I found the following link that shows how the vote for each of the CA propositions went by county.
vote.sos.ca.gov/
It surprised me to see that LA county had a majority “Yes” vote for this. Imperial Valley, Riverside County, San Diego I’d expect it, but not in LA county.
This makes me feel much less guilty about being really nasty to Mormons.
SF Gate Results every 10 minutes on California’s Propositions.
http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2008/11/04/CA/c/i_proposition/i_1_8_same_sex_marriage_ban/g_ballot_issue/c/california.shtml
Still waiting on 20% of precincts but it’s been at 52% Yes forlikeever. I can’t keep my eyes open, but I think when I wake up in eight hours this proposition will have passed. It’s unfortunate.
[quote=“lbksig”]I found the following link that shows how the vote for each of the CA propositions went by county.
vote.sos.ca.gov/
It surprised me to see that LA county had a majority “Yes” vote for this. Imperial Valley, Riverside County, San Diego I’d expect it, but not in LA county.[/quote]
Thanks for hte link. I voted a couple of weeks ago and was curious of the status of the various measures.
I’m glad to see the high speed rail bond measure passed. That would/will be awesome to have an HSR linking LA, Sac, SF, etc. Although CA’s totally broke and broken down, it needs to recapture its greatness and a modern transit system is critical.
I’m also pleased that those who seek abortions won’t be required to obtain parental consent. Sounds reasonable if one comes from a healthy family, but it would be a horrible requirement for pregnant girls from violent, abusive families.
I’m surprised to see how overwhelmingly the no-confining-of-farm-animals measure passed (although there will only be a cost to egg producing companies and we will all benefit morally). For those unfamiliar, it will now be law in California that chickens and other farm animals may not be confined all day to the extent that they can’t stretch out their limbs. Only in CA. 
Looks like prop 8 is going to pass, maybe if the “NO on Prop 8” campaign didn’t come across as complete douchebags then it wouldn’t have had passed, I think they can thank Mayor Gavin and his “whether you like it or not” speech for this. Casting gay marriage as a minority light probably didn’t help either.
I guess the lesson here is that when the majority of the people believe something you go change their minds first instead of just trying to shove your point of view down their throat. Reading the thread here I see the same elitist mentality that cost the “NO” vote, that it’s a basic fundamental right anyone who doesn’t agree must be an idiot or a peasant. Too bad there are more peasants than lords.
Well now it’s in the constitution and judges are going to have to uphold it.
If it is elitist to oppose discrimination, then I am proud to be an elitist. Prop 8 is nothing more than the religious right’s push for a theocracy. They believe homosexuality is a sin and want to impose this belief on the rest of us through law. I have no objection to anyone’s right to believe the former, but find the latter to be extremely disturbing.
Keep this stuff in the church, please.
QFT
[quote=“smerf”]
If it is elitist to oppose discrimination, then I am proud to be an elitist. .[/quote]
Too bad the rest of CA are not as elitist, and no it’s not discrimination no matter how many ads they run saying it is. Again and again people in CA have said they do not believe in gay marriage, calling them racists is not going to change anyone’s mind.
[quote=“snafu”]Looks like prop 8 is going to pass, maybe if the “NO on Prop 8” campaign didn’t come across as complete douchebags then it wouldn’t have had passed, I think they can thank Mayor Gavin and his “whether you like it or not” speech for this. Casting gay marriage as a minority light probably didn’t help either.
I guess the lesson here is that when the majority of the people believe something you go change their minds first instead of just trying to shove your point of view down their throat. Reading the thread here I see the same elitist mentality that cost the “NO” vote, that it’s a basic fundamental right anyone who doesn’t agree must be an idiot or a peasant. Too bad there are more peasants than lords.
Well now it’s in the constitution and judges are going to have to uphold it.[/quote]
Until all the old bigots die off. This is clearly a generational issue (the young don’t need convincing) and I am sorry to see you defending the old guard as history will not be kind to people who opposed the tide of tolerance. Sorry, but you know where this issue will be in 30 years.
As for lessons, it would appear to be: be better funded.
Hate the leadership, Poagao. They are the ones who deserve scorn. The laity are manipulated from birth to follow these paternalistic, intolerant old codgers. It sometimes kills me that so many of my family members are under their spell.
Some day, I’ll write a piece on how the manipulation really works. Being back in the States and seeing it more first hand has given me some fresh insights into just how insidious it is.
Check out exmormon.org/ for some insider views on how this group of well-heeled sexists and homophobes really works.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
Until all the old bigots die off. This is clearly a generational issue (the young don’t need convincing) and I am sorry to see you defending the old guard as history will not be kind to people who opposed the tide of tolerance. Sorry, but you know where this issue will be in 30 years.
As for lessons, it would appear to be: be better funded.[/quote]
Isn’t this what the Republicans are saying ? That McCain lost because he didn’t have as much money ? Read Freakonomics, money doesn’t have as much to do with the way people vote as the media says.
I have no idea where the issue will be in 30 years and neither do you. This has been voted on multiple times and people have voted the same way each time.
The idea that you can browbeat or intimidate people into voting for gay marriage by calling them bigots, old codgers and racist is strange to me. I have no idea why you guys think that would work. I didn’t think it was going to work when they first started running the ads and it’s proven to be true. People were actually going to vote against Prop 8 till the ads appeared.
It didn’t help that gay/lesbian couples already had laws on the books that gave them basically the same rights as married couples.
“A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_p … California
[quote=“snafu”][quote=“smerf”]
If it is elitist to oppose discrimination, then I am proud to be an elitist. .[/quote]
Too bad the rest of CA are not as elitist, and no it’s not discrimination no matter how many ads they run saying it is. Again and again people in CA have said they do not believe in gay marriage, calling them racists is not going to change anyone’s mind.[/quote]
Racists? 
Bigots, homophobics, ignoramuses, religious whackos, scared little people who need to shut the fuck up, these might be appropriate things to call them (if one was so inclined to use such words), but not racists. Call me silly, but I just can’t see how use of the term “racist” would be appropriate in this instance. 
[quote=“snafu”]I guess the lesson here is that when the majority of the people believe something you go change their minds first instead of just trying to shove your point of view down their throat.
Well now it’s in the constitution and judges are going to have to uphold it.[/quote]
So what you’re saying is that it’s OK for the majority to shove their views down MY throat? It was OK for the white majority to expect blacks to believe they were inferior? It’s insulting to be told that I must first convince the majority that I am deserving of equal protection under the law.
Minority rights should never be put to majority vote. The constitution protects minorities from that.
A constitutional amendment can not violate a principle already part of the constitution and this will go back to the courts now and I hope the judges will assure that the rights of minorities are protected.
Looks like the Mormon church in Utah played a substantial role in drawing up support for this proposition.
Does this affect the validity of the ~18,000 couples who have wed since June of this year?
A suit was filed this morning directly with the Supreme Court. I find this all very interesting.
[quote=“914”]Does this affect the validity of the ~18,000 couples who have wed since June of this year?
A suit was filed this morning directly with the Supreme Court. I find this all very interesting.[/quote]
I think it would void their marriages
And with each poll and vote, the proportion of homophobes diminishes.
Homophobia is destined to go the way of racism and anti-Semitism: pushed to the loony fringes. You see, young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, while old people overwhelmingly oppose it. And it’s one of those issues where changes of mind are almost completely unidirectional.
I see either a court challenge or a repeal in the making.
I haven’t been close to this so I don’t understand the process too well, but what is stopping a review of this law in the coming months? Does it require a general election to review it?
I raised the point earlier about yes=no and no=yes because I wouldn’t be surprised if a chunk of the masses actually voted against their intentions.
Chris wrote:
I wonder what groups of people it will still be acceptable to hate in the coming years. Mmm, Australian satellite dish installers with Taiwanese citizenship who live in the mountains?
[quote=“Truant”]I haven’t been close to this so I don’t understand the process too well, but what is stopping a review of this law in the coming months? Does it require a general election to review it?
I raised the point earlier about yes=no and no=yes because I wouldn’t be surprised if a chunk of the masses actually voted against their intentions.[/quote]
Above the ballot it plainly says “Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry”. So “Yes” would eliminate this right: pretty clear. Doesn’t mean that there aren’t people too feeble-minded to understand its meaning, though.
There will be a review. This is a Constitutional Amendment (why simple popular majorities are all that’s needed to pass a constitutional amendment in CA are beyond me) to the state constitution, which in theory would make it unchallengeable through any method but a repeal, but apparently even Constitutional Amendments can’t conflict with the Equal Protection Clause in CA, so I hear. There’ll be legal action, believe you me. The fight is not over.
And freedom WILL prevail in the end.