Prop. 8 wars rage on Facebook

In the wake of the apparent passage of California Proposition 8, a second generation of rancorous debate has already sprung up online, with Facebook becoming a prominent virtual battleground.  Before the election, Facebook users created dozens of groups on both sides of the measure, some with tens of thousands of followers, others with just a handful. (This anti-Prop. 8 group was even started by Facebook employees.)

Just as the memberships of those older groups continue to swell (see image at left), the new crop of groups is growing fast. 

Opponents are using Facebook to organize protests, boycotts and more creative kinds of political statements.

One group encourages readers to Protest Proposition 8 by paying with $2 bills. If enough people pay with "The Queer Dollar," the group's description predicts, "$2 bills will flood the economy, and everyone will see how much LGBT and Allies's money contributes." 

Read the rest of the post at the Web Scout blog.

-- David Sarno

Comments

[Noellalfn]

Well, all I can say is that if they overturn Proposition 8, then it means that the vote of the people stand for nothing and democracy is going out the door. If the measure had not passed and if the people who wanted it were protesting, then the gays would be saying exactly what the other side is saying, that the people have spoken and get over it. With all the important issues facing the country like the need for health care, affordable housing, the war, and this recession, and the only thing these people can get out and demonstrate for is whether two men can marry and whether to make it easier for hookers to walk the street with Proposition K, you have to wonder about the mentality in La La Land.

[Sarah]

That is a ridiculous statement.

[Courtney]

I think it is refreshing that so many people are involved. Regardless of the side they are on. It is true that if Prop 8 had been voted down, the people against it would be telling proponets to get over it. This is because Prop 8 is unconstitutional and the majority should not be able to vote on the CIVIL RIGHTS of the minority. Civil rights are given to all - regardless of 'majority' in 1910 the majority didn't want women to vote. In 1950 the 'majority' didn't want African Americans to have any rights. Yet they persisted and because it is the promise of this country that all people will be afforded basic rights - they overcame. So too will we.

[Willa]

Please stop decrying the demise of democracy in country. The Founding Fathers established a REPRESENTATIVE democracy purposefully to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. That concept is well documented in the Federalist Papers which is the backbone of conservative legal theory. It was never contemplated that a simple majority vote can take away the fundamental rights of a minority, and the United States Constitution is written such that it can not be amended by a simple majority vote. Whether the California Constitution affords similar protections to the people is a matter for the California Supreme Court to decide. Let the process work.

[Pete]

If this goes to the courts and is overturned, then the will of the people again is bypassed. What is the incentive to go cast a ballot when millions of votes are ignored and the will of a few judges is imposed on the majority?

[Fizz]

Noellalfn: Let's take away your right to marry the one you love and see what you find important in the morning.
Sheesh.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Everyone in California already has the same fundamental right to marry. Same-sex "marriage" advocates want a different right than everyone else. Calling it the same thing does not make it the same thing.

If I'm a nudist and sue to have nudity declared the same thing as clothes, because I want my "clothes" to be acknowledged by the state as just as good as everyone else's, how well will that go over?

The Supreme Court already declined to hear a case against prop 8 based on the "revision" argument back in June. If they are going to hear it now, they're hypocrites, not to mention they wasted 140 million dollars.

As for a California constitutional amendment that takes away rights acknowledged by the Supreme Court (but not explicitly spelled out in the constitution previously), it already happened in the 1970s. The Supreme Court declared that murderers on death row had the right under the constitution not to be executed by the state. The people disagreed, passed an amendment (not a "revision"), and threw out 3 Supreme Court justices on their ear.

Precedent.

[Clark]

Noellalfn, it's amazing how much pride you take in your ignorance. (I guess ever since George W. Bush took office it's become fashionable.)

If you study Constitutional law at all (not to mention why gay marriage is important) you will understand the truly tragic landmark importance of what just happened (and why it cannot go unchallenged). Civil rights were taken from a group that already had them. This was imposed by a "mere" majority (currently fluctuating at around 500,000 votes or around 4 percentage points). The reason the United States is a great country is because this historic document, the U. S. Constitution, was crafted to prevent the majority from inflicting it's will on a protected minority. (The California Constitution was modeled after it.)

Furthermore, it's not just about "whether two men can marry" (I've no idea what Prop K--whatever it is--has to do with Prop 8). It's about all the rights and privileges that go with being married (There are many. And, no, they're not provided by a domestic partnership.)

With people like you taking the time to write in about an issue like this when "important issues facing the country like the need for health care, affordable housing, the war, and this recession," you have to wonder what keeps you from seeing this as a civil rights issue. Is your intent malicious? Are you a fundamentalist? (We're already involved in a war because of fundamentalism.) Are you a homophobe? A bigot? Or is it as I stated right at the beginning, merely ignorant?

[Noellalfn]

Everyone keeps talking about this like is it a civil rights issue. So let me ask you all a question who are against Prop 8. Every group you name, woman, african-americans etc are things that you have no control over. You are either born Black or not, you are either born a woman or not. But as to being gay, I keep hearing different views on what exactly homosexuality is and how it "begins". Some say it's a life style choice, some say you have no control over being born gay, God says it's an abomination to Him and the american psychiatric association up until 1973 diagnosed it as a mental disturbance based on clinical observations and assessments but then some gays got on the board and did some arm twisting and got them to amend the definition, big surprise, so before we take this discussion any further, can someone please give a definitive explanation on what it is because the definition keeps changing depending on who is speaking. And I really don't care what any of you say, the people have spoken. If proposition 8 will put a stop to groups like Men to Boys, a group of older homosexuasl who advocate sex with young boys, from marching down the street with banners chanting "We're here, We're queer and we're coming to get your sons, which is what they did in a town near to me, then so be it. And please for those who are participating, answer with some degree of intelligence and not rude or ugly statements because when you do that, it makes it seem as if you really don't have an informed opinion just a subjective one. And Sarah, to say it is a ridulous statment without any back up is pretty ridiculous as well. And Pete, thank you that is the first intelligent statement I have heard. Not because it agree's with me but it points out a very important truth. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot. People were asked to vote, they did. Now, because the 5.1 millon people who voted against it didn't win, they want to invalidate the votes of the 5.6 million who voted for it. And for the person who did not know what Proposition K was, that's even more scary but that's another thread.

[Clark]

Peter Ahlstrom, there is a fundamental flaw with your argument. Being a "nudist" is not a protected class in California. Homosexuality is.

Guess that throws your precent out the window.

[noellalfn]

Oh and Clark, your statements are so without merit until I won't even bother to answer them. Like most people who are against it, all you can do is name calling without coming up with a concrete argument to support your point of view. Sad.

[noellalfn]

Oh and Clark honey, you made a false statment. Homosexuality used to be a protected class. No more as of November 4, 2008. You'd better try and keep up with the news my friend!!!!!!!

[Noellalfn]

Actually, I didn't make a false statement. What we have is a constitutional conflict. The fat lady has not sung yet, sweetheart.

[Fachento]

Since when is marriage a "right?" Even as a heterosexual, I guess I've never considered it a "right." If I had to categorize it under one of the 10 amendments (the "Bill of Rights"), for me it would fit best as a privilege that is enjoyed incidentally as the Freedom of Religion. Even fitting into that category, it would do so as a privilege, like driving a car or flying a plane, voting (for which the privilege can be revoked), owning and operating your own business, etc.

For many of us who supported Prop 8, we supported it with an eye to the future, of the ramifications it would have as touching our religious practices. We'd rather keep marriage primarily a religious institution -- and making it constitutionally permissible to perform same-sex marriages would be one step closer to making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". I feel it would be akin to opening a Pandora's box of very American-style law-suits.

For those who say that the Constitution is not a framework through which the majority can force their opinion on the minority, do you also realize that it is even LESS of a framework for the minority to impose ITS opinion on the majority?

"I recommend that the Statue of Liberty be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast." - Viktor E. Frankl

[Clark]

Noellalfn, so you're not bothering to answer rational arguments about constitutional law. Well, that's a dignified response. You basically did the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "la, la, la". They were actually well-reasoned. Your silence tells me that it's an area you'd rather not delve into, probably suspecting that you cannot make an argument beyond what you've already said ("Majority rules" doesn't hold water. These are human rights governed by constitutional law.)

Let me point out that your religious beliefs have no bearing here. Perhaps you've heard of the separation between Church and State? What we're discussing is constitutional law.

You stated, "the american psychiatric association up until 1973 diagnosed it as a mental disturbance based on clinical observations and assessments but then some gays got on the board and did some arm twisting and got them to amend the definition, big surprise". Hmm perhaps you've got some inside information about events that happened 25 years ago? This strikes me as some anecdote circulated at sermons, by Wildmon perhaps? I know of no gays that were on the board then.

The definition does not keep changing. People who are gay say they are born that way. They don't ever remember choosing to be gay. It's something they've always known. They have simply chosen to embrace a basic part of what they are, rather than hide their heads in shame over something they can't do anything about. (Don't even get me started on how messed up that can make you when you try to deny part of the fabric of your very being.) The percentage of the gay populace remains steady, but as societal norms change, more people feel comfortable embracing a basic truth about themselves and come out. If you doubt the naturalness, please research this. Homosexuality exists in various animal species around the globe. Perhaps, it's nature's way of ensuring population control? American Indians embraced Two-Spirits (their word for people who are gay).

"[People] who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with the highest respect. They were the historians, the healers, and the people of empowerment. They possessed a delicate balance of male and female and were often honored for being unique and having a different spiritual calling. For their people, they served as mediators between the spirit world and natural world. That time has since passed as Christian ideologies have replaced important tribal traditions."
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22625.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit

There are other examples out there. I encourage you to open your mind to the possibility that it is not a choice.

That's one side.

The other side (those with a religious argument) is driven crazy and likes to label it a lifestyle choice (as if people can switch their homosexuality off and on.) Please answer a question that nobody has ever answered for me. WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE GAY, knowing that they face a life of hostility and aggression? Can you truly answer this question?

As for NAMBLA (you called them Men to Boys, but I think you were confusing them with the pop band, Boyz2Men), I find them deplorable as do many gay people. I'm sorry that they marched in your area and you have every right to be upset about that. However, they are not an accepted part of the larger gay movement. . I'll make you a deal. I won't hold serial marriers (Britanny Spears) and all the heterosexual adulterers against you if you don't lump NAMBLA in with with the gay rights groups. We don't want them. Wikipedia has a page on them if you don't believe they are reviled by the gay community.

As for the name calling in the last paragraph, I apologize. I think I was riled over how casually you were taking this civil rights issue. For the record, I also looked up Prop K. No wonder I didn't know what it was, it was only voted on in San Francisco. I couldn't vote on it from Los Angeles (see, not so scary.)

[noellalfn]

See all we heard this year was rock the vote, get out the vote, you're not a good citizen if you don't vote, people died so you can vote and on and on and on. So, many people did vote but because the losing side doesn't like it, now all of a sudden, the vote is no good and they want to overturn it. I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect based on only one factor and that is that you are a human being just like me and therefore worthy of respect. I don't try and force what I do in the bedroom on anybody and I don't want anyone doing it to me. I feel that the gay community has an over inflated sense of entitlement. They are calling anyone who doesn't go along with everything they want no matter what homophobes. Every gay person I know is 100% focused on shoving his lifestyle down your throat and the minute you don't go along with it, they persecute you, so all they are doing is reverse discrimination.

Oh and Clark, I think I'm in love with you (smile).

[Clark]

Noellalfn, so you're not bothering to answer rational arguments about constitutional law. Well, that's a dignified response. You basically did the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "la, la, la". They were actually well-reasoned. Your silence tells me that it's an area you'd rather not delve into, probably suspecting that you cannot make an argument beyond what you've already said ("Majority rules" doesn't hold water. These are human rights governed by constitutional law.)

Let me point out that your religious beliefs have no bearing here. Perhaps you've heard of the separation between Church and State? What we're discussing is constitutional law.

You stated, "the american psychiatric association up until 1973 diagnosed it as a mental disturbance based on clinical observations and assessments but then some gays got on the board and did some arm twisting and got them to amend the definition, big surprise". Hmm perhaps you've got some inside information about events that happened 25 years ago? This strikes me as some anecdote circulated at sermons, by Wildmon perhaps? I know of no gays that were on the board then.

The definition does not keep changing. People who are gay say they are born that way. They don't ever remember choosing to be gay. It's something they've always known. They have simply chosen to embrace a basic part of what they are, rather than hide their heads in shame over something they can't do anything about. (Don't even get me started on how messed up that can make you when you try to deny part of the fabric of your very being.) The percentage of the gay populace remains steady, but as societal norms change, more people feel comfortable embracing a basic truth about themselves and come out. If you doubt the naturalness, please research this. Homosexuality exists in various animal species around the globe. Perhaps, it's nature's way of ensuring population control? American Indians embraced Two-Spirits (their word for people who are gay).

"[People] who entered into same-sex relationships were considered holy and treated with the highest respect. They were the historians, the healers, and the people of empowerment. They possessed a delicate balance of male and female and were often honored for being unique and having a different spiritual calling. For their people, they served as mediators between the spirit world and natural world. That time has since passed as Christian ideologies have replaced important tribal traditions." -Kevin VanWanseele
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22625.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit

There are other examples out there. I encourage you to open your mind to the possibility that it is not a choice.

That's one side.

The other side (those with a religious argument) is driven crazy and likes to label it a lifestyle choice (as if people can switch their homosexuality off and on.) Please answer a question that nobody has ever answered for me. WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE GAY, knowing that they face a life of hostility and aggression? Can you truly answer this question?

As for NAMBLA (you called them Men to Boys, but I think you were confusing them with the pop band, Boyz2Men), I find them deplorable as do many gay people. I'm sorry that they marched in your area and you have every right to be upset about that. However, they are not an accepted part of the larger gay movement. I'll make you a deal. I won't hold serial marriers (Britanny Spears) and all the heterosexual adulterers against you if you don't lump NAMBLA in with with the gay rights groups. We don't want them. Wikipedia has a page on them if you don't believe they are reviled by the gay community.

As for the name calling in the last paragraph, I apologize. I think I was riled over how casually you were taking this civil rights issue. For the record, I also looked up Prop K. No wonder I didn't know what it was, it was only voted on in San Francisco. I couldn't vote on it from Los Angeles (see, not so scary.)

[eds]

is this prop8 mess and rallies going to stop soon?
People voted so that's the end

Should i go in the street to overturn
my unhappiness about Obama because i voted McCain?

Gay rights may be a big issue for gays
but really does not affect 90 percent of Californians
We have bigger issues to deal with
such as traffic or illegal immigration

Can medias stop showing these rallies thanks

[noellalfn]

Noellalfn, so you're not bothering to answer rational arguments about constitutional law. Well, that's a dignified response. You basically did the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "la, la, la". They were actually well-reasoned.

Sorry Clark, well rehearsed is more like it. I notice people that support homosexuality always use the same tired arguments.

Your silence tells me that it's an area you'd rather not delve into, probably suspecting that you cannot make an argument beyond what you've already said ("Majority rules" doesn't hold water. These are human rights governed by constitutional law.)

Do I really need to? The people voted. THE END

Let me point out that your religious beliefs have no bearing here. Perhaps you've heard of the separation between Church and State? What we're discussing is constitutional law.

Unlike yourself, I have more sense than to try and keep God out of my life.

You stated, "the american psychiatric association up until 1973 diagnosed it as a mental disturbance based on clinical observations and assessments but then some gays got on the board and did some arm twisting and got them to amend the definition, big surprise". Hmm perhaps you've got some inside information about events that happened 25 years ago? This strikes me as some anecdote circulated at sermons, by Wildmon perhaps? I know of no gays that were on the board then.

It’s all a matter of public record, put the remote down and do some googling.

The definition does not keep changing. People who are gay say they are born that way. They don't ever remember choosing to be gay.

Funny, every gay man I’ve know suffered a major psychological trauma, usually related to some sort of rejection, many times by family members but hey, I’m no shrink.

As for NAMBLA (you called them Men to Boys, but I think you were confusing them with the pop band, Boyz2Men), I find them deplorable as do many gay people. I'm sorry that they marched in your area and you have every right to be upset about that. However, they are not an accepted part of the larger gay movement. . I'll make you a deal. I won't hold serial marriers (Britanny Spears) and all the heterosexual adulterers against you if you don't lump NAMBLA in with with the gay rights groups. We don't want them. Wikipedia has a page on them if you don't believe they are reviled by the gay community.

I LOVED Boyz2Men! Anyway, when the incident was written up, that was the name the group used Men to Boys but if there are even more groups, OMG!! It’s worse than I thought!

As for the name calling in the last paragraph, I apologize. I think I was riled over how casually you were taking this civil rights issue. For the record, I also looked up Prop K. No wonder I didn't know what it was, it was only voted on in San Francisco. I couldn't vote on it from Los Angeles (see, not so scary.)

But it was still your state and laws like these can spread out. Would you really like to see it made easier for hooking to exist? What a nice option for our young ladies!

[carol]

Well, so much for tolerance. I have never seen such a group of intolerant people since prop 8 was passed. Why are they picketing the churches? It was obviously more than church people who voted for it and gave money to it. I read an article about an artistic director of a nonprofit theater who, when they found out he gave 1000.00 to yes on 8 they called for a boycot of the theater and the man resigned from his position in the interest of the theater. WOW. People are only standing up for what they believe. The gay community on the other hand is being vicious & bigoted. So tolerance is only advocated when it works in their favor I guess!

[Jesse Normand]

it is a civil rights issue. Who cares what your god thinks. I want to marry my partner of three years and I can in Mass and conneticut and I can live in New York, New Jersey and vermont without any RIGHTS being changed. The east coast hasn't fallen apart. People shouldn't vote on rights and thats what this is THE RIGHT TO MARRY.

MAY MY GOD BLESS ALL GAY & LESBIAN MARRIAGES IN CALIFORNIA AND MAY MY GOD UPHOLD WHAT IS RIGHT AND SEE THE OVERTURN OF THIS HATE LAW THOUGH.

Jesse Normand
New York