1. le_sacre says

    gosh, it makes you think… maybe it’s a good idea to require more than a simple majority to rewrite a state constitution. hear that, california??

    i’m psyched for florida, but it’ll be frustrating if equality wins there and fails here, even if we get a greater percentage of the voters choosing freedom.

  2. Zeke says

    Unfortunately this report is full of crap.

    I’ve been working EVERY DAY with the NO on 2 campaign for months now. We were told to REALLY focus on the second part of the wording OF THE AMENDMENT. We knew that the amendment was going to be called the Marriage Protection Amendment but no one told us that the title would be followed by a very strong, pro-amendment explanation of what it would THEORETICALLY do; a theory that is 100% baseless.

    Imagine my surprise when I got my sample ballot in the mail and, with sinking heart, realized that we had spent MONTHS focusing what the AMENDMENT says and NO time focusing on what the BALLOT LANGUAGE says and unfortunately it’s the BALLOT language and not the AMENDMENT language that is going to sink us.

    The ballot reads:

    This amendment PROTECTS MARRIAGE as the legal union of only one man and one woman… [emphasis mine]

    Did you get that? Not “protects the definition of marriage” but PROTECTS MARRIAGE!

    How did this language possibly pass muster? How could the proponents prove that this is what the amendment would do?

    If states are going to let their citizens amend their most sacred documents by referendum they should at least have to use language that is factual and not theoretical.

    This ballot measure should read:

    This amendment will Constitutionally codify the definition of marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman…

    At least we could start this fight out without being shamefully handicapped with a categorically false claim on the ballot itself.

    As if that’s not bad enough, after the wording of the amendment, there is a disclaimer that says,
    The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, BUT IS EXPECTED TO BE MINOR. [EMPHASIS MINE]

    It seems like the authors of the amendment were given carte blanche to put anything and everything they wanted in the description regardless of whether or not there was a factual basis for it.

    Don’t forget, no matter how hard we fight; how many people we talk to; how much we donate; how many ads we run; the LAST thing that a voter is going to be faced with is a ballot that tells him/her that this amendment will PROTECT MARRIAGE.

    Frankly, I don’t think there’s any way we can win against this and I certainly don’t think we will win with the horrible campaign that NO on 2 has waged. It’s been a total disgrace as far as I’m concerned, and I say that as a person who has donated hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours volunteering with them.

    I hate to be negative at this point but I am exhausted, frustrated and feeling hopeless, especially after being blindsided with the actual ballot language that NO ONE brought up before so naturally we didn’t focus on.

    Furthermore, I think we will also lose in California unless Senator Obama makes an ad where he strongly, directly and unapologetically states that he thinks Proposition 8 is discriminatory and that he encourages the people of California to vote NO. This might be more effective than anything in reaching out to the African-American voters whose support could make the difference between success or failure for equal rights in California.

    He has NOTHING to lose in CA but his voice could make ALL the difference. It would also establish him more as a man who stands for what’s right even when it’s tough to do so.

  3. le_sacre says

    i think Obama should do this too (because it’s the right thing to do), but i disagree that he has nothing to lose. what happens in california does not stay in california, and an Obama pro-gay-marriage ad would be blasted all over the country trying to mobilize anti-gay votes in middle america and the south.

    it’s good to be cautious and plan for the worst, but we can also maintain some realistic optimism here. amendment 2 needs to gain a whole lot of ground to reach 60% of the vote to pass. and the polls showing prop 8 ahead in california have all come from the same organization (SurveyUSA, which also has tended to yield stronger McCain numbers across the country than other pollsters–maybe they weight their republican respondents more heavily), and even those polls have shown the race within the margin of error. it’s totally winnable–for either side. it’s been great to see more money pouring in after the mormon fundraising/losing poll shockers; i hope that fear will continue to motivate lgbt (and other equality-minded people) to rise up and defend our rights in the remaining couple of weeks.

    i’d rather not have my halloween be that scary this year.

  4. Garst says

    These laws are completely unconstitutional and the exact opposite of the what this land was meant to represent: freedom. Freedom to practice what religion they want; freedom to move into other social classes. Freedom to make our own choices. While the first established pilgrim settlements were from extremists, they were able to practice here.

    Now, the extremists want to take away the very core of what this land was built on. They want push their religion on everyone in this country. They are making this country into the very thing the pilgrims came to this land to escape. We cannot let them turn this country into a revised version of the old countries we migrated from.

  5. Garst says

    On further note, the founding fathers took precausion to try to keep this from happening. They would not base laws purely on religious views. Sure, you can argue that they’re based on the 10 commandments, but when you analise them more closely the major ones that harm other people: stealing, murder, and to a lesser extent, lying (mainly under oath). But the ones that are purely religious, only one God, going to church, were left out of laws because they only dictate how to live your life, not protect it. It’s the fact that these laws are putting a religious slant into our laws. This is the sort of thing the fore fathers tried hard to keep out of law, and while they would problably like to back the law, I doubt they would because of have narrowly the law is worded.

Leave A Reply