Prop. 8 protests could become national movement

by Jordan Yerman | November 15, 2008 at 09:39 am
1780 views | 51 Recommendations | 23 comments

Photos

Prop. 8 protests could become national movement

Prop. 8 protests could become national movement

see larger image

uploaded by Kati Garner

Videos

PROTEST PROP 8

see larger video

sourced by Jordan Yerman

PROTEST PROP 8

Protests against Proposition 8, which reinstated the ban on gay marriage, are taking place today in California, across the US, and in cities around the world. The full list of participating cities can be found here.

We will be covering the story here, as well as via Scan.

Today, same-sex marriage supporters have planned simultaneous protests throughout California and in all 50 states, as well as cities in Canada, England and Australia.

It's a never-before-seen response, surpassing in size and scope even the 1969 Stonewall riots, which started the modern gay rights movement after New York City police raided a Greenwich Village gay bar.

It will be interesting to see what Sacramento's reaction is; massive international protest did nothing to stop the US invasion of Iraq, so, while I admire the effort, I'm not sure what overall effect global protest will have.

And it remains uncertain whether the aggressive tactics ultimately advance the activists' goal: Either having the California Supreme Court throw out Proposition 8 or persuading voters in a new election that gay marriage should be legal in the state.

At 10:30 a.m., North County residents will join gay-rights activists across the nation to protest the Nov. 4 passage of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage on California.

Similar marches are scheduled to take place simultaneously across the state and nation, including one in downtown San Diego. Protesters are asking the courts to overturn the proposition. On Nov. 8, an estimated 10,000 people participated in a similar march in San Diego.

In some cases, though, the proper due diligence hasn't taken place, and the wrong business are targeted for protest:

The Sacramento Theater Company is being confused with the California Musical Theater. That separate company was blacklisted this week by same-sex marriage supporters. They found out one of the directors gave money supporting prop 8. But, the Sacramento Theater Company is now swamped with calls and e-mails from people promising to pull their ticket subscriptions.
Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
2
reno_fog

I will be watching this. thanks for the great reporting.

1
Tomitheos Linardos

Equality for all is vital in our survival as a species, no one is here accidentally and everyone has their own purpose and path in life.  

I don't want to live in a world where that doesn't exist.  Peace.  Thanks for posting.  

((Good Vibes))

2
josiemitchell

Yeah equality! I'm thinking this isn't "could be a national protest" this is a national protest!

3
Albert Milliron

Folks are trying to equate gay Marriage with the plight of Blacks in America.  They state it is a constitutional issue that needs to be corrected.  The problem with the equality with blacks was they were not free in a free America.  They were not considered whole due to the constitutional representation be limited by a percentage per each black man.  The Amendments to the constitution that made Black Americans whole came following the civil war.  The constitution does not deal with marriage at all.  It is a stretch to think that the constitution has anything to do with marriage.  To equate their plight with that of blacks is absurd.  Gays have the right to be gay.  Marriage is a religious issue that the government should have never got involved in.  The government should never have legislative authority over a church issue.  Marriage has become a financial issue due to governmental definitions of marriage.

If a church,  based upon their belief system,  allows gay marriage it would have to be accepted by the  Government.  This is why Government should not be involved in religious matters.  I am personally against gay marriage due to my belief based on biblical scriptures.  Here is the thing, can gays see anything in scriptures that allows two men or woman to get married.  That for me is the bottom line scriptural authority from any religious group. 

This whole idea of protests seems to cause more strife between the groups than any ability to change ones heart.  The latest video shows an elderly woman being physically attacked and verbally abused by protesters due to her right to speak out.  Why is it that folks are so abusive in these protests?  What good is being done by protesters.  Wouldn't it be better to fight through the electoral system and the courts?

2
Fairbanks

In trying to see what is going on, it looks like a protest group is piggybacking on another protest movement, one that doesn't appreciate it.  Way back when, the Black nation tried to piggyback on marxism and that didn't go over because they don't want to piggyback nor be piggybacked upon, not to stereotype. 

2
panzerlawyer

Yes.  The homosexual lobby resorts to threats and attacks.  That is how they were able to get homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders.  Not with science, but with threats against physicians.  Now they are going after churches, who incidentally would be forced to marry homosexuals if Prop 8 had not passed.

Amazing.  It's ok to violate the First Amendment rights of Christians who believe the Bible prohibits homosexuality.  Our founding fathers never intended this.

4
karen k

The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.  Any individual might oppose gay marriage on religious belief, and that's fine:  but for the state to endorse that view and discriminate among people who simply want the opportunity to love one another is a different thing entirely.  I, personally, felt cut to the core by the passage of Prop 8 in CA and the ballot measures in FL, AZ, and Arkansas:  I feel as though not only my rights as a citizen but my basic humanity was violated in a terrible way.  Some things--the most "sacred", if I may use that word, things about a human person--just should never be put up to majority vote.  It's indecent.  And yes, it must be fought in the courts b/c majorities have never been good at protecting the rights of minorities:  the true test of a democracy is how well a society protects the rights of minorities, not the degree to which it can impose the will of the majority. 

I recommend the Freedom to Marry website to anyone who's genuinely interested, to anyone who (in these contentious times) still has an open heart.  There's a moving piece from South Africa (!), the constitutional amendment there that guarantees the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to marry.  Let me quote a bit of it here.

"The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage was not a small and tangential inconvenience resulting from a few surviving relics of societal prejudice destined to evaporate like the morning dew. It represented a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples. The intangible damage to same-sex couples is as severe as the material deprivation."

South Africa, within a few years of ending apartheid, got this far?  What's wrong with us? 

It's about civil rights.  It's about human rights.  It's about human dignity.  Most of all, it's about love.  History will judge.

2
Albert Milliron

Karen K,

Understand that My view on this issue stems from two things.  Marriage was instituted by religion and 1st amendment that protects freedom of religion.  My view is that if religious articles allow for Gay marriage it should be allowed.  I also feel that the government uses marriage as a means of discrimination based on ones marital status.  So I agree that gays are discriminated against by virtual of ones status.  The government should repeal the marriage penalty and other issues that discriminate against those who are the significant others in ones  relationship.  The government has made a big mistake by using marriage as a means of determining ones status for taxes.  I still cannot find any religion that condones gay marriage based on the scriptures of any major religion.  The Constitution equal protection clause is for legal issues and status.  It includes all persons despite their status in legal actions.  What it  is saying is that when one comes before a court, ones religion, color of skin etc is to be treated the same in a court action.  The inference is that the scales of justice are blind.  

No one is saying two folks of the same sex cannot love one another.  What is being said is that the constitution does not provide for marriage of gay persons.  Like I stated above the equal protection clause is that the legal system in a court action will not discriminate based on ones status as being gay.  There is nothing in the law that provides for marriage of Gay persons.  Progressives think that extending the meaning of the constitution is permissible.  I am of the belief based on the founding fathers statements.  There were gay folks at the time of the framing, had it been an issue they would have addressed such.  Since the founders did not mention marriage at any juncture their idea was that this issue was to be left to the church not the state.  I find it interesting that the same folks who fight diligently for a vast separation of church and state also  fight diligently for the state to be involved in gay marriage which is a religious issue.  Now how can the same group fight for polar opposite opinions?


3
searcy7

It was important for me and my partner to participate in the protest today. We were one of the 18,000 couples who were married in California and were happy to see so much support here in Mobile, Alabama.

searcy7 has contributed a photo to this story.

1
Amy Judd

I think it's great so many people came out in support of the protests.

2
cass71898

There were quite a few people in Pasadena today at City Hall. We heard speakers from All Saints Church and a woman who lived through civil rights fights in the South. Most of the crowd then split off and marched up and down Colorado Blvd. in old town Pasadena. We heard lots of honking in support of the cause.

cass71898 has contributed a photo to this story.

2
Jimmy_Sav

These posters were to be seen everywhere in San Francisco. This one was in the Mission area.

Jimmy_Sav has contributed a photo to this story.

2
forthebetta

NO ONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE!!!!

people aren't against gay-marriage.  the problem is that ANY church that refuses to perform a gay-marriage loses ALL tax-benefits.  by making it legal, it is legally destroying any religion that does not change its ideas on the issue.

i knew a lot of people who voted against gay-marriage in CA for that simple reason.  none of them were against homosexuality, or even gay-marriage, it was only about forcing churches to either perform gay-marriage or lose all tax-benefits.

2
panzerlawyer

Absolutely correct.

2
forthebetta

this is not about gay-marriage at all !!!!!

this is about churches who refuse to perform gay-marriage losing all tax-benefits...

making gay-marriage legal would destroy almost every church in CA.

i know a lot of people who voted against gay-marriage who have no problem with homosexuality or gay-marriage at all.... it was only about their own church losing tax-benefits because they refuse to perform any themselves.

2
Stink Poop

It was a national protest.  Boston sends its support to California!

2
dougsturgess

A peaceful protest against Proposition 8 (or as we like to call it, "Proposition Hate") at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on Saturday, November 15th, 2008. Another protest was held later that afternoon at Outwrite Books & Nickiemoto's at the corner of 10th & Piedmont.

dougsturgess has contributed a photo to this story.

4
JAKIE

Regardless of whether or not the government should/shouldn't have gotten involved with marriage, it did.  Therefore, marriage is a legal matter now, not a religious one. There are many important legal benefits/rights that go along with marriage that are not included in civil unions/domestic partnerships. According to the 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Though it can be extremely difficult at times, I try to have compassion for the religious ones. It's not their fault, they are doing the best they can. They were born with the disadvantages of having low IQ's, and the inability to think logically and intelligently. (Check it out at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html or www.vexen.co.uk/religion/intelligence.html

 

2
Elfwreck

Churches will not lose their tax benefits for refusing to perform gay marriages. Right now, they don't lose their tax benefits for refusing to marry divorced people, or interfaith couples, or between people who refuse to undergo a 6-week counseling class. Any church, any minister gets total autonomy about who they will and will not perform religious rites for.


There are STATE officials who may lose their jobs if they refuse to perform some marriages, but no church or minister will lose their tax status for this reason. The idea that they will, is a smokescreen to hide how scared some churches are that some of their members will *want* same-sex marriages, and will leave the church to get them.

2
Elfwreck

I am personally against gay marriage due to my belief based on biblical scriptures.

Are you for slavery, due to your belief based on biblical scriptures? Slaves are clearly endorsed and encouraged in the bible; there's even advice on how to be a good Christian slave or a good Christian master.

1
Albert Milliron

There is a big difference between the slaves mention in the Bible and slavery that was carried out in America.  Any one who has a command on the New Testament understands that those in indentured servitude was a temporary state.  Masters where commanded to treat those who were indentured to them as brothers in Christ.  After 7 years a Slave was freed and debts dismissed.  Those who were enslaved in America had no chance of being freed except by Presidential executive order and modifying the Constitution to make Blacks whole.  I have seen this argument before that Christians condone slavery.  Biblical scholars have come to agreement that southern Christians were terribly wrong claiming to be of the Christian faith and treating Slaves are property.  Comparing slavery to Gay marriage is Apples and Oranges.  The Bible expressly condemns homosexual activity.  At the same time Christians are to Love each other as them would themselves.  So no I am not for slavery in any form.  I am however enslaved to multinational corporations because I am in  debt.

0
Tomitheos Linardos

We don't see things as 'they are'

We see things as "we are" 

Say no to hate in our world.

1
married in 08

I personally do not need marriage to feel I have the "right to love" my partner of 10 years.  What I do need/want however, is to know that no matter where we are we will be able to make medical and legal decisions for each other.  I need to know that if one of us dies the other will not be unfairly taxed on their inheritence.  I want to be able to file joint taxes because I think it is unfair that I am taxed as single when in fact I have been the sole financial provider for my family for many years.  There are thousand of federal rights that we are denied because the governement mistakenly mixed religion and government on this issue.  Many other ocuntries have religious marriage and civil union as seperate for everyone gay or straight.  I believe if we stopped being fixated on "marriage" and focused on ensuring that each state adopts a civil union/domestic partnership that is deamed as equal to marriage and that the federal government agreed that they receive equal recogniztion to marriage in regard to legal rights - we would have moved forward a long time ago.  If you watched the elections and if you listen to many of the people who protest marriage rights you will here then say they think all couples gay or straight should recieve equal rights and protections under the law but that they do not believe in calling it marriage due to their religious beliefs.  The reality is most of us agree on the fundamental issue and we are foolishly wasting time arguing over a word. 

 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Uwe Paschen
First Flagged at 9:40 AM, Nov 15, 2008 by Uwe Paschen
These members have powered this story:

Most Recommended Stories in World

Recommendations (51)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from