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." 

Proponents of the marriage ban wasted no time in setting up new groups to defend the amendment's passage. 

"This group demands that the vote of the people be respected in our democracy," reads the description of 1,000,000 for Defending Prop 8, which has earned nearly 7,500 members since election day.  "Thousands of individuals fought for marriage, donated time and money, and sometimes were persecuted for it. We have come too far in this election to have it thrown out after the battle has been won."

Also employing the now-familiar "million for X" brand of Facebook activism is 1,000,000 Million Strong Against Newly Passed Prop. 8. (The group's creator sheepishly acknowledges the redundancy in the name), which already has nearly 60,000 members.  "Proposition 8 is not just about eliminating gay rights," the groups founder wrote in its intro box. "It's about DESTROYING the FOUNDATION [of] what our California Constitution stands for."

Get the Facts about the LDS Church and Proposition 8 notes that it "was set up to refute and dispel the countless untruths floating around regarding the Mormon church's involvement in Proposition 8," and Repeal the CA Ban on Marriage Equality - 2010 shares information about the legal challenges to the measure and the large protests that are now being organized (including a developing event activists are calling the Million Gay March).

Comments

[Evan]

Does anybody notice the trend on this board - that people who were for Yes on 8 don't even have a basic grasp of English grammar?

Scary that they are trying to rewrite the California Constitution when they can't even write a grammatically correct paragraph, 5th grade level!

It speaks volumes.

[Ted]

Is it me or are all the friggin idiots who posted here in support of Prop 8 illiterate morons? Is it from all the in-breeding of the Mormons?

As noted by some post-ers, the ballot box is not the place to decide anyone's rights. The federal and state constitutions were designed to protect the rights of all Americans, notably the rights of minorities, and freedom of religion. Consitutions do not restrict rights.

How many black people out there would have been OK with a civil rights vote in the 1960s? If left to a popular vote, frankly, blacks may still not have the right to vote in 2008, in which case they could not have voted for or against Prop 8. Tell me, how would you feel about that?

It is the job of the courts in each jurisdiction to protect the rights of all citizens by interpreting the relevant constituion, srtiking down laws passed by legislatures that are deemed by the majority of justices to be unconstitutional and upholding those that are constitutional.

The CA Supreme Court was not able, based on its rules, to intercede with respect to the Prop 8 vote, but now that it's passed they surely will rule it to be unconstitutional, under a variety of legal theories including the one which caused them to allow gay marriage in the first place.

Churches which maintain their tax exempt status should never be allowed to engage in the kinds of support provided by the Mormons and Catholics in this battle. The IRS should revoke their status retroactively. Despite how greedy those bastards are, making them pay taxes won't be nearly as bad as what those hate-mongers will face on their own personal judgement day when their god asks them why they idolized false gods, i.e. their priests and ministers, and fomented hate against their fellow man. Burn in hell!

[Laurie]

I voted yes on Proposition 8 because I believe marriage is sacred and should not be messed with. I take it seriously that marriage was one of the priority things God created first( if you believe in God.) Who am I or anybody else to redefine something that has been around before any laws were created or societies were formed? Now if you don't believe that than the redefining of marriage is based on your and your nieghbors opinion. I think of that butter commercial a few years back that says "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature." That is why a lot of people voted yes. Not to hate anyone but to uphold something more important than hurting someone's feelings. If I'm weighing what has the most value it is keeping in tact the defintion of marriage because that is the right thing to do.

[David Craig]

I was one of those posting an event on Facebook calling for a strike and boycott in support of marriage equality. HOWEVER, Facebook just deleted the event claiming that it was "hateful, threatening or obscene."
We had over 2500 people responding positively to this event and another 4500 who had been send the invite. We are also one of a number of similar events listed on Facebook. Will they also be removed?
Facebook does not provide a phone number to contact them, only via email at info@facebook.com. I'm hoping to hear from them shortly.
David Craig

[David Craig]

Here's the interesting thing about minorities wanting equal rights. They never seem to get the majority of the votes. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY. Thank goodness for the Constitution and the Judicial process.
Now once SCOTUS decides that gays are in a legitimate minority, we will be protected by the 14th Amendment. But we will need to wait until there are more enlightened members of the court before we ask them to consider this.

[Randy]

Seems like no one voted yes on Prop 8 for legal reasons. They voted because they believe marriage is "sacred" or that it's been around "before any laws were created" and for "thousands of years". These claims seem just a liiiiittle exaggerated, don't you think? Yes, people have been having sex and babies for thousands of years, but I don't think god had much of a hand in the law-writing of marriage rights. And as far as sacred, if that's the case, then we should have the courts outlaw divorce. What's that you say? It's a personal decision that is between you and your church, and the state shouldn't have a say in that? OK! So marriage and divorce is more of a religious issue.

Come off it, people. I really think that in your hearts, you were voting against gay people. That's your beef. Not marriage. You just want those gays gone, and you thought this would be the one, maybe only, legal way to show it. If you're gonna fight about it, at least be honest.

[A Married Californian]

Dear Laurie,

I understand that you believe that God created marriage. However, doesn't it also say in the Bible (and in the teachings of every religion that I can think of) that humans do not have the right to judge other humans. You say that you don't "hate" gay people, but you clearly judged them when you voted to deprive them of the right to marry.

On a personal note, I understand that it is hard not to judge. In fact, I am trying not to judge you even though it hurts me deeply that you voted to invalidate my marriage. I will be working to overturn Proposition 8 but in doing so I will try to spare you the judgment that you so readily made on me and all other LGBTs.

Respectfully,

[scott]

You know what? We live in a democracy not a theocracy. God and religion shouldn't even be relevant in this discussion. You want "God's rule?" Look at the Middle East. And I, like a former poster, am highly amused that most supporters of Prop 8 have no grasp of basic spelling or grammar. If we're going to ban anything, why not ban stupidity?

[Jim Stone]

Religious arguments aside, legalizing gay marriage puts us on an extremely slippery slope in a dangerous direction. I doubt the Prop 8 opponents have any legitimate rebuttal to this argument. And no, calling me a bigot or a homophobe isn't a legitimate rebuttal. As one previous poster ironically put it: "We're not asking for you to like us or respect us, we're just demanding equal rights." Well, most people who voted for Prop 8 DO "like" gays, in the sense that we're friends with gays and not inclined to discriminate against them in any way. But we draw the line at actively encouraging that aspect of your lifestyle that we disagree with. Expanding the definition of marriage isn't granting "equal rights"; it's creating special rights so that a minority who defines themselves by flouting the traditional family lifestyle can feel like they have a traditional family.

http://counteredmajoritarian.blogspot.com/

[Gage]

I wonder if civil rights were voted on in Alabama in 1965 if African Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus?

Blacks and whites both had water fountains in the 60's....bottom line, SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL!

I pay the same taxes as all of the God-fearing Christians in this state. I pay for your children to go to school...don't tell me who I can and can't marry. Would you rather me marry your daughter?

Isn't Jesus supposed to be coming back soon? Please Jesus...come rapture the crazies back to heaven and leave the rest of us in peace.

[roy]

Banning gay marriage is not discrimination against gays. There is a large fundamental difference not based in anything except fact and reality that separates a gay union from a straight union. A straight union has the capacity to create life and continue the human race. These two genders combined in this form only can result in the creation of life, which is a significant difference between a straight and gay union. It's not discriminatory to say that a gay union doesn't result in the creation of life because it just doesn't. What is wrong with calling a different kind of union something else? Doesn't it seem like this reason might be a good enough reason to call this type of union something else? It's not about the quality of love between two people that makes it different, but it is this biological capacity for procreation. Why does a gay union have to be described with explicit language that already defines the type of union that is the only kind resulting in procreation. As long as all of the same rights are guaranteed for gay unions, why does it have to be perceived as discrimination for their unions to be called something else, when there is a valid fundamental difference between the two types of unions? Whatever the name of that union is, it is what you make it. If I had the opportunity to vote for Prop 8, I would have. I also would not have been judging gays by depriving them of a right. It seems that the rights of gay unions are all the same as straight unions, so how is it discrimination and judgment by calling something that is different different?

[CKNJ]

Roy, that is such a flawed argument I cannot believe that people still trot that tired old horse out... I thought it died long ago!

By your argument, because gay people cannot procreate we should not be allowed to marry... OK, how about banning straight people that cannot physically reproduce from marrying? How about little old Mrs Jones who met her 'mister right' at age 70... sorry, Ma'am the religious zealots said that if you can't make babies you are not allowed to marry! How about the young couple that marries for love but simply does not want children... do we rip up THEIR marriage certificates?

Face it, as someone earlier said, the excuses propped up like tin soldiers in front of us are all just excuses for your intrinsic dislike of gay people. If people are going hammer away at gay people's rights they can at least be honest about their bigotry!

[Ed Griffin]

"There are some things the people do not get to vote on."

What a frightening, frightening assertion.