Not to say that the opposition isn’t equally bad:
http://www.youtube.com/VoteYesonProp8
One of the safeguards of constitutionally-granted rights trumping legislation is to protect the minority from the majority.

eg. provided there are some priests / rabbis / imams / registry officers who will perform the ceremonies, a particular priest (etc) should be able to opt out of performing the rites at a same sex marriage and not be liable for discrimination charges.

I think it would be a bit of a farce if it was illegal to refuse to marry same sex couples, that would hand a way to make a big scene to the people who do object.

It in no way impinges on anyone else, you are no less married in a hetro couple due to homo couples getting hitched.

Also, if you are not given equality due to being gay, isn’t there something in the US about no taxation without representation?

The govt sure seem to think that gay tax dollars spend like straight ones.

I was the best man at a gay wedding last year, ah any excuse to get the kilt on.

@58 AIDS prevention education and safe-sex education aren’t gay rights issues. Then neither is gay marriage, which has more to do with the merger of upper middle-class and wealthy people’s finances.

Not all gays live on the fringe. Some of us live right in the midst of mainstream America. Gay is not synonymous with queer.

As a favorite character of mine puts it, “Why the fsck would I want to be a Stepford fag? I’m queer. I like to dance and fsck. Get over it.”

Legal rights are one thing. They’re contract rights, they should be open to everyone in every way. If groups of rich people can declare themselves a single entity and immediately have the power to oppress us left and right while the state falls over to kiss their – ‘scuse me , its – 4ss, I can share status with and grant rights to 3 people, two guys and an intersexed pre-op hermaphrodite, if I so choose. But there’s no reason to beg breeder culture to let us buy into their sky-high-divorce-rate pseudoreligious clusterfsck of a socioromantic institution.

Why do we apologize for gay relationships? Oh, no, gay marriage rights don’t imply polygamy rights. Of course they do, and there’s nothing wrong with it. People are frequently polyamorous. Love and sex are different. Gender is a construct.

Maybe it’s easier for gay people to see those things – once you break the model once, the rest of the fault lines are clearer. And maybe, we shouldn’t be hastening to give that clarity of sight up for the dubious benefits of mainstreamness.

It doesn’t matter if it has no bearing on their life/marriage, they don’t want it because they think that by telling homosexuals they can’t get married, they’ll all just turn straight.

Every argument against gay marriage falls apart when you put a straight couple into the situation, so it’s obvious that people against gay marriage are just hateful people.

My point is that gay marriage has turned into the gay rights issue of the past few years. I realize I’m in the minority here, but what it means to be queer for me is not to apply my relationship into an antiquated hetero institution. So for me, it is a step backward because its more about assimilation than anything else and it takes much-needed attention and resources away from more vital gay issues.

I refuse to hide in smoky bars and “gay-friendly” neighborhoods because someone thinks I should be “fringe”. Heck, I work, pay my mortgage, love my kids, and bar-b-q on the holidays just like everyone else. I’ve never worn a boa or chaps (in public).

If the state doesn’t have a problem taking my tax dollars, then they shouldn’t have a problem conferring equal rights AND status to my partner and I.

We might expect that all Californians are fully informed about the issue, but the reality is, that is probably not the case. A great many are undoubtedly aware of the issue only in a peripheral way, including those who might be inclined to support it and those who might be inclined to oppose it.

Neglecting to mention specifically that prop 8 is about same-sex marriage rights is intentional – it avoids using ‘language’ that might further motivate those opposed to get out and vote, and it avoids using using the word ‘gay’ (which perhaps still inspires images of bearded leather-clad sadists raping schoolchildren, even in the minds of some otherwise urbane liberals).

An additional possibility is that some of those who do not have a firm position on the subject will vote against the bill when they get in the voting booth just because they have some semi-conscious memory of this advertisement. They might remember only that the bill will prevent pretty, bright young people from marrying (it’s no accident that the ad doesn’t show two middle-aged lesbians), and as they’re all for fairy tale marriage, they’ll vote no to the bill. If you’re tuned in and aware, you know what the ad is about. But if you’re not so tuned in to the issue and you’re busy making dinner, watching your kids, and reading your Blackberry while catching this ad out of the corner of your eye, you could easily interpret it as a cute, young straight couple talking about how the bill will deprive THEM of getting married. In that sense, it contains misleading elements.

Politics and marketing these days are all about tactics and manipulation, and making things at least a little misleading is the norm.

The question we need to ask is not “is this ad misleading”, but “what does the fact that this ad is misleading say about us and our society, about our political system, our social and intellectual development, and the future of our democracy?”

As for registry officers – it’s their job to handle the legal side of marriage. They just need to approve the paperwork, etc. and be done with it. Otherwise they’re not really doing their job.

Its just like how the activist judges legislated from the bench that Blacks should deserve so-called equal rights as white folk. In a democracy majority rules, and guess what blacks or gays? You’re in the minority. Don’t like not having so-called “rights”? Then succeed or ship out to Spain or Norway.

While it is not as bad as Republican style tactics of calling a policy “Clean Skies Act” that allows corps to pollute more, it is along the same lines.

If the No On Prop 8 folks don’t want to just preach to the choir, they need to make the relatively few people in the middle confront their own prejudices. This ad is deceptive because it tries to sway people by getting them to overlook their prejudices.

Um, whaaa? The Supreme Court case you’re talking about, Lawrence v. Texas, was *brought* by Lambda Legal, one of the mainstream LGBT rights groups. Before that, the last couple of state laws that fell before Lawrence were in Arkansas in 2001 (also a Lambda Legal case) and Massachusetts in 2002 (brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, another of the mainstream LGBT rights groups).

Full disclosure: I work at an LGBT rights organization (not Lambda or GLAD though).

Marriage was certainly something the mainstream LGBT rights groups were working on before early 2004, but it wasn’t the highest priority at that point. But when New Paltz, San Francisco, and Portland started performing marriages early that year, a huge groundswell started in the gay community, and the opposition also rose up in a way that needed to be addressed. Marriage equality became a high priority for the LGBT rights groups largely because so many people wanted to be able to be married, and I think seeing it actually start to happen — even if it didn’t last in those cities — made that sentiment take off like never before.

Those of us who work on these issues for a living haven’t at all abandoned other issues like employment discrimination, youth rights, etc., but if we didn’t work on marriage we’d be ignoring a huge segment of our community who desperately need and want the legal protections and emotional commitment of marriage. We’d also be rolling over for the anti-gay forces who continue to use this as a tool in their culture wars. You’re entitled to your opinion that you’d rather see this be less of a priority, but that horse already left the barn four years ago.

If you’re already against Prop 8, I’m pretty sure you’re not the target audience for this ad. It’s a safe bet that the target audience for this ad is the undecided voter… someone who’s perhaps not personally comfortable with homosexuality as such, but who may be receptive to appeals to fairness and equality, and to the principle of governmental restraint.

“If the No On Prop 8 folks don’t want to just preach to the choir, they need to make the relatively few people in the middle confront their own prejudices. This ad is deceptive because it tries to sway people by getting them to overlook their prejudices.”

Well, the “No On Prop 8″ campaign seems to disagree pretty strongly with you on this one. I’ve done some phone banking for “No On 8″, calling undecided voters, and what we have most certainly NOT been doing in those phone calls is forcing undecided voters to “confront their own prejudices.” Instead, as mentioned above, we’ve been appealing to fairness and equality (i.e., our argument to undecided voters has not been, “C’mon, don’t be bigoted against gays,” but rather, “No matter how you feel about this issue, don’t you feel our state constitution should stand for equality for all Californians?”).

Personally, I think it’s a smart choice on the part of the “No On 8″ campaign. You’ve gotta meet the voters where they are, not where you wish they were. And forcing people to confront their own prejudices is something you do between elections… not 6 weeks before people go to the polls.

Getting undecided voters (and soft “Yes” voters) to overlook their prejudices is, in my opinion, exactly the right choice to make at this juncture.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

1. First, although the domestic partnership provisions require that both partners
have a common residence at the time a domestic partnership is established (§ 297,
subd. (b) (1)), there is no similar requirement for marriage.

2. Second, although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order. (§§ 302, 303.)

3. Third, to establish a domestic partnership,
the two persons desiring to become domestic partners must complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State, who registers the declaration in a statewide registry for such partnerships (§ 298.5, subds. (a), (b)); to marry, a couple must obtain a marriage license and certificate of registry of
marriage from the county clerk, have the marriage solemnized by an authorized individual, and return the marriage license and certificate of registry to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued, who keeps a copy of the
certificate of registry of marriage and transmits the original certificate to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics. (§§ 306, 359; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102285, 102330,
102355.)

4. Fourth, although the marriage statutes establish a procedure under which an unmarried man and unmarried woman who have been residing together as husband and wife may enter into a “confidential marriage” in which the marriage
certificate and date of the marriage are not made available to the public (§ 500 et seq.), the domestic partnership law contains no similar provisions for “confidential domestic partnership.”

5. Fifth, although both the domestic partnership and marriage statutes provide a procedure for summary dissolution of the domestic partnership or
marriage under the same limited circumstances, a summary dissolution of a domestic partnership is initiated by the partners’ joint filing of a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and may become effective without any court action, whereas a summary dissolution of a marriage is initiated by the spouses’ joint filing of a petition in superior court and becomes effective only upon entry of a court judgment; in both instances, the dissolution
does not take effect for at least six months from the date dissolution is sought, and during that period either party may terminate the summary dissolution. (§§ 299, subds. (a)-(c), 2400 et seq.)

6. Sixth, although a proceeding to dissolve a domestic partnership may be filed in superior court “even if neither domestic partner is a
resident of, or maintains a domicile in, the state at the time the proceedings are filed” (§ 299, subd. (d)), a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be obtained unless one of the parties has been a resident of California for six months and a
resident of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution. (§ 2320.)

7. Seventh, in order to protect the federal tax-qualified status of the CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) long-term care insurance program (see Sen. Com. on
Appropriations, fiscal summary of Assem. Bill No. 205 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 21, 2003; 26 U.S.C. § 7702B(f)(2)(C)), the domestic partnership statute provides that “nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for [such]
long-term care plans” (§ 297.5, subd. (g)), which means that although such a plan may provide coverage for a state employee’s spouse, it may not provide coverage for an employee’s domestic partner; this same disparity, however, would exist even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry under California law, because for federal law purposes the nonemployee partner would not be considered a spouse. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

8. Eighth, an additional difference stems from the provisions of California Constitution, article XIII, section 3, subdivisions (o) and (p), granting a $1,000 property tax exemption to an “unmarried spouse of a deceased veteran” who
owns property valued at less than $10,000; however, as the Legislative Analyst explained when this constitutional provision last was amended in 1988 (see Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988) analysis by Legis. Analyst of Prop. 93, p. 60),
few persons claim this exemption, because a homeowner may not claim both this exemption and the more generous homeowner’s exemption on the same property (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 205.5, subd. (f)), and the homeowner’s exemption is available to both married persons and domestic partners. (See § 297.5, subd. (a).)

9. Ninth, one appellate decision has held that the putative spouse doctrine (codified in
§ 2251) does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1172-1174.)

Watching this from across the Atlantic I’d say the reason for that is a result of the continuing backlash from Christian and other religious groups to stop any kind of marriage they disapprove of. When civil unions passed into law in the UK I think there may have been some minor fuss from the usual vocal minorities but that was it. The issue is over. Same with gay people serving in the armed forces. The sky hasn’t fallen, everyone is getting on with their lives. But as long as you have pressure groups like the American Family Association and Americans for Truth (sic) getting apoplexy about other people’s business, these arguments will continue.

it takes much-needed attention and resources away from more vital gay issues.

What are the more vital issues? I’m not being confrontational, just curious. I read gay news blogs every day and few issues recur as much as the marriage one or seem as important.

Entertain that your mind does not contain all.

So for me, it is a step backward because its more about assimilation than anything else and it takes much-needed attention and resources away from more vital gay issues.

America is built on cultural assimilation. The US is not and never really has been multicultural in the normal sense of the word. That isn’t to say that there isn’t cultural diversity aplenty, but the diversity that thrives tends to be diversity in the process of assimilation (think China town) or diversity within uniquely American cultures that are built upon choice (think Boston vs Huston). Cultural diversity that tends to do miserably in the US (at least materially) tend to be cultures built upon things outside of choice (i.e. race, ethnicity, genetics, etc.).

Cultural assimilation of homosexual culture isn’t a bad thing. It certainly won’t kill off the culture, but it will open up new options for people that don’t want to exist within a stereotype. In the same way you can burn out trying to live in punk or raver culture, you can also burn out on gay culture. Some times you might just want to be a boring old engineer with a partner with boring marriage benefits who doesn’t define himself based upon who has sex with any more than a heterosexual defines him/her self based upon who they like to sleep with.

Further, a lot of the things that define “gay” culture can be found in other sub-cultures that define values without defining the exact gender you need to be having sex with. Normalizing homosexuality just means that instead of every gay man or woman being stuffed into a predefined “gay culture”, they get to pick. Want to be polyamorous? Great, be polyamorous. Want to work a 9-5 and have a generic DINK relationship? Go for it.

A good friend of mine came out a couple of years ago. What pissed him off more than anything about coming out wasn’t that people suddenly hated him. He had lot of liberal friends who didn’t bat an eyelash. What bothered him was that suddenly a lot of people mentally tossed him into “gay culture” when the truth was he didn’t change a bit. He found a lot of the gay culture to be shallow, superficial, and had little interest in it. For him, the world would be a better place if being gay was as normal as anything else, and people (gay or otherwise) picked whatever cultural it is they want to subscribe to indifferent to who they like to poke.

Obviously there are other problems facing gays but most of them are social issues rather than legal ones. Laws can’t force people to like each other, but they can give everyone the same rights.

During the height of the civil rights movement in the 1960s one could have argued that economic and social forces were bigger problems for the average African American than legalized discrimination, but it was still an important fight to wage.