The U-T’s reporting that yesterday’s protest against Prop. 8 (the ballot measure that bans same-sex couples from marrying) may have been the largest in the nation, drawing “at least 20,000 people.” I was there and it was, indeed, massive. Here are some pics:
November 16, 2008 - 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm
That’s sad. So most of California wants to preserve traditional marriage. Just go back to living your lives. Stop wasting your time.
November 16, 2008 - 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm
OK John/Jane/Alex/Stuart. Are you a polyamorous couple living the in the same house? (The only way to explain why you all have the same IP address.)
November 16, 2008 - 1:36 pm at 1:36 pm
I have to agree with john. it’s called democracy. the people voted and they favor traditional marriage. go home
November 16, 2008 - 2:04 pm at 2:04 pm
Under the Bill of Rights, everyone who showed up yesterday had the right to assemble and protest. That, too, is called democracy. There’s also something called “tyranny of the majority”:
“Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
–John Stuart Mill
November 16, 2008 - 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm
yes they can protest and roam the streets with signs but why? nothings gonna change overnight. the people have voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. they aint gonna vote again for a while.
how is favoring traditional marriage tyrannical? like john said, go home and live your lives. you wont be abused by some fanatic emperor nazi general.
November 16, 2008 - 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm
It’s not simply a matter of “favoring traditional marriage.” It’s a matter of taking away the rights of a certain group of citizens.
You’re right: public opinion won’t change overnight, but it’s certainly shifting towards supporting same-sex marriages. It’s only a matter of time.
November 16, 2008 - 6:54 pm at 6:54 pm
Personally I think it’s scary that all it takes to amend the state constitution is a simple majority–not even a 2/3 majority like in other major legislative bodies. That is a deep flaw in our democratic process, especially when it comes down to a split as minimal as 52/48.
To john and ron: in political science there is a concept called majority tyranny. Look it up. The “will” of the majority (and a rather slight majority) can be a dangerous thing sometimes.
Furthermore, democracy does not come to an end once an election is over. It is an ongoing process. We have the right to make ourselves visible until minds are changed, and that takes time.
November 16, 2008 - 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm
As teafortwo put it so eloquently: “democracy does not come to an end once an election is over. It is an ongoing process. We have the right to make ourselves visible until minds are changed, and that takes time.”
November 17, 2008 - 11:30 am at 11:30 am
If Prop 8 had been defeated and the churches of the likes of “John” and “Ron” had organized rallies against same sex marriage, would John and Ron be arguing that the
church-organized protesters should “go home” and “stop wasting their time?” I doubt it. How ironic that John and Ron claim to support American traditionalism when the very tradition that most defines the nation is the right to peaceably assemble and express a grievance. If these two were true patriots, they would be proud that they live in a country where people with whom they disagree feel empowered to march in the streets without fear of reprisal. As a San Diego policeman who was escorting Saturday’s massive protest said to a reporter, “The ballot is one form of American democracy and this is another.” John and Ron have the right to post their trite comments here, but they should know that their arguments against peaceful protest are profoundly unpatriotic.
November 17, 2008 - 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm
I dont have a problem with people protesting and voicing their opinions. I think its a waste of time because the next election to change anything will be in two years if I’m correct. beating up old ladies and standing in front of churches with signs doesnt accomplish anything, except possibly the fact that you are sore losers and cant play by the rules.
you define tyranny of majority so openly. if prop 8 had lost I could claim it was due to the tyranny of the majority. I would have even more support if it had lost by a landslide. so what makes it tyranny? just because its the majority? here the people want traditional marriage so two men cant brag that they have a marriage certificate. wow they can do anything else they want
November 17, 2008 - 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm
I’m not defining tyranny of the majority openly. What it means is that the majority makes a decision that limits the rights of a minority. You’re right: “beating up old ladies” doesn’t accomplish anything, but that was one isolated incident—so don’t pluralize it.
Clearly you think that having a marriage certificate is a minor thing, so why not let two men or two women enjoy that privilege?
November 17, 2008 - 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm
my point was what right does prop 8 take away? the right do be recognized by the state? what does that mean in your personal life? you can still love eachother, live together, go to paris or las vegas. in your everyday life you wont notice a thing different. and remember, that originally marriage was defined as a man and a woman. it wasnt until the court decided to change things that marriage had a new definition
November 17, 2008 - 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm
What did the ballot language say? “Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.” If something is legally bestowed, it’s a right. Marriage has certain rights that civil unions do not.
Laws are constantly evolving and being redefined. I ask you this: how will it effect your everyday life if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. How would it effect you, personally?
November 17, 2008 - 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm
oh please. the ballot language got changed by some nut and its the actual text that matters anyway.
wait ten years there wont be anything such as gay or straight. therell be one thing normal. no same-sex or traditional, just marriage. my grand kids will grow up in this. do I want them to have a completely changed culture? where dating isnt a boy and a girl having a romantic walk on the beach followed by a good night kiss? instead it will be two guys or girls just sitting around doing nothing. this is a complete culture change ordered by a minority that can enjoy life just like everyone else. you still havent come up with anything on how changing marriage will improve their lives
November 17, 2008 - 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm
Whatever your opinion on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of any particular sexual orientation, ron, separate is never equal. And treating any group as separate under the law is legalizing discrimination. Why is this so difficult to understand?
The idea that there is such a thing as “traditional” marriage s bullshit. The definition of marriage has changed immensely over the course of human history. Marriage has been arranged. There have been dowries. It has been racially segregated. And according to Yale historian John Boswell’s “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe”….yep, that’s right, gay marriage ceremonies sanctioned by the early Christian and Catholic churches. Your definition of what constitutes “traditional marriage” is a very recent invention indeed.
I wish the Yes on 8 people would just be honest about their reason for voting as such. You don’t believe gay people are human beings that deserve the same legal treatment as the rest of us, right? You think they’re sodomizing sinners who are going to hell, right? Just say it!!! I’m so sick of all this obfuscation nonsense.
November 17, 2008 - 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm
Even if the ballot language was changed “by some nut” (who was elected by the people), today, a same-sex couple does not have the right to walk into the county clerk’s office and get married. Last month, they had the right to do that.
Basically, what you’re saying, is that if same-sex marriage were allowed, in 10 years, everyone will be gay. Where are you getting that from? That’s illogical. People don’t choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. Hopefully your grandkids will grow up in a world that’s not so obsessed with what people do in the bedroom—because that’s really what it comes down to. You Prop. 8 supporters simply don’t like the idea of gay sex.
If marriage wasn’t important to same-sex couples, why did so many turn out to protest Prop. 8? Who are you to decide what kind of value marriage holds for a couple? Each couple, gay or straight, should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to make that commitment.
November 17, 2008 - 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm
I dont support discrimination. this isnt discrimination. Im not disgusted with gay sex, and I dont believe gays are going to hell. why do you assume Im some catholic?
I wasnt saying everyone will be. I said noone will be gay. everyone will be normal or in todays terms bisexual. our whole lives will then be based on a bisexual life instead of the straight biological one that it is now
November 17, 2008 - 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm
I notice that you hammer home the idea of “traditionalism” and then fail to respond to the point that no such thing exists.
November 17, 2008 - 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm
If same-sex marriage is allowed, then everyone will be bisexual? That’s one I’ve not heard before. Please tell me how you arrived at that conclusion.
And, yes, you do support discrimination. You support denying a same-sex couple who’s in a committed relationship the right to walk into the county clerk’s office and be legally married. Discrimination happens when you treat people differently because of their sexual orientation.
November 17, 2008 - 5:44 pm at 5:44 pm
and by the way, what in the fuck are you talking about? everyone will be bisexual in the future? what? and everyone is biologically straight now? WHAT? where in god’s name did you go to school ron? your logic is truly labyrinthine and bizarre.
November 17, 2008 - 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm
ok. first it isnt same-sex marriage. it is marriage. this is about what marriage is. how it is defined and how it affects society. the concept of same-sex marriage is defining marriage between any two people, while traditional is how it has previously been, between a man and a woman. yes traditional marriage exists. marriage has been between a man and a woman. perhaps in a few rare cases, it hasnt but mostly it has been between a man and a woman until recently.
what I meant by the bisexual part is that children will be raised in a society where gender is not part of marriage it will no longer be part of our culture. somewhat will sue someone for discriminating or some junk like that. so eventually our schools and culture will be plain and childrens story will be about prince and prince, princess and princess, and for the heck of it maybe a prince with a princess. because of this and society’s acceptance of gay being normal, bisexual will be what is normal for children. we arent born with some instinct to get married. marriage is part of our culture so if it gets changed more and more people will use that new form. I didnt say everyone is biologically straight. we live in families. we live with our parents and then move out. thats straight and its straight because its our biology. our biology demands a man and a woman to supply a sperm and an egg
November 17, 2008 - 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm
Ron, you are an idiot, and you can’t write a fucking coherent sentence to save your life. I think these two facts are no coincidence, and must be the result of the fact that you are uneducated. Stop spreading your vitriolic bullshit.
November 17, 2008 - 7:21 pm at 7:21 pm
Ha!
November 17, 2008 - 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm
Teafortwo, I can write a coherent sentence if I really wanted to. So it seems like I have to write with proper everything now, my new English teacher demands it. I’m not uneducated thank you.
I find it amazing that these “gay rights” activists can think they’re so tolerant and accepting, but yet they cannot even try to comprehend the whole purpose of marriage and its impact on our society and culture. I’m sitting here waiting, for a reason why the citizens of California need to redefine marriage so that any two people can get married, but do I get anything? Nope. All I can ever find is that this is some right that is so ever important, but if you would look back to the history of marriage, that it is a religious institution, you would find something completely different. And if you’re so “tolerant” minds would even give it thought that our society is built upon families, that we live in families, and that a man and a woman are required to make a family, you would suddenly understand something. But no, anyone who even tries to support traditional marriage just gets called a bigot, a hater, an idiot, etc.
Okay, end of Ron’s rant. This article is all about the protesters and that is why I commented in the first place. And since there is no election coming up soon, they’re wasting their time.
November 17, 2008 - 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm
Actually, marriage’s origins aren’t religious at all. It began as a social institution and then became part of the church later on. In fact, the majority of churches and religions that oppose same-sex marriage didn’t even exist when marriage was first introduced. Interesting. Even today, a significant number of couples do not get married in a church.
As a married person, I absolutely think that being “married” to your partner changes your relationship and makes it more significant. There are significant legal differences between marriage and civil unions, too. As for your comments about traditional marriage being the foundation of the family, a “family” does not need to be a man, woman and their kids. My mom grew up with a mother and an aunt as heads-of-household because my mom’s father skipped out on the family, leaving behind seven kids. My mom turned out A-OK. In fact, all seven of the kids turned out just fine. My dad was raised by his grandfather (again, father skipped out, mother followed). I can give you countless examples of non-traditional families that are doing just fine and I can give you countless examples of “traditional” families that are doing a fine job of screwing things up. This ain’t Leave it to Beaver. You Yes-on-8 folks have this idealistic vision of marriage that doesn’t exist in the real world.
November 17, 2008 - 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm
Ouch, your definition of marriage is so tight there is hardly any room to breathe. So a “correct” marriage is predicated on there being both a man a woman present, eh? Better tell that to all the straight folks who get divorced–actually, there are more of them than there are couples who stay married. So, according to Ron we are all fucked.
You belong in the 19th century my friend, or in Kansas. Your vision of what constitutes normalcy is oppressively archaic. From your definition of a functional marriage I take it you have never known a committed gay or lesbian couple who have lived together, supported one another, raised children together. I wouldn’t further be surprised if you didn’t know any gay people at all.
You keep referring to tradition, despite the fact that your definition of what is traditional has been refuted in every way, which you consistently choose to ignore. So let’s say for the sake of argument that your idea of marriage is the traditional one. To that I say, fuck your tradition. You are so bound up in your ideological conceptions of what is right and wrong that it blinds you to the necessity for basic civil rights. Not all traditions are good. It is necessary for traditions to change sometimes for the health of a community. And it is unhealthy for you to cling so tightly to your antiquated notions that you are willing to sacrifice the political and social welfare of others at the altar of tradition.
You’re right, there’s no election for a while. But guess what–even the Republican Governator sees the passage of Prop 8 as unconstitutional and is actively working to overturn it. So we’ll see you in court.
In the meantime, you can stop slumming on the CityBeat blog and go back to reading Ann Coulter and watching Fox News. You pointedly ignore facts and logic and continue to rant with all the misplaced fury of your 7th grade writing skills. You’re not going to change anybody’s mind with your poorly regurgitated right wing talking points and clearly no one is going to change yours because it seems your brain is preserved in a jar on Rush Limbaugh’s desk.
November 18, 2008 - 12:02 pm at 12:02 pm
Ron, you can’t have it both ways: you can’t support peaceful protest out of one side of your mouth and then say “go home” out of the other. Not only are you a foaming-at-the-mouth idiot, but you are an unpatriotic idiot.