Categories
Join Us At:
|
Getting Rid of Prop. 8The LGBT Project and the ACLU’s three California affiliates (Northern, Southern and San Diego-Imperial) wrote to our allies on Monday suggesting that we ought to reframe the conversation about getting rid of Prop. 8. Our letter says that the debate about 2010 vs. 2012 misses a crucial point: with the voters of California where they are today, either election would be a tougher challenge than 2008 was. That’s largely because voters who were conflicted before the vote on Proposition 8, and at least potentially winnable, committed when they voted last November. People who’ve made up their minds and acted are much harder to move. And, in-depth polls make clear, most Californians have made up their minds, so much so that to win, we’ll now have to change the minds of people who voted against us. Rather than analyzing the demographics of coming elections, we say, we should be concentrating on how to change the minds of enough voters to get a majority on our side before going back to the polls. We need to talk to close friends and family about our lives and relationships and why this fight matters. We need every ally we can get, because we are also going to have to have a dialogue with all the conflicted voters we lost in 2008. These are especially tricky conversations because people rarely change their mind if they are feeling under attack. We need to convince them that our relationships deserve the respect and dignity of marriage. An election is the place to defend a majority, not build one, especially when we need to change minds to win. The critical thing now, we say in the letter, is to set benchmarks for ourselves, and decide to go back to the ballot when we’ve met them. In addition to majority support for marriage, we say that we should set goals for community engagement, to show that we have the volunteer commitment we’ll need for a campaign, and for fundraising, including commitments from larger funders and demonstrated grassroots commitment to support a campaign. We believe strongly that we should go back to the voters just as soon as we’ve done what we need to do to make it likely that we’ll win. Not a moment later—or sooner.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 15 Responses to "Getting Rid of Prop. 8" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jul 14th, 2009 at 5:14pm
The people have voted in favor of
Prop 8.
LIVE WITH IT!
Jul 14th, 2009 at 8:09pm
since 1930, criminals have called homosexual boys -gay- if the movement of pool misguided fools wants to use that word as their banner then go ahead. i will still use the word -gay- as adjective for happy--and i think the -gay boys- are an angry bunch. lets not forget about the angry lesbian also. individual rights vs survival of the human race is what the movement is advocating. to what do these angry people attribute their being ???? oh well, good luck, oops i misspelled that last word. please lets just go back to calling humans -homosexual- -heterosexual- and -bisexual- when it comes time to describing the choices they make. thank you for reading,
Jul 15th, 2009 at 11:08am
ira, go bring your filth to another country
Jul 15th, 2009 at 11:43am
I to will fight against the the gay right movement everyday. I will also let my friends and family know how wrong it is to be gay.
Jul 15th, 2009 at 12:05pm
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
1st off I have no issue with a union between two men or two women or with that union entitleing them to the exact same rights for taxation and or insurance/medical basically anything to do with finance I do however believe that with reguards to adoption the Parent of the child should have the right in the case of an open adoption to deciede weather or not that a same sex family should be allowed to petition to adopt thier child(NOTE I said open adoptions only!!)closeed adoptions should be to beneffit the child by giving them the best chance to succede in life.
But the term Marriage is not something that same sex couples should be allowed to latch onto just to farther thier quest for rights. You are not the same as a man and women union own up to what you want respect for and realise that in order to get respect from people you need to give it.
Jul 15th, 2009 at 1:03pm
Dear Confused by Marriage, please re-read your definition. The ending talks about marriage as a consensual, contractual legal relationship. There is nothing there about religion and the only bar to changing the law and, thus, the definition is religion.
If a parent or parents want to have a say in the adoptive parents, they should enter into an arranged adoption.
What respect are you asking gay couples who wish to be married to give to heterosexual couples? That their relationship is inferior?
Jul 16th, 2009 at 12:22pm
How many times must this be voted down before it becomes finally dropped. The voters have spoken and are ignored.
Jul 16th, 2009 at 2:56pm
What is wrong is ignorance and bigotry
not to mention the desire of some that gays accept a second class status for their relationships.
Jul 16th, 2009 at 3:39pm
Marriage is between a male and a female. Same sex unions don't even exist in nature! Our sex organs were made so that we can reproduce...why don't gays go for civil unions? Why are they trying to redefine marriage? Look at history every society that allows homosexual unions...has failed. Please protect the "tradition family"...it has made this country prosperous for the past 233 years!
Jul 17th, 2009 at 2:18pm
What buisness is it of your's Sunny what other people do with their sex organs?
Btw if the good Christians among us get to stone Gays does that mean that the rest of us get to stone the,swine eaters,the fornicaters,and worse of all those who use toilets rather than digging a hole the required distance from their town.
Jul 17th, 2009 at 8:37pm
Sunny, first, there are homosexual animals. Second, reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. Some married people do not have children and some people with children are not married. Third, homosexuals are trying to overcome centuries of discrimination, the same as other minority groups. Fourth, there are many reasons societies fail. You cannot demonstrate cause and effect, because it does not exist. You cannot demonstrate that the US has succeeded for a mere 233 years only because marriage is narrowly defined. Fifth, as marriage is a legal contract between people who love each other, how about changing Church weddings into religious unions?
Paen, I also want to be able to stone those who mix linen and wool, those who fail to honor the Sabbath - on the correct day, and those who swear.
Jul 19th, 2009 at 8:52am
RESPECT. I have no problem with consenting homosexuals doing their will, nor with government recognition of their commitment. The respect I ask is to refrain from re-defining or making up words to try to change norms. "Homosexual" works fine, stop trying to re- define "Gay," and "Same-sex" is just dumb. "Husband", "Wife", and "Spouse" work fine, drop "Marriage Partner".
Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:37am
FUCK GAY MARRIAGE AND THE ACLU
Jul 19th, 2009 at 11:44am
FUCK YOU ACLU NON PROFIT ORG MY ASS ACLU ARE AMERICAS TERRORISTS THATS WHAT GOING TO BRING AMERICA DOWN IF ANYONE WANTS TO JOIN MY ORG IT IS ACLUFU(MEANING ACLU-FUCK YOU) COMING SOON
Jul 20th, 2009 at 4:49pm
Wow paen and roald you guys should date!