SFist: Prop 8: State Equally Divided on Inequality

JoeyGirl

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:58:44 -0800

one word: boo!

sfdely

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:08:44 -0800

I think I got a little too worked up there. Sorry for calling you a shithead, Brock. My husband told me to knock it off :)

sfdely

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:15:18 -0800

That is to say, almost of the state of California is complicit in allowing discrimination into the state constitution. Unnerving. Gee, Brock, with language like this, how could anyone possible ever disagree with us? It almost sounds like the Equality for All No Discrimination Equality Equality Yes campaign that delivered us such a stunning victory in November... what was their strategy? On yes, "let's just remind everyone on the opposition that they're Haters and they Hate Equality. They'll feel so ashamed of themselves they can't help but vote No on 8." How well did that work out? Prop 8 passed because nobody spent a minute making a single useful argument to these people about why gay marriage was a good thing for California, while the Protect Marriage campaign spun outrageous lies, none of which were answered. Meanwhile, we just sat there and said "Equality" a bunch of times and ran slick commercials that were too scared to even use the word "gay". Frankly, I think people who thought their churches were going to be forced to solemnize gay marriages or that their kids would be taught sodomy in schools can be forgiven for voting Yes on 8. As silly as those accusations are, the No on 8 campaign was too afraid to even use the word "gay" to count any of them, so they stood unopposed. And smug shitheads like you will continue to not only lose the fight, but be left puzzling why we keep losing, with the only answer being that "California is full of haters" If we're going to win this, we have to let them know who we are, and why gay marriage is good for us and California.

travin

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:08:12 -0800

this article and that sign makes baby jeebus cry. and me a little too. =0(

Doctor Memory

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:43:51 -0800

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: Ken Starr coasted to a victory in front of the court not because of his perfidious nature, but because the court challenge was the longest of longshots, based on the thinnest of reeds. The case had almost no chance of succeeding in the first place, and EQCA has basically just wasted another several million dollars of our money on a useless feel-good gesture when what they needed to be doing was starting collecting signatures and living up support for the repeal measure yesterday.

porkbun

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:40:58 -0800

back to the point of the post: it seems odd to do a field poll of what voters would do when we already know what the voters DID do just a couple months ago.

Aaron

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:38:37 -0800

This is disheartening for sure, but was to be expected. Maybe I'm just a pessimist but I knew 8 would pass and that the CSC would uphold it. I've been to the Central Valley. I know what it's like down there...that's why I figured it would pass. I'm not a lawyer, but just from reading the briefs filed to overturn 8, even I could tell their arguments were tenuous. A lot of people hate us. A lot of people have it hammered into their heads by preachers, parents, friends, media groups, etc...that we're evil and hellbound. It's hard to bring any sort of logical argument about equality or civil rights into the equation when people have their minds made up for them by religion. It's also harder to win a campaign when there was absolutely no out reach to the areas between the Altamont Pass and the Grapevine. I worked on the no on 8 campaign and it baffled me that they would have spontaneous marches through the Castro. Was that really going to help us win? Obviously not. I'm just sick of this. Everyone knows how the CSC is going to rule, they should just hurry up and do it so we can focus on the next ballot initiative already so we can start the long trek back up that hill.

3dollarbilly

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:35:59 -0800

They are and I'm embarrassed by them.

3dollarbilly

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:34:02 -0800

You're welcome.

what

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:33:10 -0800

Your typos are shocking and disgusting and I don't believe they're real.

Jay

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:29:54 -0800

I posted it on Flickr because that is where I upload my pictures. As of yesterday it had about 3-4 views. I had no idea that it was going to be so controversial. But thank you for being in my head and knowing what I was thinking when I posted it. Someone was out looking to see if they could verify that cropped picture, came across my Photostream and linked it on some blogs. I had no part of that. Let it go....It is what it is.

Jay

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:29:02 -0800

3dollarbilly

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:46 -0800

I apologize in advance for my typos.

3dollarbilly

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:22:51 -0800

Well I'm happy I was proved wrong. I just fond the image on joemygod.blogspot.com and was comming back to correct my post. Then I read your comment and burst out laughing. Equality California now makes judgement calls about the mental state of random protesters holding hateful signs??? Are you kidding me? That shows class? Then why didn't you excercise some "class" before posting it on flickr? They should realize that everything they do will come under scrutiny these days.

periqueblend

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:18:17 -0800

Guess not. He did know he was being photographed though.

Jay

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:12:31 -0800

For your information.....I did talk to Equality California today. They advised me that they cropped out the face because they felt that the guy possibly had mental issues and they did not want his face shown. To me that shows a bit of class on their part. They had no idea that there was going to be blogs about its authenticity.

Jay

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:02:46 -0800

I took pictures of him. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysterdotcom/sets/72157614996838841/

3dollarbilly

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:54:42 -0800

It's my guess that the face isn't included because it's bullshit. Equality California sent this photo yesterday in one of their money grubbing emails. Yes, it's shocking and disgusting but I don't believe it's real. Why would you crop out the face of such a scumbag, why not put a face to the hatred? Clearly the person holding the sign knew they were being photographed.

porkbun

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:36:31 -0800

And the photo of the sign should really include the holder's face. It would be a more powerful image. I'm not a photography critic, I just pretend to be.

kmsinsf

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:27:08 -0800

That sign is just cold. Wow.