Sep 17 2008
Vote no on Proposition 8
Just when we thought California had asserted itself as the “Gay-Friendly” State in the US. I was disappointed to learn that there has been an amendment tabled, with Republican Support, aimed at striking down California’s liberal and tolerant attitude towards gay marriage.
Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot. Which if passed would amend the State Constitution with a new section that would effectively outlaw marriage between same sex partners.
The purpose of this post is to call on all readers in California to VOTE NO to Proposition 8.
California is well known within the US and abroad, for being a progressive and tolerant state. It ought to uphold its historic and long established defence of equal freedoms and rights for all citizens, including the right to marry whoever they wish. This amendment threatens California’s reputation for tolerance and equality and must be defeated.
Now you may ask yourself, what right has a Brit to medal in the affairs of a US State? Well when it comes to US affairs I think we all have a right to voice our opinion as the United States is the world’s last super-power, and in recent times has been rather keen to exert its values on the rest of the world. As a non-US citizen, I don’t get a vote, but I do get a voice. And as long as the US is keen to export its values, I think the rest of the world deserves the right to help influence what those values might be.
Granted California is just one state, but if California leads the way on Gay Marriage and LGBT tolerance, other states will follow. Whilst Europe may still be streets ahead when it comes to LGBT rights, once the US follows suit, exporting equality for LGBT people worldwide will be so much easier.
The most recent opinion polls show that California is split on Proposition 8 with 40% in favour 56% against and 6% undecided. (The sample has an approx 3% margin of error.) There is thankfully a small majority against proposition 8, but this can all change on election day and its no time to be complacent.
So please do all that you can to vote down Proposition 8.
For more information please see:
- Lesbian Mommy - LGBT Call to Action
- No on Proposition 8 (campaign Web site)
If you enjoyed this post. Please share it with others by adding it to the following social bookmarking sites. This is greatly appreciated and doesn't go unnoticed. Just click the graphics below.
11 Responses to “Vote no on Proposition 8”
Leave a Reply
Please write in good English, using correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. Please also capitalise your sentences correctly.
The SHIFT key is your friend.
On a related note there is a proposed amendment in Florida to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. http://www.sayno2.com/
Hi Jess - Sounds like Florida has at least 4 statutes concerning Gay Marriage in need of repeal already. Its hard to understand the true motivation behind a fifth. Once again I hope its voted down.
I think I’ll be blogging more on the issue of Gay marriage over the coming weeks. Its something which in view of the largely tolerant European position on this issue, I’ve rather neglected to cover.
Massachusetts already has legalized gay marriage, as well an amendment left over from 1906 that was recently over turned, which enables citizens from other states to be allowed to marry legally in massachusetts. queers from new york are already flooding in state for the weddings (coincidently, we are also the only state with state wide health care for all, we are basically as close to socialism as any place in america has ever been).
even though california is hugely influential and is a more media noticed state - with a population that holds greater implications for a wider world, it shouldnt be over looked how massachusetts has already successfully legalized marriage and equal rights FOR ALL whether they be gay straight bi trans whoever and whatever.
come on down to massachusetts if anybody needs a marriage…
I’m not really an expert on Massachusetts politics, but I’d describe its politics more aligned with social liberalism than socialism.
Why make the distinction? 1) Well I’m a liberal and I don’t like to see socialists take credit for our progressive policies and 2) because there is a distinction. Socialism is characterised by shared ownership, collectivism, the homogeny of equal misery and the Nanny State.
In contrast liberalism is about personal freedom (including the freedom to make mistakes), individualism, equal rights, equal opportunities. Liberalism as a philosophy, reserves the rights to restrict the freedom of the individual only where allowing the individual to exercise such freedoms would impinge the rights of others.
It annoys me that in the US socialism and liberalism are continuously confused, even though they are ideologically opposed. This largely because conservatives in the US see to sully liberalism by associating it with socialism and by proxy with communism.
Bizarrely conservatism, with the exception of fiscal conservatism (aka economic liberalism or laissez faire economics) has more in common with socialism and communism than liberalism. As like the former, Conservatism seeks to impose a shared set of values and beliefs on a population which has the effect of repressing diversity. Something liberalism is ideologically bound to protect.
OK - I’m getting off my political soapbox now.
well, not being a political scientist, nor being interested i engaging in a debate about semantic hair-splitting destinguishing the philosophical destinctions between liberalism and socialism - and BEING interested in engaging the topic of bisexual identity in our contemporary culture, i simply offer another example of a progressive legislature already having come to fruition in the states. obviously this is still late, considering same sex marriage has existed in places like Denmark, for quite some time. but its a step in the right direction.
sorry to have ruffled any british feathers.
LOL - “Ruffle any British Feathers” - not likely… we don’t all sit around simmering drinking milky tea in china cups with pointed pinkies, whilst musing over the cricket scores and eating cucumber sandwiches.
But, true the blog is about bisexuality. However, making the distinction between liberalism and socialism is important if liberalism is to succeed as a political movement, just as its important to make the distinction between bisexuality and homosexuality, if bisexuality is to be accepted as a unique identity.
And as bisexuals I think we need liberalism and respect for individually to succeed if bisexuality is to stand any chance of obtaining wider acceptance in society. So bisexuality and liberalism are intrinsically linked, whether we care to discuss it or not.
that i completely see. i take your point. looking forward to more interaction here as i find your blog one of the most energetic and refreshing ones i have come across. cheers.
ps- bitheway, i left a lengthy response on your contributor page. if you havent noticed it, i would hope you give it a read. very best all those out there.
bitheway… Just wanted to clarify a point: I’ve noticed that liberalism has slightly different connotations between the US and the UK: in the US, the behaviors and ideals of liberals do tend to align more with socialist values, whereas liberalism in the UK seems to correlate more with libertarian (of the “little l” variety, not specifically the political party) ideals of personal freedom and responsibility.
US “liberals” tend to believe in redistribution of wealth because the more fortunate have an obligation to take care of the less fortunate, and that the government should facilitate this process through taxation and welfare programs; hence some of the association with socialism. Whereas US “libertarians” believe that people can take care of themselves and each other without forceful interference from the government, and should be left alone to do as they please unless they infringe on the rights of someone else. L/libertarians hold a wide spectrum of specific ideals and values but at minimum tend to classify themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which seems to fit more closely with the UK’s definition of liberalism.
On topic, I’m glad that there are voices like yours to speak out for this. I don’t live in California, but I know many that do and intend to spread the word as much as possible; but beyond that, people need to hear that it’s not just California that feels this way. I live in Arizona, and we are facing a similar measure (Prop 102), which - in addition to being a hateful message in itself - is a waste of time, because Arizona already has state law that prevents same-sex marriage. The more voices we have to fight measures like these, the more people will listen (even if it’s eventually), and just because you don’t have a vote doesn’t mean you don’t have any power. Thank you for speaking up and speaking out.
In Europe we make a distinction between economic liberals (libertarians) and social liberals, who’s views are largely as you describe, US liberals.
In Europe Social Liberals largely believe in the redistribution of wealth by lowering the relative tax burden on the poor and increasing the relative tax burden on the rich.
The UK Liberal Democrats for example have recently approved a policy of slashing the basic rate of income tax by 4%, yet have sought to close loopholes in the tax and private pension system exploited by the super-rich. The policy is revenue neutral and the party do not believe is cutting funding to key public services.
By the definitions I’m familiar with both Social and Economic Liberals share similar values on personal and economic freedoms. The difference if any is on the level of freedom allowed to the market. Generally I consider myself a centrist on economic policy. Namely that the market shouldn’t be allowed to abuse its position, by forming controlling monopolies. But a free and fair market is preferable to one controlled by a nationalised government monopoly, which tend to be lazy, inefficient and singularly fail to produce or allow for any level of innovation.
My loathing of socialism stems from its “job for life culture” and market protectionism, if an industry is failing because its weak, then it should make way for stronger more innovative enterprise, not kept alive for the sake of its workers. In a free market there will always be better jobs.
Protectionism is also bad for consumers it means we pay a premium for buying from failing businesses. Subsidies except where used to reward good practices (EG: environmentalism) are a tax payer’s premium paid to protect failing or uncompetitive businesses.
I’ve yet to meet a social liberal who disagrees with me as my views on free and fair trade also support the case for international development and assist third world countries struggling to break into the major world economies which are both decidedly exploitative of third world countries and extremely protectionist of their own.
So I guess what I’m saying that social and economic liberalism are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.
I know I’m a bit late to the discussion, but I just found this website through StumbleUpon, so have mercy.
One thing, as an American, that I feel I have to mention is how often California is the target of scorn in our political campaigns because of its very tolerance and openness. Our Republicans (particularly those who are also members of the Religious Right) scorn the state, and urban San Francisco in particular, as hells-on-earth that the wicked (re: gay) will reshape good, honest small towns as.
It’s ironic, really. The Right Wing likes to denigrate those of us on the Left as America Haters, yet they build entire platforms on spitting the sort of vitriol that would make bin Laden grin at major United States cities. Not once will a Democrat or liberal hasten to chide a small town or rural America, but Republicans lob insults at California (Also Boston, Massachusetts, and Vermont) to gleeful, hate-filled hoops and hollers from their small-town audiences.
They talk about their acceptance of the so-called “homosexual agenda”, their radical ideas of church and state separation, that they murder fetuses and ban the Bible, and cast them as worse terrorists than Al-Qaeda and Saddam combined. And once they have spent their load, and the crowd has returned with their own orgiastic climax of loathing, they say that they are not the “America Haters” because that is not the REAL America. Not those cities, oh no, because their values do not, cannot, coalesce with the heartland.
It is a depressing sight for any progressive minded individual, no matter his or her sexual orientation. That we could be considered a first world country, with the sort of access to information that our ancestors only dreamed of, and yet shirk that in favor of remaining a bigoted, uneducated peoples.
It makes me glad that the American empire is crumbling. Not because I hate my country; but because I am frustrated with it. Whenever I see a news item like this, I weep for her ideals and hope against hope that perhaps a coming dark age brought on by our derision of knowledge and tolerance will humble us. And then, maybe, just maybe, we will collectively see the light.