Um…it’s been in the news for months and yet people didn’t know they were voting it into law? This isn’t even the first time they’ve voted for it. She must think Californians are clueless:
In a wide-ranging interview with The Chronicle, Pelosi said she believes some voters might not have fully understood the initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure was approved 52 to 48 percent.
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
So, those who voted against it were smart and had figured out that this was an amendment to the Constitution but those who voted for it weren’t too smart, they thought they were taking a poll.
(via)
BTW, in related news Melissa Etheridge says she won’t pay her state income tax since she’s isn’t given the same rights as everyone else:
Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.
Okay, cool I don’t mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We’re gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that’s not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won’t have to pay their taxes either.
I wonder if she’ll actually go through with it since she’s made herself such an obvious target. They’ll certainly be checking for her tax return and I’m sure coming after her.
So, I got to thinking that if she stops paying her taxes, shouldn’t she forgo the benefits of those taxes? But then I wondered, what the heck would she have to give up? And I couldn’t think of anything. Can you?
posted November 9, 2008 at 9:17 am
Well, taxes pay for roads… if she drives then who is paying for the roads? What about the Police? And the Fire deparment? If her house burns down, the fire company just won’t show up because she didn’t pay taxes. hah!
Well, the fire company would still come. It’s the principal I’m driving home. While I think Prop 8 passing is messed up, it is not a valid reason to not pay taxes. The IRS doesn’t think so either, and that’s who she has to answer to ultimately…
posted November 9, 2008 at 10:10 am
People understood what it was. It’s like I’ve been saying right here…just because somebody disagrees with you, it doesn’t make them stupid.
posted November 9, 2008 at 11:31 am
MzEllen, someone can disagree with me, be reasoned and principled and smart, and still not understand an issue. And the same can be said of me from time to time.
I think what Speaker Pelosi was referring to was the inevitable development in law that limiting the rights of homosexual couples will limit the rights of heterosexual couples. This won’t happen tomorrow, and, as you and I agree, what any state says isn’t the end all and be all definition of marital commitment. But she has some points that a lawyer can make. The Speaker could have made them better.
As for there not being any benefits from taxes, Michelle may fall into the same trap as many conservatives. The fact is, we could not possibly duplicate what we get from public expenditure by private means except by having some dictator take things over and put them into private hands–the very same thing that people gripe about the government we’ve got. Socialism is indeed the answer for some things, if you don’t want to toss quarters into a toll booth at the end of your driveway. The perennial question is how much of our economic life should be socialized.
posted November 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm
What’s stupid is the author using the word “stupid” to promote divisiveness. We already have Sarah Palin representing glasses wearing “refomers”.
But, Pelosi and poster Robert, are correct. People didn’t understand the implications of their vote. For the majority, they probably thought they were voting on whether gay marriage would be taught in schools, whether it be forced on them, whether it was moral or not. And, that’s not what the Proposition was about. It was about denying fundamental rights to a group of people. That’s it. I wonder how many people saw it as that?
posted November 9, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Jeffrey, There is no Constitional right to marry.
posted November 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Wow, what a spin. She obviously didn’t mean all 52% didn’t know what it meant. She said it passed because some people didn’t consider this effects everyone around them. A+ on spinning it though. And for the record, I think all those who voted YES are either stupid, or hateful. Probably both. I’d be delighted if Pelosi feels the same way.
posted November 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Oh, we understood it all right. We know that marriage is between a man and a woman. We wanted it to be understood that can not be anything else. That is why liberals voted for it, conservatives voted for it an independents voted for it.
The only people who wanted to destroy marriage where the White Urban Liberals who care only for themselves. Most of us other liberals, you know the minorities that Pelosi is suppose to represent, are pro marriage and not anti gay. It is not the same thing.
The vote was across the line, some of every walk in life opposed it. 52% were clear in their intent. Marriage is sacred. DON’T MESS WITH IT!!
posted November 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Scruffy:
“Destroy marriage?” Were heterosexuals not allowed to marry in California since the Supreme Court decision? Because if that had been the case, **I** would have campaigned for Prop 8. But I didn’t hear about that. (Maybe the liberal media didn’t report it or something.)
Ironic that the Religious Right has spent so long attacking gays for their promiscuity — and then when gays say, “OK, you’re right, why not just let us get married like you can,” religious ultraconservatives attack that too.
It’s all about the hate.
posted November 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Larry, what makes you think that gays would be any less promiscious in a “marriage” then they are in “civil unions”?
posted November 9, 2008 at 6:19 pm
And the hate keeps steaming along. Gotta stop visiting this little patch of hot air.
Spin Pelosi’s comment to the sun, but what she said is true. If Prop 8 had been worded in the way it was really intended — “ban gay rights” — and not in its little backwards, faux-positive language, it wouldn’t have passed. Cali is not an intolerant state.
For crying out loud… next to Vegas, marriage is probably the least sacred thing in the southwest with its ridiculously high divorce rate of nearly 1:1. This is not about god or religion or any meaningless “threat” to your heterosexual sanctity. It’s a dogmatic kick to equal rights and a celebration of bigotry.
But hey, sit tight in your wonderful isolation and let Rush Limbaugh tell you how to think over the airwaves. It’s a lot easier than getting out and actually meeting the people you just stepped on.
posted November 9, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Larry, it is very easy to label somebody who doesn’t agree with you as a “hater”. Some conservatives (some even calling themselves Christian) do hate homosexuals. That is wrong.
The largest portion of us believe that the fabric of history has been woven through families, with children being raised with a mother and a father being the ideal, that mother and father being bound together in a ceremony called “marriage”.
To change the definition of that institution strikes at the meaning of “family”, which is already being eroded.
I would be totally in favor of “civil unions” for both hetero- and homo- sexual couples in the eyes of the state. It would be easier to accomplish (with me anyway) if there were protections in place that would protect Christians from being sued for living out their faith when they choose not to participate in the homosexual life style in their business life – whether it be the medical business, the wedding business, etc.
But that won’t happen – the gay community is not interested in anything like that.
(Oh…in regards to promiscuity, go search the anti-8 websites and look for monogamy, faithful, etc. Gay marriage is not about monogamy. Not by a long shot.)
posted November 9, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“Gay marriage is not about monogamy.” MzEllen
And heterosexual marriage is? What are those divorce rates again? And how many due to a straying spouse?
“All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator etc.? Sound familiar? It doesn’t say all men except homosexual men. Of course it doesn’t say “women” either. We had to fight to vote and get our rights too, but that’s another subject. So if we are to do what was intended by the founders of this country, then what’s the problem with equal rights for ALL? This country finally voted for a Black president…something long overdue. But it can’t allow all men and women to have the same rights to marry no matter who it is they want to marry?
Marriage is just a word, but one that is powerful in meaning to the religious and the non-religious alike. No one “owns” the word, not even the hetersexual community. It is used in non-religious settings and religious settings…since a justice of the peace, notary public, judge “marry” people just like ministers, rabbis, priests etc. So what IS the problem??
posted November 9, 2008 at 9:55 pm
MzEllen writes: It would be easier to accomplish (with me anyway) if there were protections in place that would protect Christians from being sued for living out their faith when they choose not to participate in the homosexual life style in their business life – whether it be the medical business, the wedding business, etc.
First of all I’m not going to pretend that I actually understand why you’re afraid that Christians will be sued for not participating “in the homosexual life style” but I get the idea that you think people (well, Christians anyway) ought to be able to be “living out their faith” (i.e. being who they really are) without interference.
Well, I’ve got to say that I’m with you! People are what they are and they should be free to “live out their faith” without being forced into a life style they don’t agree with.
Wouldn’t it be great if everyone had those rights? Had them, and didn’t have to worry about their neighbors ripping those rights away.
posted November 9, 2008 at 10:15 pm
pagan sister writes, Marriage is just a word, but one that is powerful in meaning to the religious and the non-religious alike. No one “owns” the word, not even the hetersexual community.
I don’t know about “owning” a word, but it would be helpful if people knew what they meant by the words they use to speak to each other.
Sometimes a man and a woman get together with the idea of producing and raising children. It’s an arrangement that’s vitally important to the survival of the society so we use a word to describe it — the word is marriage.
On the other hand, sometimes two people get together simply because they want to try and build a life together. For people who succeed in doing that, the relationship becomes the center point of their lives. That’s a pretty important arrangement as well, so we use a word to describe it — the word is marriage.
Oh my God!!!!! We’ve got two extremely important arrangements and we use the same word to describe them both. Don’t you think that might lead to confusion????
I’d like to preserve marriage(1) for heterosexual couples who expect and intend to raise a family. I’d also like to enable everyone, gay or straight, to be free to take a shot at enjoying marriage(2). Wouldn’t it be great if we took the trouble to make sure we knew what we meant when we used a word like marriage? I’d suggest coming up with two different words, but that’s probably asking for too much.
posted November 10, 2008 at 1:29 am
MzEllen:
One simple question:
Why is it wrong for committed gay couples to adopt children?
posted November 10, 2008 at 1:35 am
Also, MzEllen:
Interesting that you assume all gays cheat.
The phenomenon of gay marriage is too new to have Kinsey-like studies on rates of chating. But fairly reputable studies show there are affairs in 60% of heterosexual marriages.
Maybe you’re the one who should be conceding to me the point on fidelity. (And I’m straight!)
posted November 10, 2008 at 7:24 am
First of all I’m not going to pretend that I actually understand why you’re afraid that Christians will be sued for not participating “in the homosexual life style”
Because it’s already happening.
Christian Photog Sued by Same-Sex Couple
another article that addresses the civil rights of the photographer
(I’m going to post seperate comments, or it will go to moderation
posted November 10, 2008 at 7:28 am
Lesbian couple sues doctor
Why is it wrong for committed gay couples to adopt children?
Children do better with a mother and a father.
Interesting that you assume all gays cheat.
There is a difference between “cheating” and “non-monogamy”. If “stepping out” is part of the deal between a couple, it’s not considered cheating.
The openness of gay couples HAS been around long enough to do studies.
A population that is about 5% of the total population doesn’t get to have 68% of the new hepatitis cases in San Francisco, 78% in Toronto, nad 42% in Montreal by being faithful. (Center of Disease Control)
from the Gay Patriot
Maybe you’re the one who should be conceding to me the point on fidelity. (And I’m straight!)
Marriage is being eroded. There is no reason to legislate to erode it further.
posted November 21, 2008 at 9:05 pm
This issue is about discrimination, plain and simple. The law shouldn’t be used to limit the rights of any minority group, no matter what your stance is on the issue.
posted November 24, 2008 at 5:36 pm
MzEllen:
I’m sorry to be harsh, but your ignorance astounds me.
“Children do better with a mother and a father.”
Where are you getting this information? Its not the fact that it is a mother and a father, but how they are raised period.
btw, those statistics are meaningless without a proper comparison. ex: 90% of people who get japanese enchepilitis are Japanese. Of course they will be, it is in Japan and not in the US. It would be stupid to compare the two.
“Marriage is being eroded. There is no reason to legislate to erode it further.”
Really? That is a pretty bad arguement. Marriage is “eroding” because people who do not truely love each other are getting married and then divorcing. Which leads to the question if two people truely love each other, why should they not be able to be married? oh and people sue because of discrimination.
Luke, I agree 100% with you. It is discriminatio plain and simple.
btw, I’m straight