said. Prop 8 is obviously unconstitutional.

Th@nks, sg. ! pr0p0se w3 ch@ng3 0|_|r typ!ng styl3 t0 d3f3@t m0d3r@t!0n.

Mongolian? Could it be that?

Nope.
.
Very distracting.
.
Also, found myself inserting manual paragraph breaks on a haloscan site recently.
.
But we GOT RIGHT JUSTIFICATION!!
.
“It isn’t as though I haven’t met a lot of people.
Goodness knows it isn’t that. It isn’t that, goodness knows.”

I don’t really see how prop 8 is unconstitutional. Wouldn’t the same be true of minimum age laws or laws against polygamy?
.
I am surprised people are surprised to find homophobia in the black communities around the country. Steve Gilliard (who I still miss) wrote about it frequently. The “down low” is pretty widely written about, as well.

Mongo only pawn…in game of life.

What’s truly unfortunate is that because religion has become so entangled with our justice system, I don’t think the current system can come to a similar conclusion WRT Prop 8. They’ll argue that the Virginia v. Loving decision specifies that marriage is fundamental to the survival of our species, so it was obviously not talking about g@y partners.
.
I’m crossing my fingers for the Californian proceedings, though… That’s step one in the long quest for equality.

hahahahaha
.
Check out Carney on the reaction shot:
.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_11_09_archive.html#4122840037396994950

kbang

I will never forgive Alex Karras for Webster.

usesherbrain–
.
Having the state certify weddings inherently involves it with religion. The right solution (we’re on our way there with prenups) is for the state certification to be of a contract between people involving splitting assets and child care responsibilities.
.
In fact, having the state regulate any kind of sexual activity is intrusion of religious belief into the legal system. Of course, the intertwining of the two began long ago, when the head of state was certified as chosen by the Christian god in western societies.

All the attention is on Prop 8 and how this means that America is still a center-right country. But didn’t three states vote down propositions that would have greatly restricted abortion? Didn’t another legalize marijuana for terminally ill patients? But I’m not hearing much on that. Just prop 8, prop 8, prop 8!

I will never forgive Alex Karras for Webster.
.
Yeah, but there was Victor Victoria.
.

Dominionists, encouraged by their win in California, are heading back to M@assachusetts. Hopefully, we can bog them down in our convoluted referendum process before they can cause any more damage.

The truth in my opinion is that the No on 8 people did a horrible job of reaching out to minorities in general and black people in particular. I think the new position that they are taking, that a ban on g@y marriage is comparable to the ban on interracial marriage, is a much better argument to black people than the argument that the push for gay marriage is comparable to the push for civil rights in 60s. Sometimes people make analogies with out recognizing how they might offend the people they are using in the analogy. The black church has long spoken out against homosexual relationships (all the while usually employing g@ys and lesbi@ns many times as their music directors) And the black church was the corner stone of the civil rights movement. Therefore to compare their struggle, coming out of slavery and coming out of Jim Crow to seek the rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all men (and women) to the struggle for LGBT coalition to get their marriage rights is like lighting a fire in a room full of gun powder. That was the exactly WRONG way to convince many black people of why it was wrong to take away the rights of gay people to marry in California and lets not forget the 3 other states also voted for bans against gay marriage. While I am reasonably sure that the courts will strike down these bans I think its still important that the No on 8 people revamp their efforts and reach out to minorities because if not this fight will go on forever. There are many people who have been upset at the actions of a small minority of people who supported No on 8 such as defacinig mormon churches and speaking out against Christianity and that might trigger a backlash in future elections. I found this website from going to “the Corner” of all places over the weekend trying to gloat a little. I was horrified to see how a few people in the LGBT alliance had suddenly whole heartedly turned on black people based on flawed exit polls and ridiculous extrapolations of those exit polls which mistakenly made it seem as if black people were THE reason that prop 8 passed. And somebody should get to those people who are doing this kind of sh!t and tell them that calling black people the n word is the SUREST way to create a permanent enemy and thats not what anybody should want. I tried to make the argument to some people over on Tahnesi Coates thread about the need for outreach and many of them just dismissed it and said that there is no reason to try to convince people who have made their decision based on faith. No matter how much I tried to point out to them that this was the same dilema that black people had to overcome in the civil rights movement nobody seemed to want to advocate trying to convince people to come over to the other side. I don’t see how this issue will ever get solved for good if that effort is never made.
.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html

pourmecoffee Says:
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
I’m not sure that people approaching newspapers like The Franklin Mint is a long-term solution to its failing economic model.
..
Ana Marie Cox:

Don’t see how it’s a GOOD thing that the future of print journalism means adopting the business model of the Franklin Mint. about 3 hours ago

The truth in my opinion is that the No on 8 people did a horrible job of reaching out to minorities in general and black people in particular. I think the new position that they are taking, that a ban on g@y marriage is comparable to the ban on interracial marriage, is a much better argument to black people than the argument that the push for gay marriage is comparable to the push for civil rights in 60s. Sometimes people make analogies with out recognizing how they might offend the people they are using in the analogy. The black church has long spoken out against homosexual relationships (all the while usually employing g@ys and lesbi@ns many times as their music directors) And the black church was the corner stone of the civil rights movement. Therefore to compare their struggle, coming out of slavery and coming out of Jim Crow to seek the rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all men (and women) to the struggle for LGBT coalition to get their marriage rights is like lighting a fire in a room full of gun powder. That was the exactly WRONG way to convince many black people of why it was wrong to take away the rights of gay people to marry in California and lets not forget the 3 other states also voted for bans against gay marriage. While I am reasonably sure that the courts will strike down these bans I think its still important that the No on 8 people revamp their efforts and reach out to minorities because if not this fight will go on forever. There are many people who have been upset at the actions of a small minority of people who supported No on 8 such as defacinig mormon churches and speaking out against Christianity and that might trigger a backlash in future elections. I found this website from going to “the Corner” of all places over the weekend trying to gloat a little. I was horrified to see how a few people in the LGBT alliance had suddenly whole heartedly turned on black people based on flawed exit polls and ridiculous extrapolations of those exit polls which mistakenly made it seem as if black people were THE reason that prop 8 p@ssed. And somebody should get to those people who are doing this kind of sh!t and tell them that calling black people the n word is the SUREST way to create a permanent enemy and thats not what anybody should want. I tried to make the argument to some people over on Tahnesi Coates thread about the need for outreach and many of them just dismissed it and said that there is no reason to try to convince people who have made their decision based on faith. No matter how much I tried to point out to them that this was the same dilemma that black people had to overcome in the civil rights movement nobody seemed to want to advocate trying to convince people to come over to the other side. I don’t see how this issue will ever get solved for good if that effort is never made.
.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html

Olbermann’s farming a seriously dwindling crop of outrage. After Prop 8 (justified), he’ll be moving on to the Bed Bath & Beyond return policy.

pourmecoffee Says:
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
I’m not sure that people approaching newspapers like The Franklin Mint is a long-term solution to its failing economic model.
..
AMC on twitter:

Don’t see how it’s a GOOD thing that the future of print journalism means adopting the business model of the Franklin Mint. about 3 hours ago

Dominionists, encouraged by their win in California, are heading back to M@ssachusetts. Hopefully, we can bog them down in our convoluted referendum process before they can cause any more damage.

kbang
.
Blazing Saddles. Love that movie!

In moderation, AMC twittered, earlier this morning pourmecoffee’s Franklin Mint observation about commemorative newspapers best not become central to the media biz model.

One of the important issues that emerged from prop 8 in CA was the role of the Mormon church…

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

The truth in my opinion is that the No on 8 people did a horrible job of reaching out to minorities in general and black people in particular. I think the new position that they are taking, that a ban on g@y marriage is comparable to the ban on interracial marriage, is a much better argument to black people than the argument that the push for gay marriage is comparable to the push for civil rights in the 60s. Sometimes people make @nalogies with out recognizing how they might offend the people they are using in the @nalogy. The black church has long spoken out against h0mosexual relationships (all the while usually employing g@ys and lesbi@ns many times as their music directors) And the black church was the corner stone of the civil rights movement. Therefore to compare their struggle, coming out of slavery and coming out of Jim Crow to seek the rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all men (and women) to the struggle for LGBT coalition to get their marriage rights is like lighting a fire in a room full of gun powder. That was the exactly WRONG way to convince many black people of why it was wrong to take away the rights of g@y people to marry in California and lets not forget the 3 other states also voted for bans against g@y marriage. While I am reasonably sure that the courts will strike down these bans I think its still important that the No on 8 people revamp their efforts and reach out to minorities because if not this fight will go on forever. There are many people who have been upset at the actions of a small minority of people who supported No on 8 , such as defacinig mormon churches and speaking out against Christianity and that might trigger a backlash in future elections. I found this website from going to “the Corner” of all places over the weekend trying to gloat a little. I was horrified to see how a few people in the LGBT alliance had suddenly whole heartedly turned on black people based on flawed exit polls and ridiculous extrapolations of those exit polls which mistakenly made it seem as if black people were THE reason that prop 8 p@ssed. And somebody should get to those people who are doing this kind of sh!t and tell them that calling black people the n word is the SUREST way to create a permanent enemy and thats not what anybody should want. I tried to make the argument to some people over on Tahnesi Coates’ thread about the need for outreach and many of them just dismissed it and said that there is no reason to try to convince people who have made their decision based on faith. No matter how much I tried to point out to them that this was the same dilemma that black people had to overcome in the civil rights movement (many white people actually used Chrisitanity as their excuse and a justification for marginalizing black people) nobody seemed to want to advocate trying to convince people to come over to the other side. I don’t see how this issue will ever get solved for good if that effort is never made.
.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html

AMC is free to steal gags as necessary until she gets back on her feet.

ok i tried 3 times to mod proof my post on this subject. Its long as he!! and I am frustrated so I am giving up but I want to post this link to some of the backlash against black people due to flawed information on the exit polls from prop 8 which is very dissappointing. As a black man I can see how this will actually make the situation a LOT worse and I hope some one starts whispering in the right ears to get this sort of divisive actions nipped in the bud and fast!
.
The truth in my opinion is that the No on 8 people did a horrible job of reaching out to minorities in general and black people in particular. I think the new position that they are taking, that a ban on g@y marriage is comparable to the ban on interracial marriage, is a much better argument to black people than the argument that the push for gay marriage is comparable to the push for civil rights in 60s. Sometimes people make analogies with out recognizing how they might offend the people they are using in the analogy. The black church has long spoken out against homosexual relationships (all the while usually employing g@ys and lesbi@ns many times as their music directors) And the black church was the corner stone of the civil rights movement. Therefore to compare their struggle, coming out of slavery and coming out of Jim Crow to seek the rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all men (and women) to the struggle for LGBT coalition to get their marriage rights is like lighting a fire in a room full of gun powder. That was the exactly WRONG way to convince many black people of why it was wrong to take away the rights of gay people to marry in California and lets not forget the 3 other states also voted for bans against gay marriage. While I am reasonably sure that the courts will strike down these bans I think its still important that the No on 8 people revamp their efforts and reach out to minorities because if not this fight will go on forever. There are many people who have been upset at the actions of a small minority of people who supported No on 8 such as defacinig mormon churches and speaking out against Christianity and that might trigger a backlash in future elections. I found this website from going to “the Corner” of all places over the weekend trying to gloat a little. I was horrified to see how a few people in the LGBT alliance had suddenly whole heartedly turned on black people based on flawed exit polls and ridiculous extrapolations of those exit polls which mistakenly made it seem as if black people were THE reason that prop 8 p@ssed. And somebody should get to those people who are doing this kind of sh!t and tell them that calling black people the n word is the SUREST way to create a permanent enemy and thats not what anybody should want. I tried to make the argument to some people over on Tahnesi Coates thread about the need for outreach and many of them just dismissed it and said that there is no reason to try to convince people who have made their decision based on faith. No matter how much I tried to point out to them that this was the same dilemma that black people had to overcome in the civil rights movement nobody seemed to want to advocate trying to convince people to come over to the other side. I don’t see how this issue will ever get solved for good if that effort is never made.
.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
.
I got caught by the mods 3 times and now I cant post the link that I wanted to post. Swampland sucks richards!

Heyyyyyyyyyyy KT must have released us from moderation

for those who want progressives in Obama’s administration
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-hires-progressive-l_n_142648.html

Time reorg update:

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20081110/time-inc-to-employees-want-to-quit-were-all-ears/

SI really getting whacked.

The simple fact, which should be obvious to most, is that, unlike the color of one’s skin, orientation is elective. Some argue the opposite, that it is genetic — however, lacking proof, we are still left with merely a preference.

No matter which side of the issue you subscribe too, it does not change the fact that one day I can personally choose to be “straight”, then the next day, “bi”, and the following day something totally different. So, how can “Choice” every qualify as a discriminatory class? By definition, it never will.

Why do people with “alternative” lifestyles want to be acknowledged under the guidelines of the religious institution of marriage anyway? Marriage is restricted to husband-and-wife. Why seek this artificial confine, when a civil union can accommodate any combination thereof?

Reorganizations are hard not just for those who don’t make the cut, but also for those who do who suddenly find that they are expected to do more for less. Just because there are fewer workers doesn’t mean that there’s less work!

twinsnakes – Granting for a moment your incorrect a$$sumptions, I now decree that no Christians be allowed to get a driver’s license. Christianity is a choice.

pourmecoffee – And, while I’m standing in line to get a driver’s license, what criteria will you use to identify my religious preference?

Twinsnakes you hit the nail on the head. There is clearly a resentment about making comparisons to the civil rights movement because of a perception of choice.
.
It’s all about the religious aspect of marriage that people are objecting to. The funny part is how few people understand that as far as the civil provisions of marriage – blacks are among those who are most supportive and the vast majority support civil unions. But whether we like it or not blacks are among the most religious groups in America and as along as the church is opposed to gay marriage this problem will exist – it doesn’t have anything to do with hating gays.

Also? Sulu. More Sulu and that thing could have sailed through.
.
Your snark-fu is weak. Stick to the facts until you recover from th electin.

twinsnakes – Grow some. I refuted your point that the element of choice makes discrimination impossible.

worse, Paul, the layoffs are the result of revenue targets not being hit. The response is not just to cut costs, but also to pressure those not laid off to hit those targets nonetheless. Even though the source of the revenue reduction is exogenous to the company’s activities (ie Recession).
.
I have a second account of someone in a retail supply business saying exactly this: “They’re cutting my staff by ten percent, and still expecting me to hit my revenue targets during a recession.”

Am I really that bad of a typer? Let’s try again:
.
Your snark-fu is weak. Stick to the facts until you recover from the election.

Twinsnakes you are absolutely right there is clearly a resentment about making comparisons to the civil rights movement because of a perception of choice.
.
It’s all about religion and that marriage is seen as a religious construct. Blacks have few objectinos to the civil provisions of marriage and are among those most supportive of civil unions. Blacks are among the most religious groups in America and as along as the church is opposed to gay marriage this will be their view and its wrong to see this solely in term of being anti-gay.

The simple fact, which should be obvious to most, is that, unlike the color of one’s skin, orientation is elective.
.
No matter which side of the issue you subscribe too, it does not change the fact that one day I can personally choose to be “straight”, then the next day, “bi”, and the following day something totally different.
.
So pretty much it’s only the power of Jesus that’s keeping you from sucking a big fat one in a highway rest area somewhere?

Some argue the opposite, that it is genetic — however, lacking proof, we are still left with merely a preference.

.
However, there is no lack of proof. End of argument.
.

No matter which side of the issue you subscribe too, it does not change the fact that one day I can personally choose to be “straight”, then the next day, “bi”, and the following day something totally different.

.
Can you indeed? Fascinating.
.

Why do people with “alternative” lifestyles want to be acknowledged under the guidelines of the religious institution of marriage anyway?
.
Those who do find no conflict between their religious belief and their sexual orientation. However, prop 8 is not about a religious institution. It’s a about a set of social, state enforced rules regarding life contracts between individuals, and rights and responsibilities under those contracts.
.
(This assertion, just by the way, presumes that atheists don’t marry, which is not so.)
.

Marriage is restricted to husband-and-wife. Why seek this artificial confine, when a civil union can accommodate any combination thereof?

.
Because a civil union doesn’t confer those rights. Moreover, there are religious institutions in CA that recognize gay marriage. The state is refusing the recognition of that sacrament for that group. Under what basis can the state do so?

So pretty much it’s only the power of Jesus that’s keeping you from sucking a big fat one in a highway rest area somewhere?
.
Actually he seems to be saying he does engage in the odd fat one from time to time.
.
I have a more detailed comment that is, of course, in moderation.

twinsnakes007:
.
You make me curious… attraction to a member of a different race is also a choice (some would argue it’s fate, etc., but I digress). How does this choice compare to what you perceive to be one’s choice in s@xual orientation?
.
Secondly, WRT the comment I made earlier on Virginia v. Loving, would you have agreed or disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional?
.
Like I said, no attack, just honestly curious.

I am going to try this one more time I keep ending up in moderation.
.
I see pourme is ragging on twinsnakes over the choice issue but I think that’s a bit unfair. While the larger gay community might think that their plight is comparable to the civil rights movement most blacks do not and the main reason they do not is because they feel that gays have a choice where as blacks do not. The larger LGBT community is seen as just another affluent white community trying to dictate to the poorer black community and rather than recognize it they just insist that black have no right to feel they way they do about their own history. first rule in politics perception is reality — does it matter whether you think its fair or right — the fact remains that it is so.
.
The truth of the matter is that among blacks there is a serious religious objection to same gender marriage which is seen as a religious construct. There is very little objection to civil unions that focus on the legal provisions of marriage.

I think I found my a$$. I repeat, thought,that I cannot believe all word press implemenations do not permit a$$umptions or compa$$ion.

Some argue the opposite, that it is genetic — however, lacking proof, we are still left with merely a preference.

.
However, there is no lack of proof. End of argument.
.

No matter which side of the issue you subscribe too, it does not change the fact that one day I can personally choose to be “straight”, then the next day, “bi”, and the following day something totally different.

.
Can you indeed? Fascinating. Not me.
.

Why do people with “alternative” lifestyles want to be acknowledged under the guidelines of the religious institution of marriage anyway?

.
Those who do find no conflict between their religious belief and their sexual orientation seek that acknowledgment, and get it. However, prop 8 is not about a religious institution. It’s a about a set of social, state enforced rules regarding life contracts between individuals, and rights and responsibilities under those contracts.
.
(This a$$ertion, just by the way, presumes that atheists don’t marry, which is not so.)
.

Marriage is restricted to husband-and-wife. Why seek this artificial confine, when a civil union can accommodate any combination thereof?

.
Because a civil union doesn’t confer those rights. Moreover, there are religious institutions in CA that recognize gay marriage. The state is refusing the recognition of that sacrament for that group. Under what basis can the state do so?

Stuff is coming out of moderation more quickly today….

“Such spontaneous mass actions are probably more cathartic than politically persuasive…”

Ahhhh…right. The Mormon and Catholic churches really wanted their support for a homophobic, right-stripping amendment to the California Constitution highlighted on the evening news for days or weeks. That’s some great PR right there. Hint: they’re not trying to persuade rational, compassionate people who enjoy a little a**-f**king; those people are pretty much already on board (so to speak).

twinsnakes is totally on to something (snark)
.
I mean, who wouldn’t CHOOSE to be the only group left who can be openly discriminated against and have their rights limited if not retracted? Who wouldn’t choose to belong to that group?
.
The idea that orientation (I’ll leave off the descriptor for this site’s ridiculous moderator-bot) is a choice is absolutely necessary for the Christianist argument against g@y marriage. The reality is, though, that there is no non-religious argument against offering equal rights to committed, consenting adult couples of any kind.
.
You want to protect “the sanctity of marriage” (which state has the lowest divorce rate? that would be the heathen fornicators in massachusetts), ban No-Fault Divorce. Otherwise, you marriage is not in any way, shape or form impacted by loving g@y couples marrying.
.
Nice try, though.

I’m surprised that a state constitution can be amended by a simple majority on a ballot initiative–certainly not the same thing as a majority of the electorate. Seems like a dangerous practice that allows too much power to vocal minority interest groups (almost always extreme social conservatives, it seems) to manipulate state governance documents. Do we have representative democracy (which is what our founding fathers wanted) or direct democracy (which they feared)? We better make up our minds because the current hybrid system is causing more trouble than it’s worth.

jay
.
At this point I am pretty much positive that the only way stuff comes out of moderation is if KT manually frees it. Thats how you can tell when she is about to post something new because I guess she battles the mods after she puts her new stuff up or if she is about to comment on one of her posts. And of course she has 2 new posts up now

Moderation is necessarily manual. No way to know who is doing it.

I’m a little confused here. Blacks make up less than 8% of the electorate in California, and of that 8%, about 70% voted yes for prop 8, (about 5.6% of the entire electorate). Why is the blame falling on them so hard? Wouldn’t a better statistic be that 85% of Republicans, a much larger group of the California electorate, voted in favor of Prop 8?

@Dee

I would agree with you that it’s tough to directly compare the civil rights movement to the current battle for marriage equality–the LGBT community is (in general) protected from discrimination by the federal government (hiring, housing, banking, hate crimes… all of these did not exist for African Americans before the civil rights movement). But that doesn’t mean that you can’t look at the larger picture and see similarities.
.
The issue is not that black men and women weren’t allowed to exist as citizens. The issue is that their freedoms and choices were restricted beyond what the “majority’s” were. The issue, in religious freedoms, in marriage equality, in almost all civil rights cases, is choice.
.
e.g. Have your choices in live life been restricted, where others have not?
.
African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants of all colors and creeds, Catholics, Women, the LGBT community: all of these groups have had their choices restricted in this country’s history in some manner, where White Men generally have not. (No offense to the white guys out there, you just happen to be the majority in this country.)
.
The issue should *not* be whether you believe that homos3xuality is a choice or a genetic certainty. The issue should not be how large or small the discrimination is, how far-reaching its effects.
.
The real issue, the one that all Americans should be invested in, is this: Is every citizen allowed to choose freely and equally?

Go, moderation gods, go!

I agree that the gay community shouldn’t target the black community. There def needs to be better outreach, I disagree however that comparing the civil rights movement to the fight for gay marriage/civil union is the way to go. In my experience, the reaction to that isn’t good.

As for the Mormons I say use vinegar, these people don’t listen to reason…they actually believe to this day that the native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel despite all the genetic testing that shows Asian ancestry. Mormons are polite and seemingly nice on the outside, inside however, they’d much rather ship you off to some concentration camp. So shout at them in the streets, flip them off, say vile things about their parents. Take the comfort of civility away from them. Make things unpleasant because Mormons value pleasantness. Mormons are also very sensitive to how the country sees them, so the gay community should publicize all the strange and ugly beliefs and history of the Moron, oops, Mormon church. If they think you’re hurting their image w/ the rest of the country they might think twice about their political actions in the future.

I lived in Utah once, so I think I know what I’m talking about here….I’m also a confrontational @sshole, so there’s that too.

I agree that the g@y community shouldn’t target the black community. There def needs to be better outreach, I disagree however that comparing the civil rights movement to the fight for g@y marriage/civil union is the way to go. In my experience, the reaction to that isn’t good.
.
As for the Mormons I say use vinegar, these people don’t listen to reason…they actually believe to this day that the native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel despite all the genetic testing that shows Asian ancestry. Mormons are polite and seemingly nice on the outside, inside however, they’d much rather ship you off to some concentration camp. So shout at them in the streets, flip them off, say vile things about their parents. Take the comfort of civility away from them. Make things unpleasant because Mormons value pleasantness. Mormons are also very sensitive to how the country sees them, so the g@y community should publicize all the strange and ugly beliefs and history of the Moron, oops, Mormon church. If they think you’re hurting their image w/ the rest of the country they might think twice about their political actions in the future.
.
I lived in Utah once, so I think I know what I’m talking about here….I’m also a confrontational @sshole, so there’s that too.
.
So ‘g@y’ is on the moderator bad words list? Taking my own advice:
Time magazine, your mother’s a sl#t!

Seems like a dangerous practice that allows too much power to vocal minority interest groups (almost always extreme social conservatives, it seems) to manipulate state governance documents.

yeah. regardless of who the vocal, or well-funded, minority views are, it would make more sense to emulate the US (and MA) constitution in this regard, and require a multistep process involving more than one body of voters at more than one time.

I heard one of the court TV lawyer/hosts whose name I can’t recall at the moment say that in fact you can not amend the constitution of California by popular vote and instead there has to be a 2/3 vote of the legislature to amend the constitution and thats why most think the ban won’t last very long at all. I will try to find the clip because it was a back and forth between her and a guy who was representing Yes on 8

So shout at them in the streets, flip them off, say vile things about their parents. Take the comfort of civility away from them.
.
I disagree with that a little. If you get too nasty, you start playing into their whole martyr fantasy, and they get even more self righteous.
.
But there are ways to be uncivil to them in a debate without flipping them off. And then you have the unequaled pleasure of seeing a Mormon in shock that anyone could disagree with them so passionately on something.
(I have family in the Mormon Church, in SLC, and while I get along with the family well enough, so like Cinci I have reasons for my rancor.)

It’s a civil rights issue and the courts should again take the lead. Should AL voters have been able to vote on desegregation?

And, Rose, though I’m aware of the black community’s, errr, let’s call it tepid embrace of gay rights, I don’t think they should be singled out. Homophobia seems to have rainbow support. It’s the final frontier.

Oh, f–k, I forgot “p@assionately” triggers VictorianBot v3.0. Here:

So shout at them in the streets, flip them off, say vile things about their parents. Take the comfort of civility away from them.
.
I disagree with that a little. If you get too nasty, you start playing into their whole martyr fantasy, and they get even more self righteous.
.
But there are ways to be uncivil to them in a debate without flipping them off. And then you have the unequaled pleasure of seeing a Mormon in shock that anyone could disagree with them so p@ssionately on something.
(I have family in the Mormon Church, in SLC, and while I get along with the family well enough, so like Cinci I have reasons for my rancor.)

So shout at them in the streets, flip them off, say vile things about their parents. Take the comfort of civility away from them.
.
I disagree with that a little. If you get too n@sty, you start playing into their whole martyr fantasy, and they get even more self righteous.
.
But there are ways to be uncivil to them in a debate without flipping them off. And then you have the unequaled pleasure of seeing a Mormon in shock that anyone could disagree with them so p@ssionately on something.
(I have family in the Mormon Church, in SLC, and while I get along with the family well enough, like Cinci I have reasons for my rancor.)

Really, so “nasty” triggers the moderator.

No, apparently it doesn’t. But that was the only change between my second and third attempts. Is it the quotes?
Nasty

No, wait, there’s a typo in my second try. And now I look like a fool. Great.

The Catholic church opposes interspecies “marriage”. Consequently, under the so-called “living constitution” (i.e., the non-constitution) of the anti-America community, interspecies “marriage” is a “fundamental constitutional right” because, otherwise, the Catholic church would be allowed to “impose” its beliefs concerning interspecies “marriage” on the country. That bit of complete lawlessness has at least four votes (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter) at the U.S. Supreme Court and probably has a fifth vote (Kennedy). Of course, any person nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer will also support such lawlessness.

Bit odd for the Governator to have used a weightlifting example – after all, he did admit to taking steroids. Wonder what the correlation is here …

—off topic, maybe
I read that for the election night festivities in Chicago, AMC roomed with “The Obama Girl” in Chicago. Yep, the American one – the one and only.
Is that true?
Will the girl get a ticket to the inaugural ceremony?

Textee…
You should change your handle to “pompousass”. Like a typical “New Conservative”, you don’t look at the whole perspective, just your own. You and your kind are on your way out…i.e., Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc…but you want to take somebody with you. This isn’t Nazi America. You can’t enforce what you feel is your sense of morality. It’s a new dawn. Wake up. Idiot.

[...] an &quotall-new Special Comment&quot from keith olbermann tonight! That should fix everything. …http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/10/prop-8/More from TWoP Forums Made the mistake of watching Friday’s Hot Topics segments I tuned in for Ricky [...]

Lost in all this is the ever-annoying Gavin Newsome’s role in Prop H8′s unfortunate p@ssage. While ultimately he wasn’t directly responsible (a lot of that blame goes to unfortunate voting by blacks, Hispanics, and, as always, the baby boomers and older voters), he was certainly a bad albatross, from his jerk arrogance that became soundbite-perfection to his apparent need to campaign in areas that were essentially the No on 8 Movement’s base (and coincidentally, his own base).
.
This blog from the SF Gate quite correctly articulates his role in the failure to take down Prop H8.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?blogid=47&entry_id=32366

[...] California’s Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, a vocal minority is trying to carry on the fight. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/10/prop-8/?xid=rss-topstoriesFascism, Censorship and . . . Revenge of the NerdsChalk one up for the fascist censors, who are [...]

As a multi-ethinc, 30+ year member of the LDS church, I must say the events of the last few days have left me disheartened. To be clear, The LDS Church has never and will never admonish members on how to vote. It goes completely against one of the major points of doctrine, that we all have free agency to make our own choices in the world. Rather than sling accusations to enflame the uninformed, concerns would be better considered by using actual facts. The manner in which these protests are being carried out do little but diminish any possibility of obtaining a true resolution.

Thank you for your time.

C. I. Duplechain