Proposition 8 foes refuse to concede

[emlev]

Source: Sacramento Bee

Opponents of a ballot measure to ban gay marriage refused to concede this morning, despite vote totals that show supporters of Proposition 8 with a 400,000-vote advantage.

Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said 3 million to 4 million ballots remain uncounted statewide.

"The fact is depending on the turnout model we are looking at millions of votes yet to be counted," Kendall said. The race is too close to call. People's fundamental rights hang in the balance."

Secretary of State Debra Bowen is expected to issue an estimate of the number of uncounted ballots late today or Thursday. It could take days to process all of them. Proposition 8 supporters declared victory early today, saying their model shows them with an insurmountable lead.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1371978.html

---

It's way too early for the Yes on 8 hatemongers to be declaring victory. Stay tuned!
This "refusal to concede" is not stubbornness, it means the campaign knows what it's doing.

[aquart]

1. I don't have a problem with "stubbornness."

It's an anti's description of steadfast and determined.

[BattyDem]

2. 3 to 4 million not yet counted?

Come on, California! Do the right thing!

[emlev]

4. Provisional ballots and vote-by-mail ballots that arrived yesterday

The process for counting provisional ballots includes the need to individually verify the eligibility information for every voter, as written on the outside of each provisional ballot envelope, before determining whether or not to count the vote. This takes time. There are huge numbers of provisional ballots throughout the state. Getting it right means not having it now.

If people want to help, it's especially important in counties where the county government may be hostile to gay rights that people observe the process of qualifying provisional ballots. I've written up a paper on how to do this, which should be posted later today at NoMoreStolenElections.org. If you can't find it by later today and want it, PM me.

[ohio2007]

105. what other issues were left uncounted? Would it have an impact on the presidential results?

four million votes is a lot of clout that could throw an election imo

[Maat]

3. Never. Give. Up.

Let's make them count every one.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

82. NEVER

[The Traveler]

5. K&R. Never surrender! n/t

[cliffordu]

K&R!!!

[kestrel91316]

6. COUNT EVERY VOTE. Huge numbers of anti-8 liberals cast

early and absentee votes.

[amdezurik]

18. me for one

but it is telling to look at a map of where this "passed" often with a 60/40 or 70/30 split. Central valley where there are lots of farms and when you drive there nothing but Phlemball and O'Loofa on the AM dial, and edumacation is about as inportant as it is to dumbaya...

[sui generis]

45. and on that note if you don't have public transportation

or recycling programs you shouldn't be able to vote about people in areas that do.

[jmowreader]

89. It lost in Los Angeles County by almost 21,000 votes

According to Wikipedia, 42.5 percent of Los Angeles County is Hispanic--very religious, and largely Catholic.

It also got stomped in San Diego County, but I expected it to there.

[sui generis]

99. the proposition lost. We are still married.

And by god not a god damn thing another human can do to undo that.

[Lucky Luciano]

47. Also, I think a lot of the blackand hispanic demographic

which were very pro-Obama were far less interested in human rights for gays. Hispanics often have a highly Catholic upbringing which makes them discriminate and many of the black voters also have a religious background which would make them gay-haters as well. I simply can't imagine what the big deal is if two gay people want to get married. Does not have anything to do with me.

[amdezurik]

48. that was a good portion of the vote too

[jgraz]

69. And those provisional ballots. Like mine :(

Goddamn idiot board of elections.

[Chulanowa]

7. Damn right

Do not concede this. Fight it until your teeth bleed. Count it down to the very last vote, and then demand a recount. Make them sick with the stench of their own fucking ignorance.

[Greyskye]

8. Fingers crossed...

[AndyA]

9. Every vote MUST be counted. EVERY LAST ONE!

Don't give up hope!

[Mad_Dem_X]

10. Keep fighting!!!

Don't give up!

[Gregorian]

11. Prop 8 is anti-American. It excludes a segment of our society.

It's like buying in to a small piece of Hitler's plan.

I'm quite upset about this. And confused how we can be a blue state, and have let this happen.

[pitohui]

14. i agree, how do you get to vote on who does and doesn't get rights?

would you be allowed to vote on whether or not a black person could marry a white person?

at some point it shouldn't be open to voting, it should be recognized as a human right

it's one of those things that leave me scratching my head, that's for sure

[dabenpb]

22. Good point.

I have been saying this to my neighbors all along. I wish No on 8 would have said the same on ads. If 8 passes, we should put on the ballot an opposite sex marriage ban. We should be able to get enough signatures to get it on the next ballot. That will show the 8 supporters how silly this is, an how wrong. GOBAMA!

[Gregorian]

86. I think we need to have a Constitutional Common Sense test. (Silly sounding)

But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means something. However, I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about how that phrase. Someone who has had a difficult time with a planning department, is the most frequent. Someone wants to build a house wherever they want. Wetlands, aren't a place where once can do that.

Ok, so there is common sense. And this is where the republicans have tried, and failed, to make a case. A case based on fear. Just who is done wrong, or damaged by same sex marriage. It's a myth, a lie, a ploy.

Prop 8 should never have made it to the ballot box.

[customerserviceguy]

100. In the 1950's and 60's, civil rights were not put up to a public vote

Legislators had the courage to do the right thing at that level. I saw an "American Experience" program on PBS a few weeks ago, showing the extraordinary arm-twisting Lyndon Johnson had to do to get civil rights laws passed.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen in this case, the fundies managed to get ballot access for their hate. At this point in time, we've depended about 99% on the courts to rectify wrongs in this area, and I don't hold out a lot of hope when this issue makes it to the Supreme Court again. The only appointments that President Obama stands to make are from votes that would already be on our side.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. But a segment that is perfectly alright to hate

Crimeny, just look around Democratic Underground, and we prove time and again that we are far more progressive that the Democratic Party as a whole.

[uppityperson]

12. Good. Count ALL the votes. I find it incredible that this is even an issue (both counting & prop)

[jgraz]

13. And once we get the atrocity overturned, we go after the Catholic Church and the Mormons

You guys better get used to filling out tax returns!!!

[Libertas1776]

15. Let them have their precious word.

If Prop 8 does indeed go for the anti gay marriage people it will be a great loss. However, I still look at this in a different perspective. If the freaking mormons wanna label the word "marriage" as being between a man and a woman only, let them. Let them have there stupid little word. I am gay, and what I want the most is to have the same rights, bit for bit, that heterosexual couples have. We can all argue over semantics till the cows come home but what is more important in the immediate sense: The fact that the union between the man that I love is labeled a "marriage" or a "civil union", or the ability for me to see him if he is lying sick in a hospital bed and not be turned away because I am not "family" in the eyes of the law.

In most of Europe, "marriages" both heterosexual and homosexual are basically seen as civil unions in the eyes of the government. It is a union between two people. If they want to go the more traditional route and have a "marriage" then they can go to their on private ceremony at a church or whatever. The govt could care less about that. I do not see it as a step towards second class citizenship, I personally think that all unions both straight and gay should be called civil unions in this country.

You can fight over a name, or instead you can fight for your rights and your loving relationship with your partner.

We will never be able to get to the us supreme court arguing for the word "marriage." What should be argued is the legalization of civil unions in all 50 states, and let the states decide whether or not they call it "marriage"
You can disagree with me but this is what I honestly believe.
Its all about substance, and not just a word.

P.S. The Mormon Church should lose tax exempt status if they are openly campaigning in secular politics.

[crispini]

17. The problem is legal precedent.

I used to think like you do until I had it explained to me. There are thousands of laws and precedents around the word "marriage" that make up the institution. You can't just start with something new and different and make it up from scratch and have it be the same thing.

Plus, look how well "seperate but equal" worked out in the past-- NOT.

[Libertas1776]

20. Hold on a second...

Thats not fair, I wouldn't compare it to "separate but equal" because like I said all unions both gay and straight should be called civil unions in this country. Not Marriage.
Regardless, if us gays want unions to be labeled marriage, you could expect to see a supreme court date maybe in...a decade at the very least.
We will never win over at least a majority of the American populous if we seek the most extreme measures. Pushing the idea of gay "marriage" on these people, who I honestly believe most are just misguided or unready, and not really bigoted, will only push them farther away from the cause. There is no precedence for what is happening and we have to take it as it comes and work it to our advantage. The issue of race discrimination was a more obvious one, with the color of ones skin noticeable to all and easy to label. With us gays, we are all colors and sexes with no defining physical mark that tells others who or what we are, so it is not as obvious to what I call the "simple" folk out there to grasp.
Perhaps if we are lucky, under this Obama presidency some liberal, realist justices and not some aging reactionaries will be put on the bench, and maybe that court date will come sooner than we think.

[nichomachus]

25. You're both right

I agree with you Libertas that the civil aspect and religious aspect of marriage should be separate, but it's also true that thousands, tens of thousands of laws use that terminology. So, it would be a nightmare to retrofit them.

In most other countries, you get joined -- whether same-sex or opposite-sex -- in a civil union. That gives you all the rights and benefits now given to married couples. Then you can go to your Holy High Whoop-de-Do for whatever superstitious rites they want to perform. But the religious part has nothing to do with tax benefits, property ownership, inheritance, etc.

In freaking Mexico, for crying out loud, couples cannot be married in a church unless they already have a civil union.

Clergymen and women should not be the gatekeepers of civil benefits -- period.

[Steelworker In OH]

63. it wouldn't be hard

Just make an amendment or legal president that states "from this day forth all instances of the term "Marriage" shall be changed to "Civil Union"." or some other legally binding jargon along those lines, its done in contracts and the like all the time, almost like treating it as a clerical error, just retrofit the terminology.

[nichomachus]

88. Not as easy as you think

[Steelworker In OH]

94. For the

right team of determined law people, be it professors, researchers, whoever else, I'm sure there's something they can do.

I honestly don't know which would be better/easier... changing the terminology to allow Civil Unions to hold the same civil rights as marriages, or changing Marriage to be allowed between any 2 humans, regardless of sex.

I think its complete BS that we have to argue about it though, I don;t care who you are attracted to, you should still have the same basic rights as everyone else.

[madmadmad]

103. it would be the right thing to do- take the church out the equation entirely

but i'm afraid to do so would be harder than getting gays the right to marry. i'd imagine even borderline religious people would have a problem with it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Civil unions already have a name: Marriage

There are no laws regulating who can and cannot be ordained. There are no legal benefits to being confirmed. Having a bar mitzvah does not provide a tax advantage. There are no statutes outlining the protections and priviledges of someone who has been baptized.

There are laws regulating who can and cannot be married. There are legal benefits to being married. Getting married does provide a tax advantage. There are statutes outlining the protections and priviledges of those who have been married.

That should prove, beyond any possible doubt, that marriage is a civil institution and not a religious one.

Regarding legal precedent, words are important. The United States has almost three hundred years of court precedents and judicial rulings which touch upon marriage. MARRIAGE, not "unions" or "partnerships" or any of the other separate and unequal euphemism that opponents of equality like to bandy about. Those rulings cannot be applied to "unions" or "partnerships" or anything other than "marriage."

If the religious bigots don't like these facts, that is their problem and not a problem with the legal system. Let THEM be the ones to come up with a different word, and let them keep their grubby, intolerant, gullible and bigoted hands off of legal marriage.

[jobycom]

66. I agree with you. It smacks of "Seperate but Equal."

I understand the previous poster's point, and even held a similar view myself years ago, but it's just not good enough. It's a two-tier citizenship, and that's wrong, and unconstitutional.

The only way to do this properly may be to do it through the courts. Lawmakers are too cowardly to do the right thing. Then again, forty years ago most African Americans were denied the basic rights of other citizens, and yesterday a black man was elected president. Change can happen, and quickly, if we prepare for it, and take advantage when we can.

Still hoping for a miracle on Prop 8, though.

[SacredCow]

29. This is problematic for me, as well....

Really and truly, I am not hung up on the word "marriage." I was married (man-woman) before I came out and trust me- "marriage" ain't some magic word that makes everything work out. But I see the argument as to why we would have to come up with an entire new concept, when the one of marriage is already in place? Right now, the fundies are whining and complaining that we want to redefine and/or destroy the institution of marriage, and from their standpoint, that is probably true. So in this specific way, I can understand their complaint. HOWEVER; they've done nothing to defend marriage from divorce, so it logically follows that they have other motives (and this is where just sheer ignorance and hate comes in).

Face it- If we were fighting for "civil unions," the fundies would still be in an uproar. They'd have put up propositions to ban same-sex civil unions sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Because it's NOT about saving "marriage" or that the militant homosexuals want to redefine marriage, or even because they want to protect the children from the evil that is homosexuality. It's simply that it's different from their little world view. They would rather cast down insults and discrimination from behind the bible, than turn their eyes upon themselves to fix their OWN problems and/or manage their own lives. They can't STAND the idea that a homosexual person should be happy. In their minds, we shouldn't exist- but if we do, then we must repress who we are and pretend to be happy like the rest of the sheep.

[BadgerKid]

39. They're projecting their repression and pretending.

Or so I would guess.

[TommyO]

56. NO FUCKING WAY!

Marriage is the legal institution that conveys a large number of rights and responsibilities, as well as benefits, to a couple. There is no legitimate reason to deny gay people that civil contract. I am certainly not going to let any church strip away my civil rights.

[Steelworker In OH]

61. This is

What me and a few of my gay/lesbian friends have been discussing. Let the religions have "marriage" the Government should issue "Civil Unions" and make it the standard for taxes, insurance, wills, and all other wife/husband rights that are accociated with conventional "marriage".

If we want to get technical, My wife and I have a "civil union", we got joined outdoors in an arboretum, by the Mayor of a small town near there... My parents got married by a judge in Covington Kentucky. I think its more about the words used to describe it than the act itself.

The standard needs to be set by the government on terminology, allow any 2 humans of consenting age to enter into a "Civil Union" and if the religions want to label it as "Marriage" then let them, doesn't give or take away anymore rights.

[Zhade]

96. No. They will not own that word.

We will not stop fighting for it. PERIOD.

[Jester Messiah]

64. I say take their word away.

Keep on using it, even if the law disagrees. If they object and say "you mean 'civil union' right?" then look them right in the eye and tell them you know exactly what you meant. Don't back down one whit.

[Strathos]

79. You do realize...

Any state that bans "gay marriage" does not have to honor civil unions or anything resembling marriage by two people of the same gender.

That's why the civil union thing is such a slippery slope.

[olddad56]

91. Why should the fear mongering religious right stop at just gay marriage? ...

How about a proposition to not allow inter racial marriages and for heaven sake interfaith marriages. Mormons should only be allowed to marry Mormons, Catholics only can marry Catholics, and it you aren't affiliated with a Christian Church, no marriage for you.

If you allow interfaith marriages, the next thing you know, Asians will want to marry Blacks, Hispanics will want to marry whites, then men will want to marry men, women will want to marry women. It is just a matter of time before children will want to marry their pets. Lets nip this nonsense in the bud.

[Zhade]

95. No. Marriage is not solely a religious institution - they DO NOT own that word.

NT!

[frickaline]

101. What prevents you from having this word

used by your own religious (or even non-religious) institution? Why would removing the word marriage from all government mean the word was "owned" by any one church/institution?

It would seem to me that removing the word from government allows everyone the freedom to use the word marriage however it applies to them personally.

[Kalifornia.Kid]

16. "It ain't over until Divine sings" (apologies)

[Eryemil]

37. Haha. You're a Jewel

Shoot your shot. ;)

[diane in sf]

19. good, don't concede, all the votes must be counted

[dmr]

21. It's inconceivable to me that California would cruelly approve discrimination

All remaining votes must be counted, and if necessary each and every vote recounted.

I am old, Catholic, moral, have traditional values, and straight, yet would not have approved this discriminatory and heartless measure. I don't consider myself really any different than most other sane and intelligent Americans, which is why I can't believe it could pass, most especially with the youth of today voting.

If it did pass, I would hope that those who were legally married since May not have their marriage deemed null and void, AND I strongly hope there be a special election, or at the next election another vote to right this wrong.

You know, I have to say this: Life is hard. No, life is damn hard. If any of us are fortunate enough to be graced with the love for and by another human being, how can we as a society deny any human the joy of and the right to matrimony? Our nation believes in choice, and consider arranged marriages archaic and taboo. We think nothing of inter-faith, or inter-racial marriages, though each were once considered wrong by large parts of our society at one time. What makes gay marriage any different? Nothing.

People are people, despite their faith, sex, or race, they are people. So long as each are of age, single, acting under their own free will and desire to marry, there should be no barriers.

This is the United States of America, damn it! Where all things are possible! Where dreams can come true!

Rest assure, if it doesn't pass now, it will pass later. Mark my words, it will.

Yes we can! Yes we will!

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Well, Prop 2 passed, so Californians object to animal cruelty

Apparently, animal rights are significantly more important than human rights. See this thread.

[totodeinhere]

32. It is inconceivable to me. There are a lot of bigots out there.

That was clearly shown in Arizona and Florida, where anti gay measures passed. Let's hope that Prop 8 in California may yet prevail, although I doubt it will. 400,000 votes are a big hill to climb.

I do agree though that time is on our side. As older voters die off and younger people take over, then gay rights will finally pass.

[robinlynne]

23. Thank- God. WE had massive voter purging. eveidnece of thousands,

pr5obably more than a million democrtaic voters purged in la alone. all those votres take 28 days to count!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO CONCESSIONS!

[hisownpetard]

24. Do NOT concede! Count every single vote. K&R!

[nam78_two]

26. Good

Count me as a prop 8 foe (even though I do not live in CA).

[bluesmail]

31. First they came for the jews

[Blue State Blues]

33. Count every vote! n/t

[tjwash]

34. The lawsuit has just officially been filed

I posted this in LBN as well

[Hansel]

67. I was wondering about doing this through the initiative process.

It seems like it is frighteningly easy to change the constitution of California if it can be done through an initiative. Especially one where simple majority prevails. If that's the case, it's not worth the paper it is printed on.

[piesRsquare]

35. Exit Poll: Black Voters Back Calif. Marriage Ban

Exit poll: Black voters back Calif. marriage ban

The Associated Press
Article Launched: 11/05/2008 11:17:22 AM PST

LOS ANGELES—California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split.

Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative.

Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.


http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10906846

***********
I don't understand. After everything that African-Americans have been through (and still go through), how could so many cast their vote for the first African-American President, then, moments later, cast a vote to deny civil rights to another minority? How?

I want to be celebrating today, but this has put such a damper on the Democratic victory. This is a tragedy of epic proportion: The denial of civil rights is about to be written into the California Constitution. Unbelievable.

[ashrob123]

36. You know what?

I've read this comment more than a few times today on this forum and honestly, I'm sick and fucking tired of it. The measure didn't (or won't) fail SOLELY because of African-Americans. Millions upon millions of people across the racial and economic spectrum contributed to the outcome. It's pure bullshit to place any blame on one particular group.

I love how when things work in your favor African-American voters are all the rage as soon as things go shitty we're to blame. African-Americans make up about 12% of the US population and California population. Roughly about 2,000,000 of the population in California and that's including people not eligible to vote (e.g. children). If you are going to complain about someone not supporting the bill let's look at the largest group in that state (Caucasians) and then we can move on from there.

Until you (and others) do that this argument is flawed and (as far as I'm concerned) ignorant.

[yardwork]

40. Calm down. The numbers show that 70% of African Americans who voted in CA opposed human rights.

Nobody is saying that that gives a pass to the nearly 50% of white voters who opposed human rights, and the slightly more than 50% of Latino voters who opposed human rights.

However, it is valid to point out that a very large majority of African Americans voted to take away the rights of gay people in California. People are asking why? It's a reasonable question.

[Poseidan]

52. because of the church

Blacks are typically very churchey. Some people like to deny the reality of marriage, that it began with church and is still today a church establishment. Civil unions should be the State equivalent, where gays and straights would have equal rights and free religion would be preserved.

Then again, why have any legal standing for couples? Why not allow any two people living together to share the same kind of marriage tax-benefits? Why not let the loving couples manage themselves? Why does government intervene to any degree, on matters of 'love' or whatever the fuck?

Not sure what the legal point of Civil Unions or Marriage is, aside from the church attempting to trojan-horse the State.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Calling bullshit.

Marriage existed among Native Americans or the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, prior to contact with Europeans. Our currently popular cultural incarnation of Marriage may resemble european religious roots, but I can walk into a courthouse, get a wedding license, and be married by a justice without ever setting foot in any religious institution.

Marriage does not currently rely upon the church, and 'marriage' may well predate any known 'church'.

If I can get married, in a 'straight' marriage in a courthouse with ZERO religious influence, why does religion play any part at all in the state's interpretation of what is a valid marriage?

[The Doctor.]

59. It's an interesting point, but not one that should be where blame is laid.

I've heard varying points of view from many gay friends. The one that stuck out in my mind was the one where my friend Bern was dating a black kid (they were both young), and how the young man's entire family was just plain fine with it.

I'm sure that's not universal, but ideology aligns more with socio-cultural evolution. In this case, skin color is causative of that evolution, but incidental to ideology.

In the case of Latinos, it's likely more of the association to Catholicism.

Ashrob is right that the blame game is wrong, especially right now. Identifying where education needs to be focused is good, but piesRsquare numbers are of very little use when taken in perspective.

I think that's really the issue here.

[ashrob123]

76. It's only reasonable

if people are also asking the question, why did this crap pass? That's not what I'm seeing over and over again. What I'm seeing on this board and others is why aren't African-Americans...Why didn't African-Americans...Shouldn't African-Americans have supported it since they've experienced...And on and on and on.

Don't get me wrong, the homophobia within the African-American community is rampant among some groups. I, obviously, don't belong to those groups that oppose basic social rights. But I think that the larger question is how in the world did this pass? What was done (or not done) to reach out to specific groups that were indifferent? What can be done to overturn it? Etc, etc. etc.

[Aquigoth]

92. Agreed...

I don't particularly believe in laying blame, as I don't think it's useful, but if one absolutely must lay this at someone's feet and say "this is your fault", well it's not the fault of black voters, it's not the fault of latino voters, and it's not the fault of church folk.

If you have to make it someone's fault, it's the fault of every person who didn't want to bother donating two hours to phone bank. It's the fault of every person who couldn't be bothered to wear a sticker, or a badge, or place a sign in their window or yard. It's the fault of every person who couldn't even be bothered to talk to friends, family, or co-workers about what this proposition really means. It's the fault of every supporter who didn't bother to educate themselves well enough to argue beyond calling someone hateful. It's the fault of those of us who haven't learned enough Spanish or Russian or Korean to even manage a civil greeting, let alone "may we call you back to talk about the election".

If you have to blame someone, understand that every yes vote represents a person we didn't get to talk to and a dollar we didn't match because someone didn't take it seriously enough.

[The Doctor.]

55. Wow...

that was one of the best truth-paddlings I've ever seen.

:yourock:

[dmr]

49. Your post makes me sad

I can only try to begin to imagine how you and many, many others feel. I am so sorry for this injustice.

Religion is the answer, I believe. Sadly, even those who face discrimination every day do not see this as a discriminatory vote.

All my life, I have weighed my decisions out. I make myself think things through, even when I haven't wanted. Many times my decisions go against my own grain, but I will not judge others. I could never have an abortion, yet I held the hand of my best friend as she went in for hers - it was her choice, and I trusted that decision. Who am I to judge?

I do not think people have actually sat down with themselves and thought this through. We all must try to put our feet in other's shoes, as the saying goes.

I only wish people evolved more quickly to think about how profoundly their individual religious convictions are hurting others.

I would like to know how much the Catholic Church has spent on all the elections and referendums around this country. I know they spent hugely here in Michigan to defeat Proposition 2 (stem cell). Fortunately they lost and Prop 2 passed. But I think it is obscene organized religion is spending tax-free money to influence elections, especially when that money could be utilized to help feed, cloth and shelter the suffering. I don't give the Church a dime because of this reason, among others.

Hugs to you, and time is on your side. California is full of creative people who know injustice when they see it. I don't see this taking much longer to teach people how to put their feet in other's shoes.

:grouphug:

[NorthernSpy]

74. In California, blacks are only 6 percent of the population...

That means that well over 90 percent of the Yes vote didn't come from blacks.

[lies and propaganda]

38. Are they going to need money for this?

I would imagine so.. i can definitely find a few bucks to help in this righteous cause.

[yardwork]

41. Yes, because if the Proposition does pass, they will take it to the courts.

[astonamous]

42. The way it was written on the ballot was confusing to some...

Several of my husband's co-workers said they had voted against the ban...they voted yes on Prop 8. When my husband explained to them that voting yes was voting for the ban, they all freaked out.

I agree with other posts here, it shouldn't even have been on the ballot at all. Count every last ballot.

[Auggie]

81. Didn't hurt that the supporters lied their pants off in campaign ads

It was disgusting

[emlev]

43. Now blogged at The BRAD BLOG

California's Prop 8: Too Close To Call!

While the Yes on 8 Hate Mongers Declare Victory, No on 8 Campaign Understands Need to Wait For Complete Vote Count
Marriage Rights Hang in the Balance

Guest blogged by Emily Levy

California's proposition 8 currently has more "yes" (to discrimination) votes than "no" votes tallied, 52.2% to 47.8%, according to California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's website. This represents a difference of 434,830 votes. But according to the No on 8 campaign, three to four million votes remain uncounted.

The uncounted ballots are largely provisional ballots and vote-by-mail ballots. There may also be ballots uncounted due to machine breakdowns, misplaced computer memory cards (oh, that wouldn't happen, would it?) and the like.

More, plus links embedded in the above, at The BRAD BLOG

[sui generis]

44. concede what?

Victory? Is proposition eight running for office?

Here's some news - we're still going to get married, and there isn't a god damned thing anyone can do to stop it.

They can make it illegal, yes, but you can't stop it. And we need to engage in direct civil disobedience because that is the ONLY way we can make this an equal protection case. I've already done it at the Canadian border coming back from Whistler. Worst thing happened they informed me I wasn't married in America and I told them I most certainly fucking was, married, and American.

[The Doctor.]

54. Fire it up.

These people will be outlived by social evolution, and the sooner the better.

I never miss a chance to show these idiots what assholes they are. I have a litany of guilt-ridden lines of reason they can't deal with. I'd love to hear what you tell the idiots when you get the chance.

[Kirama]

46. California voters baffle me

California voters must be shizoid, they support Obama by a large margin but vote for some crap like prop 8 and the draconian prop 9 'victims rights bill' I moved out of California 9 years ago, just couldn't handle it there anymore

[ObamaKerryDem]

50. I KNEW that shit passing in California didn't sound right.....

Count EVERY vote!

[The Doctor.]

51. I HATE these people!

Who the fuck do they think they are?!?! What the hell do they think they're accomplishing?


Protect marriage?

From what?!@

Most of those assholes are likely divorced anyhow.



You don't want to know how I really feel.

[krabigirl]

60. Me too! I HATE THESE PEOPLE!!!!

[Kitty Herder]

53. Good on them!

I hope they fight for every last ballot to be counted. It ain't over til it's over and this is too important to simply concede.

[Initech]

57. FUCK PROP 8!!!!!!!!

COUNT EVERY VOTE!!!!!

[Twinguard]

58. Never give up

This is not the end of the discussion, but merely the beginning! Things like this don't come easily or quickly. It is going to take time and work. I applaud everyone who is fighting for equal rights!

[Aquigoth]

62. Rally tonight in WeHo to call attention to this

A huge Prop 8 Protest rally tonight November 5, 2008 in West Hollywood. Here are the details on the Los Angeles Proposition 8 Protest Rally tonight.


“Supporters of Equality For All and Members of the No on Proposition 8 Community to Gather in West Hollywood Tonight at 7 p.m.


“Supporters of Equality For All and members of the No on Proposition 8 community will gather at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard in West Hollywood at 7 p.m. this evening. The City will close San Vicente Boulevard between Melrose Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. to accommodate the gathering.
”

If you go, leave early. Traffic at that hour normally is intense.

[mattfromnossa]

65. This is a travesty of morals.

An attack on two people guilty of loving each other. I'm disgusted!

[jobycom]

68. Never concede this, even if they have the votes force it on us.

Never acknowledge their bigotry or their ability to wrap their hatred in legislation. It is a vile, unAmerican law, and it should never be acknowledged by any Democrat. They may beat us down with batons and fire hoses, but that does not make it right. Human Rights are not a matter of an up-or-down vote, they are inalienable, and no just government can violate them. The government that does ceases to be legitimate, no matter how many bigots vote for it.

Never concede on this issue. Do not give them that respect. They deserve none.

[happygoluckytoyou]

70. if the REPUBLICANS can cross a PIG and a PITBULL for VP, who are they to condemn ANYONE ! ! !

[bluedawg12]

71. Never concede. And Cali--count the damned votes! n/t

[humbled_opinion]

72. Most likely held up by

Closeted Self Loathing Repukes.

[Wapsie B]

73. Ok, time for another stupid question here.

If there are 3 million to 4 million uncounted ballots why weren't they counted in the first place? That's an odd way to run an election. Where are these ballots?

[AsahinaKimi]

75. Count ALL THE VOTES!

COUNT all the votes! nuff, said.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

77. Prop 8 foes want the votes counted?

You mean, ALL the votes? Every one?

What a concept.

And what a hateful, narrow-minded Proposition.

[Strathos]

78. If the majority is allowed to vote on human rights, what's next?

Should we also let the majority decide wars?

Should we let them decide minimum wage?

Should we let them decide which churches to burn down and which to visit?

Should we let the decide who stays in America and who goes?



They want to open Pandora's box, but are they willing to suffer the consequences?

[Kajsa]

80. Every vote must be counted!

Until then- we don't know the outcome.

They shouldn't concede when there are millions of votes
left to count.

[darkmaestro019]

83. I'm not grasping why it is

that some people get to tell other people what to do when it has NOTHING to do with the some-people.


Um, I'm against anyone ever wearing beige for any reason (Seriously) Can I get some proposition? It offends me. I think it's wrong and it's unnatural and it ruins human dignity and also, I noticed, that animals don't do it. How do I go about getting this done?

/stole Fark's slashies
//I live in FL
///I'm not pleased, but I'm also still gay and the re-drawing of their chalk line to keep me out makes me feel dangerous and fierce! (makes tiger noises)

[neuvocat]

84. It just hit me today:

wouldn't the Supreme Court ruling that banned the ban on gay marriage make this all moot anyway?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

85. GOOD! I can't believe California would do this to the GLB community

Election fraud is probably the real reason for this

[Zhade]

97. GLBT

Let's not forget transpeople!

[myrna minx]

90. Never give up!!

[Zhade]

93. DAMN RIGHT WE'RE NOT!

NT!

[tavalon]

98. The fact that this ever was on the ballot in the first place is immoral

See my new sig line.

[eppur_se_muova]

102. Why are these people opposing our right to ignorant bigotry?

God gave us that right. It's in the Constitution. Or maybe Leviticus. Same thing.




















:sarcasm: <-- for the truly impaired

[ohio2007]

104. why don't they just put it back on the ballot for another vote

if it fails,
run it again,
if it fails yet again
put it on the ballot yet again!