FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

daveZA saidMASS PROTEST TO START FROM UCLA AT 4PM. MARCH TO FEDERAL BUILDING. CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA TO TAKE FEDERAL ACTION NOW.

FOLLOW ALL UPDATES VIA TWITTER @imdavevalk

omg!!! go bruins!! i'm proud to be a ucla graduate!!!

Caslon10874 saidIt's tyranny of the majority and a failure to uphold the Equal Protection clause of the California and US constitutions.

Avoiding a tyranny of the majority is merely a philosophical concept of this country's Founders, and has never applied to unpopular minorities like gays. If you're unpopular, the majority will suppress you. That's the American way.

as expected...

daveZA saidMASS PROTEST TO START FROM UCLA AT 4PM. MARCH TO FEDERAL BUILDING. CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA TO TAKE FEDERAL ACTION NOW.

FOLLOW ALL UPDATES VIA TWITTER @imdavevalk

Kudos for speaking your mind. But, what, exactly, do you expect Pres. Obama to do? This falls in line with what he believes. And even if he didn't, what "FEDERAL ACTION" do you propose be taken?

TexanMan82 saidKudos for speaking your mind. But, what, exactly, do you expect Pres. Obama to do? This falls in line with what he believes. And even if he didn't, what "FEDERAL ACTION" do you propose be taken?

This is not a Federal issue, unless the issue to brought to the US Supreme Court. The Court's current conservative make-up would result in the upholding of Prop 8.

Obama and Congress will not come to our aid. DOMA will remain in place, because Democrats will judge it political suicide to repeal it. Democrats may not vote for new anti-gay measures as Republicans would, but neither will they repeal the existing laws against gays. We must realize that Democrats are fair-weather friends, who will throw us under the bus when it suits them.

Our political tactics must therefore look beyond the Democrats. We have relied upon them for too long, and they have never failed to let us down.

Red_Vespa said

Caslon10874 saidIt's tyranny of the majority and a failure to uphold the Equal Protection clause of the California and US constitutions.

Avoiding a tyranny of the majority is merely a philosophical concept of this country's Founders, and has never applied to unpopular minorities like gays. If you're unpopular, the majority will suppress you. That's the American way.

Blacks were a very unpopular minority. It is exactly the philosophical concept of protection of the minority from the majority which turned the tide for black civil rights. It was not put up for a vote. The difference is that the black civil rights movement kept the pressure on and not by educating people, because people are too fucking stupid to learn. They did it with marches and protests and violence as well as charm and poise and class and art. The black population, no doubt, is far larger than the gay population (or is it?), and that helped to keep their movement in everybody's face, 24/7. The black civil rights movement also fired up it's proponents on a more constant basis than gay people are even willing to tolerate, to their loss. Nobody's willing to give up more than a little time away from their next potential encounter. As a body, we react when we're slapped, but we react by catching our breath and tearing up. We need to slap back, and really fucking hard.

McGay saidBlacks were a very unpopular minority. It is exactly the philosophical concept of protection of the minority from the majority which turned the tide for black civil rights. It was not put up for a vote. The difference is that the black civil rights movement kept the pressure on and not by educating people, because people are too fucking stupid to learn. They did it with marches and protests and violence as well as charm and poise and class and art. The black population, no doubt, is far larger than the gay population (or is it?), and that helped to keep their movement in everybody's face, 24/7. The black civil rights movement also fired up it's proponents on a more constant basis than gay people are even willing to tolerate, to their loss. Nobody's willing to give up more than a little time away from their next potential encounter. As a body, we react when we're slapped, but we react by catching our breath and tearing up. We need to slap back, and really fucking hard.

First, Blacks are offended when gays draw parallels with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s & 60s. That belongs to them alone, and gays are not allowed to suggest similarities.

Second, the big breakthroughs in civil rights occurred because of President Lyndon Johnson, who has been otherwise discredited in history by the Vietnam War. We don't have a gay champion of gay civil rights like Johnson was for Blacks, Obama being too politically cautious to assume that role. Plus it's becoming obvious that Obama personally doesn't like gays, though he's careful not to say anything overtly offensive.

And so I see no real gay advances coming during this administration. Hillary is pushing, but Obama will cut her down. It's better than being outlawed, as the Republicans would like, but neither will we see equal rights.

McGay saidThe difference is that the black civil rights movement kept the pressure on ...

The difference is that Blacks burned cities and property. Then people took them seriously. The Stonewall Riots got gays in NYC taken seriously. The majority isnt going to hand over any rights until it hurts them. People like the power to say "no" to others...until they see their cars going up in flames.

Also, most gays can pass in everyday life and avoid confrontation. Blacks...ummm...couldnt.

Shame, shame, shame.

We still have a lot of work to do in California.

You know what? This sucks and I am disappointed
but The California Supreme Court took the cowardly DADT approach to this

By stating that Prop 8 stands and ALLOWING the previous marriages to remain legal is the legal equivalent to an oxymoron
It doesn't make sense

When you can give and then take away civil rights to a group of people it becomes a VERY sad day in America

Caslon10874 said

McGay saidThe difference is that the black civil rights movement kept the pressure on ...

The difference is that Blacks burned cities and property. Then people took them seriously. The Stonewall Riots got gays in NYC taken seriously. The majority isnt going to hand over any rights until it hurts them. People like the power to say "no" to others...until they see their cars going up in flames.

Mmmm hm.

Caslon, you're thinking along the same lines I am now.

I'm tired of us sitting back trying to play political hardball. It's obviously NOT working, is it?

It's time to throw a little 'blue ocean' strategy out there. There had better be riots in California tonight.

I'm also not liking the tone of the "well, we let you guys keep the 18,000 marriages...". Great. Wooh. What about people who didn't want to jump into marriage, only to get divorced later?

Red_Vespa said

McGay saidBlacks were a very unpopular minority. It is exactly the philosophical concept of protection of the minority from the majority which turned the tide for black civil rights. It was not put up for a vote. The difference is that the black civil rights movement kept the pressure on and not by educating people, because people are too fucking stupid to learn. They did it with marches and protests and violence as well as charm and poise and class and art. The black population, no doubt, is far larger than the gay population (or is it?), and that helped to keep their movement in everybody's face, 24/7. The black civil rights movement also fired up it's proponents on a more constant basis than gay people are even willing to tolerate, to their loss. Nobody's willing to give up more than a little time away from their next potential encounter. As a body, we react when we're slapped, but we react by catching our breath and tearing up. We need to slap back, and really fucking hard.

First, Blacks are offended when gays draw parallels with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s & 60s. That belongs to them alone, and gays are not allowed to suggest similarities.

Second, the big breakthroughs in civil rights occurred because of President Lyndon Johnson, who has been otherwise discredited in history by the Vietnam War. We don't have a gay champion of gay civil rights like Johnson was for Blacks, Obama being too politically cautious to assume that role. Plus it's becoming obvious that Obama personally doesn't like gays, though he's careful not to say anything overtly offensive.

And so I see no real gay advances coming during this administration. Hillary is pushing, but Obama will cut her down. It's better than being outlawed, as the Republicans would like, but neither will we see equal rights.

Well, first, I wasn't drawing parallels, I was pointing out differences.

Second, that's exactly right, and it wasn't put to a vote.

Third, I'll go so far as to say I'm really really disappointed in the Obama silence on everything gay since he took office. There's no shame in being fooled, only in being fooled the same way twice. Should he continue the way he has, I won't be fooled a second time.

Guys, I'll advise you to be careful of the rhetorical call to violence you may be seen as making. Should those kinds of things actually happen, it gives people who want to know people to look at. You don't want to be one of those people.

McGay saidGuys, I'll advise you to be careful of the rhetorical call to violence you may be seen as making. Should those kinds of things actually happen, it gives people who want to know people to look at. You don't want to be one of those people.

Oh please, it doesn't matter what we do, we will always be seen as the villains,

We march in parades in silly outfits, and we are too flamboyant

We march in suits and ties, and we are seen as trying to cover up our indecency

We set up groups in colleges and high schools so students will feel safe and not try to kill themselves, and we are recruiting

We ask for our rights, and we are threatening to tear down the fabric of society

You can't win with these people. Sometimes, you just need to fight for your rights, even if it's with violence.

I knew it but i'm still bitter..

TheIStrat said

McGay saidGuys, I'll advise you to be careful of the rhetorical call to violence you may be seen as making. Should those kinds of things actually happen, it gives people who want to know people to look at. You don't want to be one of those people.

Oh please, it doesn't matter what we do, we will always be seen as the villains,

We march in parades in silly outfits, and we are too flamboyant

We march in suits and ties, and we are seen as trying to cover up our indecency

We set up groups in colleges and high schools so students will feel safe and not try to kill themselves, and we are recruiting

We ask for our rights, and we are threatening to tear down the fabric of society

You can't win with these people. Sometimes, you just need to fight for your rights, even if it's with violence.

All very different than burning churches and k of c lodges. Not that I would mind if I never saw anything but their ashes, all of them, but I think you have to be careful about how you couch your response in public. You can't really wear a ski mask on the internet if people already know who you are.

I was a little disappointed earlier when I heard the news earlier in the car while driving to an appointment. But then I started thinking about how far the gay rights movement has come and the victories we've enjoyed in the last ten or so years.

As irrational as it sounds, I think the best thing we can do (once we finish our next round of protests) is to embrace the idea that everything is slowly coming together for good. I think that this defeat, and perhaps ones that will follow, is only momentary, and that there is cause for great faith in the eventual triumph of human rights.

"Marriage belongs in the Bible, not in the Constitution." - new gay slogan.

I think we should fight back by asking our representatives to eliminate Marriage from Federal laws, State and Local laws. Any benefits or authorizations extended from one person to another can be certified by the state and available in a database for those that need to know to reference. e.g. Right to make health decisions for an incapacitated person - check ID of each and access secure govt site to verify. Viola - no marriage needed. Can be between siblings, roommates, trusted friends, whoever. All benefits after death can be assigned by a will. All citizens should stand on their own in the eyes of the government unless a minor.

If a private organization wants to recognize a marriage in some manner so be it. An insurance company can easily offer coverage to significant others and plenty do.

The point is that if Marriage is sacred, i.e. religious, and religious folks won't extend it to Gays, why should they. Simply get Gov't out of the marriage business. Then Gay's won't care. They can get Married from their gay friendly churchs and it isn't Governmentally sanctioned ( the marriage isn't and the gayness isn't - which is what we are fighting.)

Why not ask the Supreme Court to rule that Marriage is Religious in nature and therefore a violation of Religious Freedom to have enforcement of it in society through laws.

As Californian's we should be embarrassed by this injustice. Just is not fair!
But at least they didn't deny the rights of those who were married, and thats a good sign that it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

SFNavigator saidAs Californian's we should be embarrassed by this injustice. Just is not fair!
But at least they didn't deny the rights of those who were married, and thats a good sign that it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Cheers to it.

GQjock said
By stating that Prop 8 stands and ALLOWING the previous marriages to remain legal is the legal equivalent to an oxymoron
It doesn't make sense

Yes it does. Prop 8 included no language about retroactively nullifying previous marriages. And since until Prop 8 was voted and passed, marriages in California were still legal.

With or without court input, Prop 8 couldn't retroactively null and void those gay marriages.

I'm siding with the court on this one.

SECOND CLASS!!

THat's who we are!!

If you had a mental ILLNESS.....you have more rights and 2 retards can still get married. Who's fault? OUR FAULT. Gays have a very poor way of banning together, unless it's on a cruz ship of some kind. Pull your heads out of the ME...ME..ME zone and into the WE..WE...WE ZONE.

It maybe to late. Hope...and not just obama. It's in our hands. Protest. Don't pay your tax and fuck in the buck!

OHhiker said"Marriage belongs in the Bible, not in the Constitution." - new gay slogan.


The point is that if Marriage is sacred, i.e. religious, and religious folks won't extend it to Gays, why should they. Simply get Gov't out of the marriage business. Then Gay's won't care. They can get Married from their gay friendly churchs and it isn't Governmentally sanctioned ( the marriage isn't and the gayness isn't - which is what we are fighting.)

Why not ask the Supreme Court to rule that Marriage is Religious in nature and therefore a violation of Religious Freedom to have enforcement of it in society through laws.

i agree

OHhiker said"Marriage belongs in the Bible, not in the Constitution." - new gay slogan.

I think we are on the same page. I would be pushing to make marriage a private religious ceremony with absolutely no civil or financial benefits. There can be a civil partnership for any two adults which gives civil benefits.

It´s like baptism/dedication/circumcision. They are religious ceremonies which have absolutely no civil or financial benefits. These benefits come by virtue of birth, not religiously defined (and note: there are many different definitions) rite.

PREDICTION: Some California mayors might rebuff this decision and force a showdown with the US Supreme Court....UNLESS...another proposition is put on the ballot to repeal the marriage ban, then the mayors will wait it out and see what happens with that.