Religious right pushes for ban on Calif. gay rights

[tristano's ghost]

Oh--and they want it to be retroactive, too, taking away any rights previously granted to same-sex families:

Massive Calif. assault planned vs. gay citizens. Ban to be retroactive.
by IseFire
Fri May 20th, 2005 at 18:49:53 PDT

The Religious Right in California is demanding that state mechanisms be applied to the destruction of non-traditional families.... They're petitioning for a state constitutional ban on already-established same-sex rights, including those affecting hundreds of children now protected under domestic partnership health insurance. California's police, courts, and other agencies' personnel could even become the enforcers of such a sweeping act of state-sponsored and stigmatizing retraction for rights.

Why not just also demand that "known homosexuals" be make to display a pink triangle on their front door so all Californians can feel safer knowing perfidious, pedophilic, sub-humans (probably diseased!) are lurking--like Communists and Jews of old--in the neighborhood...verily, behind every tree! Look! Look, Ma! There's one over there! Is it true they eat babies?

Even an article from the often right-leaning Associated Press, quoting the proverbial Both Sides of the Story, reveals the stark animus behind this destructive force.

(Animus. Remember! "[T]he amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." Romer Vs. Evans , 1996.)

From the AP article:

"In addition to denying marriage licenses, the proposed amendment would take away many marriage-like privileges currently extended to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners. In addition, state and local governments would no longer be allowed to extend health benefits to domestic partners of gay or lesbian workers.

"'The language of the proposed amendment is breath-taking in its hostility and sweep," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. 'The amendment is the most extreme and mean-spirited of any previously submitted anywhere else in the nation.'

"'If passed, this constitutional amendment would result in children losing health insurance they currently have, hospital visitation being revoked and families being hurt,' said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California."

[GoodSpeak]

Does this surprise you?


In my little Land O' Enchantment, I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a radical republican weirdsmobile.




Oh, and Praise JEE-zus.

Then why did your state go to Kerry?

[Gary Sisco]

Too bad the Romans didn't toss all of them to the lions. It would have made for a nicer history, really, when all is said and done. Just another mystery cult. Here today, food tomorrow.

too many important gay citizens in CA, it just won't wash here. the right wing will just need to be satisfied with stirring up animosity against undocumented Mexican workers.

[clinthopson]

Hey, if they (I voted but the other way) can elect a blightering idiot like the Gropenfuhrer, anything is possible.

even Arnold is relatively enlightened on the issue of gay rights.

remember: even a dolt like Gray Davis beat two born-again Christians who opposed gay rights (and abortion rights) in legitimate elections before losing in that recall fiasco.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Then why did your state go to Kerry?

I dunno.....maybe we got smart?

California is a very big state, Scott.

The big cities and the Coast lean Democrat; the Interior Regions lean republican.


The so-called Ray-gun Democrats reside in the Interior.....it is also where I live.



Besides, Bush and his bully boyz didn't do themselves any favors when they turned their backs on us during that sham energy crises of a few years back.

[Jazzzoline]

What do motive their demands for such a step back? Has families proven to be worse than any other USA's family?

[Gary Sisco]

Gay men and lesbians are the last for whom official oppression is (openly) socially acceptable in the US, so the attack bigots are off the leash.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Gay men and lesbians are the last for whom official oppression is (openly) socially acceptable in the US, so the attack bigots are off the leash.

Off the leash? No worrys, I have a dart gun and some zolazepam hydrochloride 100 mg/mL...always glad to help out when wild animals are on the loose.

[RainyDay]

Never thought I'd say this but Goody is right. The limosuine liberals will be too busy looking down their noses at the religious right and nibbling on tofu to actually organize around this issue. The gay community will mobilize. It will be interesting. San Francisco isn't all of California, or even all of the Bay Area. Neither is LA. The Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and the folks up in the northern counties are very much more conservative.
Remember how Miss uber liberal Barbara Boxer moved away from Gavin Newsome over gay marriage? And John Burton (powerful uber liberal state senator)? And DiFi? Anthing is possible on this issue. It depends on who can raise the most money and how the issue is framed. If being gay is linked to child abuse or "indecency" (who cares about reality and facts--most Americans don't read), it could be successful. I'm sure Janet Jackson's breast and Michael Jackson will have featured roles in this drama.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by RainyDay

The limosuine liberals will be too busy looking down their noses at the religious right and nibbling on tofu to actually organize around this issue.

One of the most successful themes of conservative propaganda is the notion that the right, not the left, represents everyday working Americans. Conservatives claim to speak for the silent majority and depict liberals as silly, affluent elitists who despise the work ethic. Promoting envy and resentment of "limousine liberals" is the right-wing version of class warfare. It's an updated, socially acceptable substitute for the traditional prejudices used by the most unsavory right-wingers to distract people from voting in their own interest.


There is no point in denying that limousine liberals exist or that they can be obnoxious -- but any trouble they cause is far outweighed by the depredations of another remote and arrogant elite: corporate-jet conservatives. Recent revelations of that set's incomprehensible greed and callousness make the limo liberals seem like saints. And unlike any clique of left-wing movie stars, they're a real problem.

At the turn of the last century, Theodore Roosevelt denounced such people as "malefactors of great wealth." A hundred years later, there are two very important differences: The rich have indeed gotten far richer -- and the president of the United States is not their foe but their frontman.

Just my two cents.

[RainyDay]

Limosuine liberals are not just movie stars, they are all over California. My mayor, Jerry Brown is one. So is Barabar Boxer. DiFi is too far to the right to be anything but a conservative who hasn't changed parties. They are the movers and shakers who are responsible for raising big bucks for the Democratic Party. They are the kind of people who go on CSPAN and state there is no room in the Dem Party for a Howard Dean party chair. You may be surrounded by young turks but the old guard is what is moving/stalling the left. I seem to remember that the Swift Boat Veterans kicked Kerry's ass AND handed him his head because he didn't want to lower himself to their level. He didn't respond to their charges until it was too late. Out of touch and out of time.

See, I love not belonging to any of these bogus political organizations because that way, I don't have any partisan loyalty to either side and I can call it as I see it. Want to hear my rant about the cluless Green Party?

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by RainyDay

See, I love not belonging to any of these bogus political organizations because that way, I don't have any partisan loyalty to either side and I can call it as I see it. Want to hear my rant about the cluless Green Party?

I don't belong to any bogus political organizations either, for the same reason.

Would love to hear your Green Party Rant!

now that Arnold is in control of the CA Republican party, he's not going to let anyone sabotage the (limited) success they've been having by allowing the Christian right to set the agenda. His people, most of whom are moderates, will not gay bash--like nearly all Dems, they'll keep opposing gay marriage, but that's about it. I don't think there's anything remotely alarming here.

Originally Posted by Doc Martin

One of the most successful themes of conservative propaganda is the notion that the right, not the left, represents everyday working Americans.

There is no point in denying that limousine liberals exist or that they can be obnoxious -- but any trouble they cause is far outweighed by the depredations of another remote and arrogant elite: corporate-jet conservatives. Recent revelations of that set's incomprehensible greed and callousness make the limo liberals seem like saints. And unlike any clique of left-wing movie stars, they're a real problem.

I don't belong to any bogus political organizations either

Of course not.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Whether it's gay rights or abortion, the whole point is to push people into sexual practices that meets the approval of this noisy group. They actually believe that by "punishing" homosexuals, homosexuality will cease to exist, because in their minds homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". By opposing abortion ( and many forms of contraception) the religious right wishes to control the sexual activity of women by having the threat of unwanted children hanging over their heads.

One thing I've noticed about all conservative religious movements, they want everyone to go back to some idealized past where evryone who is outside of the norm is ostracized and force to conform to the dominant religion. It's a bout repression, pure and simple.

I have a feeling that in about a hundred years or so, people will look back on this era and wonder what the hell were we thinking.

[RainyDay]

It was a rhetorical question. Talking politics online is not something I really enjoy. The one thing about Greens is that they have little diversity in participation or in focus. And they don't seem to understand how to get anything done. There have been two notable Greens in this area. My former state Assemblyperson who was a nut job. She finally left the Greens in order to get reelected except she wasn't reelected. She could not work with anyone, she didn't understand how to work the system in Sacramento, she aliented nearly everyone including her own staff and party.

The other one was a SF Supervisor. He lost the mayor's race and dropped out of politics altogether. Didn't run for reelection. Had a major pout going on. He blew in on a wave of emotion to change the way things are done in SF. He has no successful initiatives he could point to as his legacy. He and another left of left Supervisor (who did get reelected) seemed to delight in poking holes in things but not really fixing anything. You have to do more than rant about the corporate elite or the racist system. The idea is to get some first hand experience dealing with the enemy then come up with real strategies to fix what is broken.

This may shock you but I see the left as keepers of the status quo. I look at how the left has dealt with homelessness in SF, which is to continue throwing money at homeless people so they can buy drugs and alcohol. Gavin Newsome has actually implemented a program that is getting people off the street and the left is griping because they say 800 off the street isn't enough. But it's 800 fewer people than the lefties were willing to get off the street. In some ways, Newsome is a limousine liberal who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty.

[RainyDay]

Originally Posted by achilles

now that Arnold is in control of the CA Republican party, he's not going to let anyone sabotage the (limited) success they've been having by allowing the Christian right to set the agenda. His people, most of whom are moderates, will not gay bash--like nearly all Dems, they'll keep opposing gay marriage, but that's about it. I don't think there's anything remotely alarming here.

Ahhhnold's ratings are in the toilet. That's why he, like Bush, is sending out his wife to do clean-up. Right now, he isn't in control of much of anything.