I think this petition is petitioning for a formal petition.

I’m not sure what the formal petition process is to get a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot, but it requires far more than the 10,000 signatures the linked site is asking for. The language is also wrong.

Please clarify.

...greetings from New Zealand.
Read about your exploits via Iowahawk.
Blaspheme, thanks.

They should just ban all marriage.  It’s far too important to be left to government.

I hope that isn’t directed at me, Amanda.

Yeah! Sign that thing! How many of those fucking “Yes on 8!” people have been divorced? Fuck ‘em! Use their own words against them.

Eh, the energy is better put towards getting a constitutional amendment proposition started to repeal the constitutional amendment.  If people get their act together, it could be on the ballot in the fall.

And, as ha mentioned, the barrier for getting an amendment on the ballot is higher than an ordinary proposition:  I think it’s 600,000 valid signatures.

It would take about 700,000 signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, but signature gatherers regularly go for double in order to be sure of enough once duplicate and ineligible signatures are removed.

I am sorry Mnemosyne, you posted while I was doing my math, I was not intending to be a dickhead about accurate numbers.

Since I am now posting twice about this I might as well say that until after the 2010 election the number required will be exactly 694,368

I put a feeler out at DailyKos for help, and a commenter quickly replied… Courage Campaign says they’ve already got more than 300k, and they’ll use it as an activism list when they get the formal petition rolling.

May I suggest an alternative…

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/repealprop8

...and appeal for any others?

I worry about diffused efforts. Prop 8 seemed to catch all of us by surprise in California, but it shouldn’t have… we weren’t organized, we didn’t know what was going on.

Lots of us were running around pulling Yes on 8 signs up from public property, but the Yes on 8 folks were an army, and well-organized. Seriously, I pulled signs in one park three times in under 8 hours… Those guys had it TOGETHER.

Whatever happens next, I hope it looks nothing like 100 different petitions all trying to pull together 10k signatures.

I am sorry Mnemosyne, you posted while I was doing my math, I was not intending to be a dickhead about accurate numbers.

No worries—I knew it was somewhere around 600K but couldn’t remember exactly.

And I agree with ha’s worry that we’ll end up with 100 petitions all riding a different issue pony.  I don’t know if people outside the state remember what a mess the recall election was, with something like 50 candidates on the ballot.  If Californians like nothing else, they like to have five different people run in six different directions.

You just don’t get it, do you.  No matter how clever you are at coming up with new arguments, and no matter how much you may rail about how bad straights may be at marriage , that is not going to persuade them that gays should be allowed to give it a try.  This is because straights opposition to gay marriage is not based on opposition to gay marriage per se, but to gays’ existence as individuals.  The opposition far more primal than even opposition based on religion.  So, even if you persuade people that the old laws are no good, that still won’t change their mind.

The only way you are going to win this battle is to literally out-fuck your opposition so that your kids will have more votes than theirs.  That’s not going to be easy considering that your opposition seems to consider the rhythm method as the only morally acceptable contraception.  However, I’m sure you’ll

Yes, because attitudes toward gays have remained static for the last 30 years. Are you able to breathe without having someone remind you every couple of minutes?

Apparently nobody has reminded me to breathe since my last post and yet I’m still here.  The mechanics of breathing have stayed the same, but so what?  No matter how clever you are in rebutting this or that, what it comes down to is that this marriage issue is just a pretext.  So when you argue this or that based on marriage, you’re just fighting against a shadow.

Yes, attitudes towards gays have remained static, and the fundamentalists are proud of that above all else.  So have attitudes towards Newton’s law of gravitation.  In their mind, it’s not their attitude that needs to change, it’s yours.

thanks boys and girls and all you in betweener’s…..I needed a good laugh and I can always find one on this site…..it’s either all the Prop 8 pissing and moaning, or someone got tased and tortured today, or men suck and women rule…...I thought one had to be fairly smart to run their own website….guess I was wrong….Thanks so much for brightening up my day!!

Yes, attitudes towards gays have remained static, and the fundamentalists are proud of that above all else.

That’s not true.  It is simply untrue.  If you are going to lie, there’s not much point in continuing a discourse.

So have attitudes towards Newton’s law of gravitation.  In their mind, it’s not their attitude that needs to change, it’s yours.

Hate to break it to you, but attitudes and beliefs have nothing to do with gravity or evolution.  They happen, despite disbelief.  Scientific ‘laws’ and ‘theories’ are simply the best current explanations for the phenomena, but as our technology improves and we can observe more data, the ‘laws’ and ‘theories’ may have to change to match reality.  A reality that doesn’t change.

Attitudes, though?  Completely malleable over generations on a society-wide scale.  That old canard about the Moral Majority is still true—fundies are neither moral, nor a majority. 

Discussing what civil marriage should be can win over those who are truly concerned about justice and a just society.  Those who refuse to give rights to their fellow Americans…lose over time.

Amanda wrote :

Still, you’re simply wrong.  The number one factor, I’ve discovered, in moving people to the left on this issue is whether or not they know and love a gay person

So, you mean it has nothing to do with how many clever sarcastic arguments are run deriding straight people’s ability to manage the institution of marriage? 

I hear people proposing, even in jest, resolutions that marriages that do not have children should be dissolved, or that gays should be allowed to marry because sanctity of marriage doesn’t really exist Others claim that since there are straight husbands who abuse their wives,  straight people can’t really be all that good at this marriage thing.

All that sounds like is playing right into the right’s hands because they have been claiming that we are trying to undermine marriage and destroy the family rather than simply fight for equality.

Emunato (assuming you’re in earnest, and not just a concern troll):

Any time spent worrying about what the right thinks about us, or will say about us, is wasted time.  Their only and entire strategy is to throw shit until it sticks, and whether something sticks has little to do with whether it’s true or not.  The larger part of the strategy for Proposition H8 was “THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOUR CHILDREN!” - a blatant lie. 

If you’re letting your enemy dictate your arguments, you’ve already lost.

For the record:

So, you mean it has nothing to do with how many clever sarcastic arguments are run deriding straight people’s ability to manage the institution of marriage?

When a big chunk of their argument is - as you point out - “protecting the sanctity of marriage”, pointing out that marriage hasn’t been any too sacred under the control of heterosexuals is a valid argument.

I know they wouldn’t sit still to listen, but I wonder how any of the “Created by God, unchanged for the whole of human history” folks would respond if it was pointed out to them that Adam himself was involved in the World’s First Divorce, the World’s First Annulment, and (what he’s most famous for) the World’s First Dysfunctional Family.

So, you mean it has nothing to do with how many clever sarcastic arguments are run deriding straight people’s ability to manage the institution of marriage?

Non sequitur; asserting that one factor often has persuasive primacy does not imply that other factors are not also important.

Seraph, you beat me to the punch.

Anyways, the only quibble I have with the advert is that it’s being made in bad faith, which will confuse the sarcastically-challenged. A lot of people sitting on the fence get real humorless, real fast on the subject of “the sanctity of marriage,” whatever that is. So this kind of prank may backfire.

A lot of people sitting on the fence get real humorless, real fast on the subject of “the sanctity of marriage,” whatever that is. So this kind of prank may backfire.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think it can backfire.  That is to say, I don’t think the situation can get any worse because of it.

Tell me if there are any flaws in my reasoning: sad as it is to say, I would say that the “default setting” in this country is homophobia of one degree or another.  That homophobia may be softening, but people are still vaguely uncomfortable with gays, don’t want to “redefine marriage” for their sake, etc.  In other words, I would say that people “sitting on the fence” on this issue are actually “anti-gay, but for no real solid reason they can define, honest enough with themselves to admit it, uncomfortable with that fact, but will still vote against gays unless does a really good job of convincing them otherwise”.  Anti-H8ers, on the other hand, have overcome that “default setting” for whatever reason, know their reasons, and are not going to change their minds.

Now, the pro-H8 forces were very good at getting their propaganda out, at mobilizing those uncomfortable people and getting them into the voting booths.  The anti-H8ers didn’t do nearly so well, and it still ended up 52-48.

Which is the worst things can get anymore.  What do I mean by that?

That 48% came out in spite of an uninspiring campaign that didn’t dare to mention actual gays, in spite of propaganda screaming THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOUR CHILDREN!  Those are not fence-sitters.  That 48% is with us to stay.  48% is now our rock bottom in California. 

The Pro-H8ers used mountains of cash, a huge organization, and their best lies, and even with all of the “uncomfortable for no real reason” folks they could scoop up, the best they could get was 52%.  That’s not going to get better.  But it could stay right where it is, if we don’t do something to counter it.

With that in mind, the best thing we can do is make use of the simplest, but most effective tool we have: introduce those uncomfortable-for-no-reason people to some real, live gay folks.  Mention gays in commercials.  Get the “uncomfortable” people used to the idea that gays are there, and are really pretty ordinary. 

Does a prank like this give the H8ers something to point at and use as propaganda?  Sure.  But does it really outweigh THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOUR CHILDEN!!!11!!ONE?  Even if this prank doesn’t go over so well, it’s better that we flub up once or twice in the making of a lot of noise (which will bring in more of the “uncomfortable” folk than it offends) rather than keep quiet in the hopes that, if we don’t offend any of them, at least some of them will change their minds, even though they’ll have no reason to.

I agree, Seraph, that the advertising for Prop 8 definitely should have included some actual gay people (or at least gay actors who say to the camera “i am gay”). The adverts that did exist were lame, and based on the idea that any actual gay people would cause voters to realize what they were actually voting for, thus causing them to vote yes on 8. Which is basically just acquiescing to the frame of the anti-gays, that gayness is this horrible act unspeakable in decent society, which is bullshit. The adverts should have presented gays as normal, unremarkable, but deserving of rights.

I also think that they could have done something interesting along the lines of using Mark Bingham‘s mother in an ad. There was an article recently mentioning that she spoke at a rally against prop 8. Wouldn’t she have been a great character for an ad, a great person to connect to the undecideds on this issue? If you read the article, you see that her life story is probably like many- she had some preconceptions about gay people, but as soon as her son came out to her, she was an unrelenting advocate.

As for this prank about banning divorce, I’m not strictly for or against it. I don’t think it’s too much of a derail to hurt, though it’s probably true that advocacy stressing the humanity and normalcy of gay people will go the farthest to change minds.

Seraph, your analysis of the situation in California is sound. We’ll get it eventually. However, at the risk of concern trolling, I feel compelled to point out that CA is a battle in a wider struggle, and the choices we make today affect the skirmishes we fight tomorrow, and etc etc etc. Things might not get worse in CA, but they can get worse elsewhere in the country. On the other hand, winning in CA would be a huge symbolic victory. You’ve heard this sort of back-and-forth before, I’m sure, so I won’t bother re-hashing it.

The ad is good. I just watched it again. It should be run. I suspect it will be especially effective with voters who have recently gotten over their emotional hang-ups with homosexuality, and just need a gentle (but firm) analytical push to get them on our side. Something to make them stop and say “Hey, yeah, I don’t want to outlaw divorce, maybe I should re-think this whole no-gay-marriage thing.” Targeting those voters will probably turn out to be a legitimate, effective strategy. So we should do it.

My concern is for the people I know who are sitting on the fence. Most of them are middle-aged, heterosexual, Protestant women who are fairly mild in their treatment of gay people IRL. They don’t understand the attraction, but they aren’t personally offended by the behavior.

What keeps these people from voting with us is a kind of existential dread. Many of them were raised in authoritarian homes. To their way of thinking, voting for gay marriage is an act of rebellion, a proud, blasphemous defiance of God’s marching orders. The idea that they might one day have to stand up against the almighty lord of creation - for the sake of the people they love - fills them with anxiety. They aren’t confident enough to do it. To tell you the truth, I think some of them hate themselves for being like this. And I can’t help but feel bad for them.

Not that I’m trying to condone their behavior. I’m just saying that I think these people can be reached - just not through the methods we’ve already discussed. And getting angry at them, and acting like we want to hurt them - or go after their traditions - is only going to drive them further away.

LOL. Now I am concern trolling. Apologies.

Hey, come to think of it, winning in CA would be a huge actual victory as well! I need to get some shut-eye.

Hey, come to think of it, winning in CA would be a huge actual victory as well!

And that’s the crux of it, Cyrano.  There is no simpler, but more effective, argument for our cause than yet another state where gays get to live just like the rest of us and nothing bad happens (although, of course, every earthquake and wildfire from that day forth will be blamed on Teh Ghey). 

By the same token, it’s entirely possible that we might put out an ad or try some publicity stunt that gives the “fence sitters” an excuse for their homophobia.  That’s inevitable; some are looking for looking for a justification for how they already feel, and the hardcore haters are always looking for evidence of how gays and gay sympathizers are.  The answer is not to paralyze ourselves trying to avoid.  For one thing, that costs us the momentum and the energy of this reinvigorated movement we’ve got going here.  For another…remember how Obama had every possible media flooded with such a steady, drumbeat, consistent message that individual mistakes and weak ads seemed inconsequential and quickly forgotten?  That’s the real solution.  Any ground we lose on one ad that puts the fence-sitters (further) off, we make up on three that remind those fence-sitters that gays are just people who want to marry the people they love and take care of their families.

evidence of how gays and gay sympathizers are evil

Time for me to go to bed.  I hate working the night shift.

...but one more thing before I turn in. 

Forcing them to examine and own their beliefs (or at least trying to do so) is not the same as

getting angry at them, and acting like we want to hurt them - or go after their traditions

We’re trying to change people’s convictions, and that can’t always be done while wearing kid gloves.  This particular ad isn’t mocking or hostile, but it is direct, and it applies their arguments to something more likely to be part of their own experience (and which Jesus actually did condemn, incidentally, unlike homosexuality).  If that can force some self-reflection, then it’s done its job (hell, if it forces one of the Hater Honchoes to give some unconvincing explanation as to how gay marriage is somehow worse for marriage than, you know, divorce, it’s helped a little bit).

I always disagree with this kind of “make a point” attempt at legislation. I doubt that there actually are more than a vanishingly small number of gay marriage supporters who actually don’t support divorce. I doubt that there are too many gay people who want to marry without the option of eventual divorce.

One of my biggest objections to the BS that the Prop 8 supporters spewed was the “I don’t hate gay people and I don’t believe in discrimination, but this is my opportunity to make the point that marriage is sacred.”

Laws need to be practical, and this one isn’t. All it does is play into the idea that gay people aren’t serious about marriage. The biggest weight of public opinion that has to be overcome is the idea that gay people are out to mess up marriage for straight people - and we absolutely aren’t. Until we start doing shit like this.

Why isn’t this effort going toward getting Prop 8 repealed? That needs to go on every eligible ballot from now until it happens. That, and doing the prep work in the Legislature for passing marriage yet again if necessary.

If we are going to go off topic like this, why not do it like grownups instead of petulant adolescents? If we have to, then let’s deal with the fact that voters think marriage belongs in the Constitution, and circulate petitions specifying that having having children is not a requirement for marriage, that there is no religious involvement required for civil marriage (although properly deputized clergy are allowed to perform them), and that marriage is an explicit civil right for all citizens. Let’s codify AGAINST all the arguments that the opposition is using against us.

I’m a Californian who voted against H8, and I signed this petition with a perfectly clear concience. I’m a STR8 ally, and I’m on my first marriage of now 26 years. What’s so hard about that? If I can do it, anyone can, amiright?

Yeah, I know, sarcasm doesn’t work on these guys… my 3 sisters had at least one divorce each, and mom did as well. I know I’m just lucky I found a guy I’m compatible with on the long run. Still it might be a good strategem to try.

What is ironic to me is that the same petition with a different author would be met with howls of outrage from this site, and rightfully so. I’m a divorced woman, a survivor from an abusive marriage. I’m offended by this ridiculous petition - I understand that the intent was to get a point across, but it’s very much the wrong way to do it.

It’d be kind of like, oh, banning contraception to make a point about banning abortion. Epic fail.

Do you guys not see that banning divorce is what the virulent anti-gay crowd WANTS? Divorce is one of the few options in this country for women trapped in terrible, abusive marriages. I’m know Daddy Dobson would LOVE to put anti-divorce legislation back on the books so that he can hit Momma and run around on her all he wants and she can’t escape or get any alimony or child support.

Seriously, did anyone think this through AT ALL? Bring on the Mad Men days, sigh.

“Do you guys not see that banning divorce is what the virulent anti-gay crowd WANTS? Divorce is one of the few options in this country for women trapped in terrible, abusive marriages. I’m know Daddy Dobson would LOVE to put anti-divorce legislation back on the books so that he can hit Momma and run around on her all he wants and she can’t escape or get any alimony or child support.”

EXACTLY!

I know you’re trying to get your little ironic shot out there, but playing into the hands of the “marriage is sacred” people is not the way to go.

You’d get all too many signatures from wingnuts, who not only would NOT get the irony, but would be gleeful about taking away the right to divorce.

It’s unlikely this thing would snowball into outlawing divorce in California, but why take the chance, for an argument too subtle for most in the middle (many of whom would regard you in the same light as the wingnuts, as a wingnut.)

Epic fail all round.

It’s not about who’s ruining marriage; it’s about gender roles. These people believe men shouldn’t “act like women” and that women should be in relationships with men. A woman marrying a woman?! How can you have marital sex without a penis involved? A man marrying a man?! A man should not be penetrated. Gasp! my delicate sensibilities. The children will think they can act however they please!

I’m all for petitions to repeal 8, but yeah, this one is way off-target.

Besides signing the repeal petitions, and encouraging the lawsuit against 8, I’m now referring to Allan as my partner, rather than husband or spouse (as best I can remember to) in solidarity with those whose marriages are banned. I’m also making rainbow rings with black focal gems to wear in place of a wedding band.