1 step forward 2 steps back, sounds about right for humans.

oh my indeed LOLCAT. Well said.

be fair. the people of california have invested too much in fake breasts in the hope of keeping men straight to throw it all away now.

That's democracy!

I don't know much about American politics but I notice Obama said this in his acceptance/ victory speech today:



It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.



"It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states."



Mentioning gay rights seems to be a thing many politicians in America avoid in fear of offending conservative voters. The fact he decided to mention the "gay" thing in his speech bodes well for Gay rights in America.

Oh, totally. I was very impressed by that. Fingers crossed the Californian vote will turn out to be a blip.



Just thought it was disappointing, and surprising in a state as supposedly liberal as California.

While the rest of the US voters were voting for optimism and the hope of change, Californians voted to suppress people's freedom to love



That's completely unfair.



You give every other state in the US credit for electing Obama - even the states that voted against - and you don't extend this same credit to the people of California. If by voting for Obama, the rest of America voted for optimism and the hope of change, then the people of California did this too.



The vote in California only happened because gay marriage was legal there recently. No other states had a vote because they didn't have these laws in the first place.

I didn't give credit to every other state for voting in Obama. I made a broad generalisation based on the fact that the majority of US voters chose Obama.



I don't see how useful it is to argue semantics in this case, which is all you're doing. You're right in that I shouldn't say "the rest" seeing as California voted for Obama.



So I'll edit the OP to make that clear.



Overall, though, I'm expressing my disappointment that, while the election was a great success in that Obama was elected, the voters in California simultaneously chose to deny homosexual or bisexual people the right to marry.

Better?

I'm not arguing semantics. You need to choose your words more carefully. If it was correct, you wouldn't have changed it.

Gar0 on Nov 05 '08 at 5:37am

1 step forward 2 steps back, sounds about right for humans.



i've been thinking that all night. it's disapointing.



florida and arizona both passed bans as well.

i guess we can't have it all at once...

That is dissapointing. It's frustrating to not be given the same rights as other people.

Humans are rubbish, all we do is make mistakes, then argue the toss over words and incorrect usage. (see above).



The anger in the blogs has been palpable of late.

Lol @ the same angry people deliberately picking fights in other people's blogs all day long.



PS This vote sucks... but one big change at a time, eh?

I went to bed before they called this one.



really disappointing.



:/

looks like it was quarter of a million short of passing...

squatterjohn, I changed it to make it clearer, and to avoid arguments over semantics with pedants like yourself.



No one else has had a problem with the way I've phrased it, and the message of this blog was pretty clear: I'm disappointed with the contrast of a leap forward in presidential politics, but the step back in terms of gay rights.



Even though my phrasing could have been clearer, the point is obvious and no one took my blog as an attempt to bash Californians. Except you.



Thanks for your valuable input, though.

I'm not angry and I'm not picking fights.



I was offended by the use of "the rest of".



It's important that we realise that what we mean to say is not always how people interpret what we say. I didn't argue the point because I am pedantic about word usage. I did so because I found the way it was phrased to be offensive. This wasn't the intention of the original post but that's how I interpreted it.

If your point was obvious, I wouldn't have misinterpreted it.

Let's just forget it. I've adjusted it now, and the offending phrasing has been removed.



I'd rather people comment on the actual subject of the blog.

So what exactly is your problem with my reaction then?

You were seriously "offended" by the way she worded her sentence? Wow you're really easily offended. Hope my sentence structure and choice of words isn't to offensive to you squatterjohn.

Sorry I meant *he* not *she*

Lol @ Squatterjohn... Just lol.



Like right @ them.

If your point was obvious, I wouldn't have misinterpreted it.



It's alright SJ, sometimes even the brightest person can miss the obvious. Your intellectual standing has not diminished in my eyes, at least. Let your pride go, and move on.

Whatever.

You really don't need to make it worse by making fun of me.

LOL! Stop it! Hahahaha, you're killing me!

Let's all drop it. My phrasing left my point open to misinterpretation, and it honestly didn't occur to me that the blog might come across as an attack on Californians specifically. We're all clear on what I meant, now, so let's leave it at that. SJ - thanks for pointing out the poor phrasing.



What do people think, though? Why, when all indications suggest a shift towards more leftist, more progressive politics, did a state like California vote to prevent gay marriage?



I mean, the fact that such a position is discriminatory and contrary to core American values aside, how did such a contradiction happen?

Ooooh duuuuude, I'm not making fun of you. C'mon eHugz!

yep...what 13strong said.



Frankly I'd be baffled if I actually knew what California was like, the only thing I'd add is that when so much change is in the air, a lot of humans need the comfort of security. The US is still, in my eyes anyway, very much a Christian country and I'd guess there was a mobilised Christian movement in the state to block gay-marriages. As I said though, that's just a guess.

i just heard about that. it's really disappointing.

that's sad :-(

The same happened here in Florida as well. I am very disappointed in that.



I do wonder if the what the analysts said was true though regarding larger black voter turnouts. They predicted that the larger black voter turnout for Obama would also help these amendments pass because gay issues in that black community are usally more frowned upon and also that alot of black voters are organized and encouraged in thier churches.



What makes it worse is that, here in Florida at least, the amendment was so poorly worded that it could also outlaw civil unions between heterosexual couples. Way to go dumbasses.

Hell, skeev, if gay people can't get married I don't see why straight people should either.

If the sanctity of marriage includes divorce and multiple wives than I say we should let people marry animals.

California's Proposition 8 on same-sex marriages headed for defeat, exit polls say



???

I'm not sure divorce, homosexuality, or even bigamy are on a par with zoophilia.

i hate that it's religion that gets played into this.

salvation by legislation is never going to work, besides it being offensive.



it's not like all weddings are overseen by the church,

you can get hitched in a drive-thru in las vegas, you can go down to the courthouse and have a justice of the peace perform the ceremony, what about athiests? should they not be allowed to marry because they don't subscribe to the church's point of view?



it's just out and out discrimination...

Headed for defeat in what sense? I thought the vote was over?

"Proposition Eight, which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, was losing -- 53 percent to 47 percent, according to the polling. If it were to pass, it would overrule a state Supreme Court ruling in May legalizing same-sex unions."



cnn

It's ridiculous, isn't it.



Part of me wishes that Jews or Muslims were this militant about certain aspects of their beliefs. I would love to see militant Jews pushing through legislation demanding that no one eat shellfish, or something.



See how long people put up with religious intrusion into secular society then.

This is so ridiculous. I asked my brother, who is a Christian, if he was voting YES on prop 8 and he said that he was.



Then I was like, "What! Why?!?!?!?!"



"Cause then they'll be able to get married."



"So??????? What do you care? Shouldn't evvvvverrrryone have the same rights? Who are you to deny them that?!"



"Yeah, I guess you're right."



He then voted NO on prop 8.



It was like a 20 conversation that changed his mind.



He just hadn't really put a lot of thought into it. I wonder how many other people vote on important things like this without even giving it serious thought.



It makes me sad.

I love that the Proposition 8 people claim to be "Protecting Marriage". What, by stopping people getting married?



I know, I know... still funny though.

also msn



florida and arizona passed a similar prop, but not california

also, mass decriminalized small amts of marijuana

Jesus Malcolm Man, that's scary.



I think a big part of it is that, when it comes down to it, what FUCKING BUSINESS IS IT of anyone's whether gay people get married or not?



But then, it's driven by hatred, ignorance and/or prejudice, not reason.

i can't get the cali gov site to load...

lemonalle on Nov 05 '08 at 9:12am

also, mass decriminalized small amts of marijuana



Yeah, I was a little surprised by this, but I def think it's for the better.