Oh, qbert, you're expecting logic where there is precious little to be found.

Where was all this activism and outrage before Nov. 4, when it might have made a difference?

RJ,
Before Nov 4th same sex couples had the right to marry in CA.
Now they dont.
Hence the outrage.

Wren,

When there is a ballot measure that attempts to take away that right and you have the chance to stop it, that is where the outrage should have been, not after, not when it is too late.

rj,
While the religious right (more specifically the mormans, african americans, and older people) may have out organized and out funded us, I am tired of people saying that the lbgt folks are only NOW caring about this issue. When in reality we had millions of dollars and thousands of people organized on the ground in California and in the end came pretty darn close to defeating the bill.
The LGBT community did not fall asleep at the wheel during this election, i assure you.

@qbert, moose & their ilk

>> "why?"

rights can't be up for popular referendum. that's not how a liberal democracy operates; it's out of keeping with the Enlightenment values of our heritage. that goes for any state in the union.

I will protest to express my solidarity with the LGBT community, and for the larger reason that democracy must not usurp freedom, which requires an active motherfucking citizenry to expand it and to defend it from the state, the people, the corporate powers--all of the forces that otherwise tend to erode it.

>> "They're going to protest a California law in front of the US Congress?"

"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

A lot of work went into defeating Prop 8.
I'll be there on Saturday. And, yes, I bloody RSVPeed on Facebook. So, there. To quote a song:

None of us are free if one of us is chained

PS: Can't we protest the Family Research Council, too? Conveniently located at 801 G St NW, a block from the Chinatown/Verizon Center Metro next to Zaytinya. I frickin' hate Tony Perkins..

I've never protested anything in my life, and I cancelled a trip to take part. I don't view it just as a protest but a show of support. It's outrageous that there's even an issue. Fundamental rights aren't up for vote in America.

@qbert

>> "I'm not arguing with the cause, I'm questioning the tactic."

the time-honored tradition of protest demonstration? think of it as part social forum and part marketing campaign for the ongoing struggle, which will manifest in the form of the inevitable challenge to the legality of Prop 8 (for which these protests will help to raise funds) and the ongoing battle in other states for the same rights and protections.

>> "I don't have any "ilk.""

haha--well it's about time you did! come march with us on Saturday; defend freedom while getting exercise and enjoying the sights!

@Krisa

seems like most of the posters here are upset that basic freedoms can (perhaps) be removed by popular vote.

precedent is important. see Loving v Virginia, where discriminatory policies about marriage propriety were put to rest. but it's not that important; all kinds of injustice and oppression that disgust us today (slavery, spousal abuse etc) has a history in law.

"To me, this is a case of democracy done, where the people themselves got a direct say in the process."

We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Under our set of laws basic civil liberties are not up for public vote. That's why we have a constitution.

For instance, the citizens of Alabama don't get to vote on whether or not blacks can marry whites, or whether women can vote or not.

Why not? Because our founders realized early on that people are stupid and hateful, and that minority groups would always lose out in a true democracy where every single right could just be voted away.

This is a civil rights issue because one group, an identifiable minority, is being fucked with because of their minority status.

@qbert

>>"Street protests are so mid-20th Century though."

:D haha. well, President-elect Obama is very early-21st century, and apparently unfashionable: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/11/obamas-dressed-down-look_n_142918.html

so maybe unfashionable is the new fashionable?

::blink::

Rather than protesting, which really does not persuade anyone in this century- much less get any national news coverage (in our time it is more like a morale boosting party for the already converted, scheduled, polite, non-confrontational, and ignored by anyone who disagrees with the protesters).

How about a boycott? Those still work! Is there anything we could boycott from California? Oranges? Shit, it is too bad nothing is made or done there anymore. Porn, let's boycott all California porn until Prop 8 is overturned.

What's interesting to me is how many different interracial bans there were. We all know the black/white, but many states had very odd versions, including specific references to odd groups.

For instance, Oregon specified that Native Hawaiians couldn't marry whites. Arizona prohibited 'Hindu' Indians from marrying whites. Quite a few mentioned Filipinos specifically.

And it's funny how much of the race idiocy crowd arguments from that time period mirror what the anti-gay crowds today are claiming (defense of marriage, religious perogative to hate, etc.)

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

- Thomas Jefferson

And it's funny how much of the race idiocy crowd arguments from that time period mirror what the anti-gay crowds today are claiming (defense of marriage, religious perogative to hate, etc.)

Nicely said, now just leave it alone and don't allowed yourself to be baited into giving us one of your patented, uncut, 12-inchers.

Protesting is cute.

This gets results:

Step 1. Write an initiative banning ALL marriages in the State of California.

Step 2. Get the initiatives on the ballot by: 2) constitutional amendment, which requires signatures equal to eight percent of the Governor's total vote in the preceding gubernatorial election.

Step 3. Campaign for vote Yes on said Prop by saying that state will not recognize any marriage what-so-ever. This will protect the church from the gays and the gays from the church.

Step 4. Enjoy.

"Nicely said, now just leave it alone"

Sounds like a dare to me, baby.

@Entrada - You've hit the equal protection nail on the head, which is why several municipalities and orgainzations in California have asked the state supreme court to review and invalidate Proposition 8 as an unallowable "revision" of the state constitution (as opposed to an "amendment" - in a nutshall the argument is that only a revision can remove fundamental protections guaranteed by the state constitution).

@Krisa - See above. Equal protection was put into place in both the Federal and many state constitutions in order to protect the rights of minorities against just this type of occasion - the majority attempting to remove the civil rights of unpopular minorities. The California supreme court found that marriage was a fundamental right under their state constitution and as such same-sex couples could not be refused that right under the equal protection of the law. Prop 8 purported to reverse that decision, but did so in a way which is California-constitutionally suspect in light of the court's decision, which is where the aforementioned court filings come in. Heaven willing, it'll work and the court will do their California-constitutional duty.

@uin9112037 - If you'd spend the past 10 days as I have, reading all the various arguments for and against Prop 8 and all of the stupidity that comes out of some people's mouths (the racial ugliness has been particularly loathsome), you'd be a little tired of this and ready to be a bit snarky, too. Forgive my levity.

@Moose - Unfortunately, (rightful) outrage at the passage of Prop 8 has left some people unable to do math.

Sommer:

Why no festive photo for this story? It's easy to miss without one.

And you know those gays, I'm sure they've got several snappy logos already prepped....

RJ - do you believe that because blacks didn't have the right to vote (and before that, weren't even considered fully human) that they should therefore not ever have protested their lack of rights? Should blacks have first patiently waited for their rights to be granted and then taken away, before they agitated for their rights? Should blacks have only demonstrated in each tiny community in which they had no rights, or was it maybe appropriate for them to march on Washington and demand rights for themselves throughout the country?