Initiatives I want passed

1. Funding of campaigns for and against all California ballot initiatives shall be restricted to individuals and entities within California only.

2. Funding and promotion of campaigns for and against California ballot initiatives by religious organizations shall be prohibited, and those religious organizations that violate this shall lose their California tax-exempt status.

3. Amend the California constitution to read "Proposal and/or passage of any retroactive amendment shall not be accepted as part of this constitution."

4. Repeal Prop 8.

5. After all that is done, amend the California constitution to read "Amendment of the California constitution shall require a supermajority of 60% or more of all ballots cast. Amendments to the California constitution shall be presented to the voters twice, each time requiring a supermajority."

EDIT: California Initiative Guide - deep pockets have deep rights, I guess.

GTFO, bigots

From another friend:
I cannot see how I could be friends with someone who is interested in removing basic civil rights from a portion of the population that they happen not to like. A similar thing happened in Europe in the 30's and 40's. I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as self-protection.

And really, if any of you feel like you fit that category, please, bail the fuck out now. I'm not in anyway OK with having friends who think that denying people basic human civil rights is ever justified.

Agreed. If you voted for Prop 8, or any of its cousins, to ban gay marriage (or to "define" "marriage" as only between a man and a woman), you can take yourself the fuck off of my friends list.

I am not friends with people who vote to deny rights to other people based on something they can't change, and vote to enshrine bigotry, discrimination and hate in a constitution. While I won't come and troll in your journals, you are not welcome in mine.

Arguments about Prop 8: "special" rights

How do gay marriages take away the rights of straights?? They don't. They aren't "special", they are equal!

You don't have to approve of someone's marriage to allow it - I certainly have not approved of some of the straight marriages I've seen. It still is none of my business.

The reason that gay people want the same rights as straights is because of the financial and legal advantages of "marriage": hospital visitation, joint tax filing, social security survivor benefits, right to adopt a spouse's children, etc.

The fact that religious institutions have claimed domain over these civil benefits is what makes this whole thing a mess. I would be perfectly happy to have all civil (legal, financial) benefits of "marriage" eliminated for everyone. Then the state would be out of the picture of marriage. All of the former benefits of civil marriage would then transfer to civil unions, for everyone, as those would be civil contracts between two individuals, with no religious involvement.

Separate out the religious and the civil matters, and the problem disappears.

This means, of course, that all marriages would be voided in a civil context. Anyone "married" in a church would need to go down to the courthouse, fill out the civil union paperwork, and have it witnessed and notarized. The tax code would also need to be changed, because giving special tax benefits to people based on a religious ceremony would be against the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This "solution" lets everyone who wants the religious definitions of marriage within their creed to stand valid for their creed, but without denying civil benefits to anyone who does not share their creed.

Let "marriage" be religious, and then keep the state/government entirely out of it.