Truemors
Prop. 8 protests could become national movement 
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.
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.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 18:22 on November 16th, 2008
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} There are a number of myths the so-called “homosexual agenda” has used to gain both legitimacy and strength. One of the most repeated is that America (and/or Massachusetts, California, etc.) has a long and esteemed history of refusing to put so called “minority rights to a vote.” In many areas, but especially with respect to marriage, this argument is patently false.
Polygamists, for instance, are a discreet and insular minority whose “right” to marry as they so choose has been rejected by legislative fiat. In fact, the United States Congress required that Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah put antipolygamy language in their respective state constitutions as a condition precedent to statehood. Similarly, close family members’ “right” to marry each other is denied by every state. Some justify this exclusion given the potential for genetic defects in children born of incest. However, couples with known inheritable genetic diseases can marry, while infertile and noncopulating incestual couples cannot. Minors, too are a minority group capable of arguing that they have received discriminatory and bigoted treatment. Even minors that are demonstrably capable of consent and united in committed relationships have been and continue to be denied the “right” to marry. Time and time again, minorities’ so called “right” to marry has been denied by legislative action or popular vote. A vote in favor of an amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman actually affirms, not denies, centuries of legitimate democratic history.
Marriage has been limited because redefining marriage to accommodate same-sex couples (or polygamists, or minors, or sisters, or cousins, etc.) does not make marriage more vibrant and inclusive, it actually weakens it. Marriage is strong in part because it is a unique institution. Expanding the institution to accommodate every conceivable minority position reduces it to no more than a label and a defined set of legal benefits (and obligations). Such a dilution of marriage may likely result in a similar dilution of some of the undisputable benefits of marriage – including greater longevity, greater wealth, more fulfilling ual relationships, and greater happiness. In a democracy, the people should decide whether to conduct such a far reaching and potentially harmful social experiment.
at 19:45 on November 16th, 2008
I'm sorry it just sounds like intolerance...
at 18:14 on May 26th, 2009
scary scary
at 18:19 on May 26th, 2009
i cannot believe that as progressive as ca claims to be....it was voted down, what is going on with people? i know how difficult it is to look at one's self and discover the terrible truths we all must accept about ourselves in order to change, but at some point we must grow up. i think it's pretty sad that we as a people are still allowing fear to perpetuate itself.