The passage of Prop 8

Nov 06, 2008 15:32

As I'm sure we all are, I am sad and angry about the passage of the discriminatory Prop 8, and also of other anti-GLBT propositions in other states ( Read more... )

!!mod note

Leave a comment

Comments 29

chasingtides November 7 2008, 01:50:58 UTC
I'm upset by the passage of Prop 8 and am ready to fight against it as best I can from my side of the country.

Reply


azelmaroark November 7 2008, 04:13:49 UTC
I'm also disappointed by the 8 situation, but am very hopeful for the future. Really glad you guys will be continuing this community. I've been watching my No on 8 emails eagerly to hear about what out of state supporters can do for the legal challenges.

This isn't the end of the story, guys. It's chapter one. =)

Reply


mofic November 7 2008, 04:49:48 UTC
I feel totally heartbroken about Proposition 8. I don't live in California and I'm not married. If I choose to get married, I can go to neighboring states (Connecticut or Massachusetts) or to Canada, where I was born and most of my family is. So it's not a personal loss in that sense. But at this moment when so many hopes are coming true, with this joyously historic election, to see the people of California choose to take away basic civil rights from gay men and lesbians feels so terribly wrong.

And part of me feels that if only Obama had come out for equal rights instead of against them, we would have won both the presidency and retained the California Constitution.

Reply

aki_hoshi November 7 2008, 06:18:13 UTC
While I agree with wishing that Obama was for equal rights, I fear that might have actually lost him votes. He does, at least, agree with civil union, which is hardly fair, but at least a step in the right direction. This country still has too many ties to religion within the state structure, and until we can enforce an actual separation of church and state, it will be a horrible uphill battle to get people to realise that this isn't about granting people a right...it's about not taking away a right that they were born with, being a citizen of this country, and a human being. But I'm ready for the fight, and I think America, with the hope of change ahead of us, is too.

I really love your icon, btw. :)

Reply

mofic November 7 2008, 13:46:36 UTC
I do think he made a political calculation and he had to do what he thought would win him votes. I don't believe him when he says that he is opposed to equal marriage rights because of his Christian faith - after all, the man is a professor of constitutional law and has been well able to separate his religious beliefs from public policy on other issues. And I didn't want him to die on this issue - I wanted him to be POTUS. But I can't get over feeling bitter.

When Bill Clinton ran for POTUS he was the most pro-gay candidate we had ever had in a major political party. And we did make huge gains under his watch, in spite of the disaster that was Don't Ask Don't Tell. But I felt really betrayed when he signed DOMA even though I knew he needed to do it to get re-elected. I'm feeling similarly now. I am almost overwhelmed with joy at Obama's win, but this puts a damper on it.

Reply

aki_hoshi November 7 2008, 18:46:10 UTC
I completely agree. I, too, am overwhelmed by Obama's win, and while I think he can do so many good things for this country, so much of that joy is shadowed by the upset of gay rights across America. I guess I was overly hopeful for more change, and now I'm grounded by the fact that our struggle will be that much harder, because while there will be changes across America, the gay community has had major setbacks as well.

But, like I said, I'm ready for the fight. I too, was upset at Clinton for signing DOMA, but if I don't have faith that our new president will listen to us, then I shouldn't have voted for him at all.

Reply


Have you seen this? lee_rowan November 7 2008, 06:19:50 UTC
This links to a site giving the how-to of complaining to the IRS about the Mormon Church's use of a tax-exempt organization to engage in political activity.

The instructions are here: http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/

Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as ( ... )

Reply

Re: Have you seen this? tricksterquinn November 8 2008, 02:24:52 UTC
The problem with this is that "substantial" isn't defined adequately. They define, somewhere, a percentage of total holdings that such efforts cannot exceed, but the LDS Church's total holdings are pretty extensive.

I keep seeing this argument everywhere, and feel like I need to play devil's advocate - I'd be more comfortable if I saw people with more than layman's knowledge of this saying that this argument has any chance of working. The link you've provided above does a better job than I've seen elsewhere (and thank you, it's very interesting!), but I guess I'd rather know more about what the church's total activities consist of.

Does that make sense?

(note: this is totally a plea for more info, not an attack on this initiative!)

Reply

Re: Have you seen this? lee_rowan November 8 2008, 02:38:55 UTC
I don' t know what its entire activity consists of, but considering their money was (if I'm not mistaken) the largest single source of funding for the Prop 8 pushers, I think that could be argued to be a 'substantial' activity.

I'm more hopeful about the people who are taking the amendment to the CA Supreme Court as being inappropriate because it's a revision of the basic equal-rights foundation of the Constitution rather than a simple "amendment."

Reply

Re: Have you seen this? tricksterquinn November 8 2008, 02:49:40 UTC
I'm also really enjoying the idea of all marriages in California being invalidated... (link here)

Reply


green_knight November 7 2008, 08:48:39 UTC
I'm suprised the Mormon Church would support something that goes against the Mormon notion of marriage - _a man and a woman_ means that _a man and several women_ does nto count as marriage, either. Then again, I am not suprised at hatred and homophobia coming out of the Mormon Church, unfortunately.

As previous civil rights struggles have shown, it's a long road, and progression isn't always linear. rachelmanija, I am assuming there is an ongoing campaign, and that it will need funds - can you repost the information?

Reply

fluffydragon November 7 2008, 14:42:48 UTC
I don't think mormon and LDS are necessairly the same, are they? I thought LDS was the one that was into the multiple wives thing.

Reply

tricksterquinn November 8 2008, 02:27:54 UTC
You're thinking FLDS.

LDS (Latter-Day Saints) is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church.

FLDS is Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints and refers to a specific sect of the LDS Church. FLDS people practice polygamy, while the mainstream LDS church does not any more (though it did when it was founded in the early 1800s).

These factoids and more brought to you by living in Utah.

Reply

aki_hoshi November 7 2008, 18:50:17 UTC
The Mormon Church renounced polygamy in the late 1800's...it's just still practiced in some factions (albeit illegally). Many of the active and larger congregations are against polygamy, so, not to defend the actions of the Mormon Church regarding this issue, but I'm sure they were doing it purely for the basic beliefs of most Christian churches.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up