Referendum 71 - Prop 8, WA Style
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
On May 18, 2009, the governor of Washington signed into law SB 5688. This law would have made state registered domestic partners (the vast majority of whom are in same sex relationships) more or less legally equivalent to spouses. The bill should have gone into effect at the end of July.
But, of course, thanks to fuckers like these folks and these folks, the law has now been put up for public vote on the November ballot as Referendum 71. (NB: It's important to note that in WA, the sides are reversed from how they were in CA - so if you support the law granting greater legal status to domestic partners, you're in support of the referendum.)
This is why we can't have nice things.
The good news is that the pro-civil rights groups have learned from what happened in the land of fruits and nuts. Already, they're marshaling their forces, as well as pushing to see who signed the petitions. Also, they're contesting the signatures in court, which could mean that this is all moot if they win there. Still the fact that this was even brought to a vote bothers me. I'm tired of the civil rights of minority groups being treated as a political football. It's wrong, it demeans us all as a people, and we as a society need to admit this.
It's time that we told the bigots to get the fuck out of Dodge. Now.
Edit: One thing that should be noted is that this puts to rest the lie that this is about "protecting marriage" once and for all. Marriage is not involved in this bill at all. This is about making homosexuals second class citizens. Period.
But, of course, thanks to fuckers like these folks and these folks, the law has now been put up for public vote on the November ballot as Referendum 71. (NB: It's important to note that in WA, the sides are reversed from how they were in CA - so if you support the law granting greater legal status to domestic partners, you're in support of the referendum.)
This is why we can't have nice things.
The good news is that the pro-civil rights groups have learned from what happened in the land of fruits and nuts. Already, they're marshaling their forces, as well as pushing to see who signed the petitions. Also, they're contesting the signatures in court, which could mean that this is all moot if they win there. Still the fact that this was even brought to a vote bothers me. I'm tired of the civil rights of minority groups being treated as a political football. It's wrong, it demeans us all as a people, and we as a society need to admit this.
It's time that we told the bigots to get the fuck out of Dodge. Now.
Edit: One thing that should be noted is that this puts to rest the lie that this is about "protecting marriage" once and for all. Marriage is not involved in this bill at all. This is about making homosexuals second class citizens. Period.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
So, lets put your civil rights up for a vote. There's no problem with that, right?
The harm is that when we do this, we say that things like civil rights for groups are things that can and should be voted on. This is a Very Bad Idea.
They don't currently have these rights Angel, so giving the people the chance to pass them is not neccessarily a bad thing. If anything it makes it easier to grant them more rights in the future because then it will have public support.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah I support the rights this would grant and when my wife got a flyer saying this was coming up I told her "We'll have to make sure to vote this coming election for sure".
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47u2m4hH0SQ
Apparently it's not illegal to lie to people about it, either.
I figured the same dumb asses who sign eymans shit sign this.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Actually, having the people pass these rights IS a Very Bad Idea.
There's a simple concept that we hold true in the highest law of the land - that all men are equal before the law. When you consider that, then the fact that all groups should have the same civil rights comes pretty naturally from that concept. The fact that we have to actually codify rights for homosexuals shows a breakdown in this concept, and allowing the public to vote on the matter makes it worse.
In short, it shouldn't fucking matter if there is or isn't public support for minorities having the same civil rights as the rest of us, and the fact that it does means something has gone horribly wrong.
Here is where Idealism meets reality. In an Ideal world the fed would have already granted these rights, we don't live in an ideal world and this is one of the paths it might have to take to grant the rights.
When it passes and they get the rights, is that not a good thing for gay people in the state?
pleasepaypreacher.net
It shows how little support that this had if they had to lie to people to get even get it up there. Then again all it needs to pass is a majority of voters in King County and I'm sure they can get that no problem.
pleasepaypreacher.net
My mom made me sign a petition because a local elementary school was going to have an emblem with a dragon on it.
Because when Jesus comes back, the emblem will come to life and bite the childrens heads off. Mom knew it was bullshit too, it was her friend in charge of the petition.
Yes, it's a good thing if this passes. But the idea that the civil rights of any subgroup in our society being up for a vote is very very dangerous. Civil rights need to be an all or nothing proposition - either a right is granted to the populace at large, or it's not.
Understandably, but the problem is they don't have the rights as it stands, this is a way they can get them with public approval so something striking them down is harder to muster against. It's not optimum, but the end result is a positive for the state then its a win no matter where it came from.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Oh, I would. It's one of the reasons I won't sign petitions on the street.
So, let's treat the symptoms, instead of the root problem?
Again, Preacher, I'm all for this bill. But I think we also need to be honest and note that all it does is treat a symptom.
How about lets get some people rights before we start trying to change the world? You're an idealist and that's great to be man, but you have to live in the real world and fix the problems you can.
Major policy changes like this have to come from the people, the easier this is to accept and more states that do, the harder it is for the bigots to fight other similar changes. Baby steps, the civil rights era was not an overnight revolution.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Now from a moral standpoint I'm just arguing semantics, but from the perspective of passing a law I can understand the reasoning for a popular vote on something that will technically affect everyone's rights the same. Unless I'm completely wrong about how this works, which is possible.
Republicans have been building their support for years from bullshit like this, that kind of support doesn't go away because the policies are reprehensible.
pleasepaypreacher.net
o_O
So, uh, why did you or your mother sign it?
I'm trying to imagine a situation where I would respond to a friend who was doing this with anything other than "Are you fucking crazy?" and I'm not coming up with much.
Bad move.
And many of the major victories of the civil rights movement came from the courts. See Brown, Loving, Heart Of Atlanta, to name a few. You keep letting the bigots choose a battlefield where they can bring their advantages to bear. I want to change the battlefield to one where their advantages are meaningless.
Supreme court isn't exactly a good place to bring this to right now. I mean didn't they recently decide innocent people can be put to death even when its known they are innocent...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Seriously, you shouldn't read Orson Scott Card rants. I like to call this argument the Anatole France fallacy, because it tries to say that the law is fair because two people are equally proscribed, regardless of the disparate impact.
I keep trying to read this but I go cross-eyed midway through. I can't understand what the petition was about. Jesus kills children?
Sorry. Basically, some lady was petitioning to change a school's emblem that looked like a dragon because it's evil. The petition quoted Revelations to show all dragons are bad. I was still in high school and was dying to tell the bitch "Did you know superstition is a sin?"
You didn't know that? In the special collectors edition the dragon devours an orphanage and uses the bones to form a pentagram to summon the devil.
Then they sing a song.
See? Name a dragon, they're all evil.
Yup. And Puff, and Stuff [Orlando Magic Mascot, I'm in Orlando,] and Sean Connery in Dragonheart, and Angelus, and Legna, and Haku from Spirited Away, and Harry Potter, and Flu Shots and HURFDURF(*&(^@$
I guess I will continue to not do that. As I said in the other half of my post it doesn't really hold up as a moral argument, but from a legal standpoint it can be argued that the people should have right to vote on something that technically affects all of them equally. I'm not arguing against gay rights here, I was just addressing your comments about this being put up for a popular vote.
I mean, really, it prevents everyone from owning a gun or criticizing the president, so it must be fair, right?