lol LGBT Obama supporters.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:05 am

As I had predicted here: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=45469&start=25

Increasing minority turnout would fuck up gay rights.

Guess what? It fucking did in California. Imagine, if you will, the thousands of LGBT people rooting for an Obama win... when you then find out that his win comes at the risk of setting back your causes 15 years!

Delicious. I lulzed schadenfreudedly.

Damn, it feels so good to have hate and discontent again. Good thing, too, Bachmann winning was good but not enough. If I'm lucky Ted Stevens will win and increase the overall hatred level in this country.

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:04 pm

Can those ballot measure thingies be overturned in a higher court? Or even by the same courts that made it legal in the first place?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:11 pm

Can those ballot measure thingies be overturned in a higher court?

Bricker@SDMB [URL=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=491343&page=2 wrote:]Straight Dope Message Board[/URL]No, sadly, it really can't. The difference between this and the earlier measure is that this is a constitutional amendment. The California Supreme Court is bound by it. They cannot find that it violates the California constitution -- it *IS* the California constitution.

Bask in your hatred of religious retards. Laugh at the hypocrisy of some of these people voting for transformative elections while supporting this.

Never forget, the Jesusfreaks have a deathgrip on this country and they'll damn themselves and everyone in just so they can wallow in a few moments of jealousy and sadism.

Fuck you, Christianity. I mean it, I really do. What twist of fate did we undergo to get saddled with this evil, hateful religion?

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:38 pm

Aren't there like 5 million ballots that still need to be counted?

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:58 pm

The CA one is a state constitution amendment, so it becomes the thing that courts have to protect and weigh laws against, even though it's totally at odds with other portions of the state constitution and the federal constitution (no idea if it can be overturned on those grounds).

And yeah, there's still a crap ton of early and absentee votes to be counted for it, and early polls showed prop 8 losing by a substantial margin. I'm hoping that those ballots reflect early polling and fix this pile of ass.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:16 pm

Election results: America loves blacks, hates gays. Apparently the opposite of God's position, given hurricane damage spreads.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:20 pm

And yeah, there's still a crap ton of early and absentee votes to be counted for it, and early polls showed prop 8 losing by a substantial margin. I'm hoping that those ballots reflect early polling and fix this pile of ass.

No, early polls showed Prop 8 winning by 52-48% against.

Fuck, man, how did a right to abortion win by substantial margins in fucking SOUTH DAKOTA but homophobia gets another victory?

Fuck!

Election results: America loves blacks, hates gays. Apparently the opposite of God's position, given hurricane damage spreads.

You got God's position 50% wrong. God looooooves killing the homos. Nothing pisses God off more than male prostitutes, except for pissing against the wall and women having periods.

Oh, and religious/racial tolerance.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:42 pm

TarkisFlux wrote:The CA one is a state constitution amendment, so it becomes the thing that courts have to protect and weigh laws against, even though it's totally at odds with other portions of the state constitution and the federal constitution (no idea if it can be overturned on those grounds).

This link may help to answer your question.

Particularly relevant text:

'Most of the speculation I've seen about a constitutional challenge focuses on this idea: Since the court ruling that led to this proposition found that marriage was a "fundamental right" under the state constitution, you cannot take that right away by simply amending the constitution; you would need to revise it.

While an amendment only needs a simple majority vote, a revision requires a constitutional convention, which itself requires a two-thirds legislative vote -- something highly unlikely to happen in California. I've seen some suggestions that can also be accomplished with a two-thirds popular vote as well, but I've been unable to determine if that's the case, and doubt they'd ever get that on this issue.'

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:50 pm

Remember folks: there is absolutely no such thing as anyone who has a principled stand on the balance of powers in government. Not one person. Ever. Sure there are people who rant about activist courts, but dd you hear them say one shitty little word when activist courts were hand picking W to be our lord and master? Fuck no!

The fact is that sometimes you have to fight things in courts, sometimes you have to fight them with direct ballot measures, sometimes you have to fight them through executive actions, and sometimes you have to fight them through legislative pressure. All of these avenues are available, and while some times people bitch and moan about one or more channels existing, it is almost invariably because they happen to be losing at that moment in that arena on some particular issue or another.

There is no such thing as a principled stand. It's like States' Rights. Not one person actually gives a flying rat's ass about it in the abstract. Federal power is invoked by people who are ahead on an issue on the national stage, and state power is invoked by people who are ahead on the same issue on a local level. And if the strengths of the positions reverse, every single person switches sides immediately and without irony.

-Username17

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:31 pm

Lago, I wasn't referring to the early polls from voting yesterday, but to the polls from when absentee and mail-in votes started arriving, so sometime after secretary of state changed the language to "removal of right" stuff. It was heavily "No" at that time, with the "Yes" group making up ground as we got closer to the election. I'm hoping their initial lack of support shows in those ballots.

Angel, thanks for the link

Glad to know there's ways out of this.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:45 pm

I'm thinking it was the purchase of a 'Yes on 8' ad on every single Myspace page served to California. Of course, those ads were the only ones that did not say 'protect marriage' or anything, just 'yes on prop 8'.

Cash used to confuse.

-Crissa

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:53 pm

Frank wrote:but dd you hear them say one shitty little word when activist courts were hand picking W to be our lord and master

Bush won Florida fair and square under the counting rules that existed when the election happened. Also, the butterfly ballots were created by a Democrat-controlled election board, so it's their own dang fault. The Supreme Court simply told the Florida election officials to stop houseruling after the fact and just give the results that were found in every recount under the original rules.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:56 pm

Th original rules were halted mid-progress. Al Gore objectively got more votes in Florida, and the Secretary of State of Florida personally made sure that he didn't get the votes, and the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that no challenge was allowed to her outrageous and illegal behavior. That's the beginning and end of that discussion.

-Username17

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:43 am

Actually, the original rules were no hand recounts unless there's a discrepancy with the machine recount. Then after the hand recount started, the Gore campaign started challenging the existing rules about how to count hanging chads. IIRC, a Florida newspaper found that Gore wouldn't have won even under the counting system he favored.

Now, I do agree that the Court overstepped its bounds. It not only ruled on the issue of how to count hanging chads, but decided that there wasn't enough time to do it the right way and ordered the first count to be certified. Going by the idea of judicial restraint that most of the justices professed, these kinds of logistical decisions weren't the court's province.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:59 am

Is there some kind of bias against gay people among minorities in the US? Thats the only way Lago's thread makes sense. Haven't heard of it in .au if there is.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Yes, there is.

Just as there is among any highly traditional, religious, patriarchal, economically marginalized group.

The Gay is the scariest thing to men who don't have power.

-Crissa

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:02 pm

Add to that the fact that minority groups seem inexplicably incapable of giving a rat's arse about any other minority group. This is most notable with actual political factions/parties, who include their lack of care to cover big things that everyone needs to care about.

"We need more [our minority] in the workforce and less [vague thing that discriminates against them]!"
"What about [other minority/economic crisis/the environment/current invasion by Orks]?"
"Huh?"

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:03 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:Is there some kind of bias against gay people among minorities in the US? Thats the only way Lago's thread makes sense. Haven't heard of it in .au if there is.

Blacks and Hispanics have a tendency to be poorer and more religious than other groups. New immigrants have a tendency to be from frankly even more backward cultures.

So yeah, minority groups have more fear of the gay than do majority groups.

-Username17

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:58 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Blacks and Hispanics have a tendency to be poorer and more religious than other groups. New immigrants have a tendency to be from frankly even more backward cultures.

Any not from the Middle East, BTW?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:17 pm

Blacks and Hispanics have a tendency to be poorer and more religious than other groups. New immigrants have a tendency to be from frankly even more backward cultures.

So yeah, minority groups have more fear of the gay than do majority groups.

Of course, the only thing we can really do about this is to let the old Jesusfucks die off and create better conditions for the kiddies.

I'm down with that. I'm not cool with setting LGBT rights back 10 years, but it seems like that's the only way we can do things while making sure the rest of America is comfortable and isn't intellectually challenged too much.

And if there's one thing we know about the current generation of middle-aged to senior adults, they don't like being forced out of their intellectual comfort zone. Ironic when you realize that this is the Baby Boomer generation.

Absentminded_Wizard · Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:18 am

Not entirely ironic. The defining characteristic of the boomers is a strident sense of idealism that brooks no dissent. Thus, liberal boomers think conservatives are evil and conservative boomers think liberals are evil. Neither side likes to see their pet conventional wisdoms challenged.

I think the most interesting thing about this election is that none of the four presidential or vice-presidential candidates is a Boomer. Both tickets were Generation X/Silent Generation combos, just with the order reversed. Could this be because we've had two consecutive Boomer presidents who were both polarizing figures (with W being possibly the most polarizing president in history) and the country's sick of that generation's crap?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:43 am

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Not entirely ironic. The defining characteristic of the boomers is a strident sense of idealism that brooks no dissent...

Er... WTF?

There is a long history of strongly opposing political agendas and movements in well, history, all of it.

I strongly suspect you are falling for the old "now is special" trap.

But even if you WERE to fall for the now is special trap then I don't see why you wouldn't go for the "centre politics" movement and its agenda of total political apathy, ignorance and disenfranchisement as a baby boomer phenomena.

And of course your odd declaration that there is all this "idealistic hate" or whatever it was is itself very much part of the movement to disenfranchise political thought and engagement in general and that is really so totally boomer.

PS, and again WTF? Bill Clinton was a polarising hardcore idealist in your universe? Where do you live?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:04 am

Clinton existed during the period of FOX News and the rise of the NeoCon. That means that lots of polarization happened on his watch. But it was a period marked by the left being a bunch of compromising pussies, while the Right went off increasingly into crazy town.

More hate ink was spilled on Clinton than against any previous sitting president. But that's not because his policies were anywhere near as hard core ideologue as say, Ronald Reagan's.

-Username17

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:42 am

And his successor, Gore, was flatly lied about in the major media without any dissent. Unlike any other election in that century...

...That's about it for my point.

-Crissa

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:27 am

PhoneLobster wrote:
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Not entirely ironic. The defining characteristic of the boomers is a strident sense of idealism that brooks no dissent...
Er... WTF?

There is a long history of strongly opposing political agendas and movements in well, history, all of it.

I strongly suspect you are falling for the old "now is special" trap.

No, I was thinking in terms of a certain theory briefly explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_book] which holds that history proceeds in cycles of four generations. The Baby Boomers, in this scheme, are an "Idealistic" generation, which critiques and ultimately destroys the social order they grew up in. Baby Boomers are not unique in history, but they're different from the other generations currently living.

But even if you WERE to fall for the now is special trap then I don't see why you wouldn't go for the "centre politics" movement and its agenda of total political apathy, ignorance and disenfranchisement as a baby boomer phenomena.

Actually, the vast majority of the American public not having any ideological agenda is pretty standard through most of history. But the characteristic of "idealistic" generations is a strident, militant, intolerant kind of rebellion. Militant anti-Vietnam protesters and Newt Gingrich and his followers were all baby boomers. After the agenda of their more liberal peers appeared to be making some headway, conservative baby boomers began doing their own song and dance of trashing the political establishment in the name of values, with similar intolerance.

Besides, here in the U.S., we've had to listen to Baby Boomers decry the overall apathy of their children for decades, so it's hard to call it part of their master plan.

And of course your odd declaration that there is all this "idealistic hate" or whatever it was is itself very much part of the movement to disenfranchise political thought and engagement in general and that is really so totally boomer.

Idealistic hate is also a characteristic of Civic generations after they've cemented their new social order. That's part of what brings about the discontent of Idealistic generations.

PS, and again WTF? Bill Clinton was a polarising hardcore idealist in your universe? Where do you live?

Reagan and Clinton were both polarizing figures in the sense that they generated "love 'em or hate 'em" responses from people. Clinton didn't try to offend people, but basically the existence of somebody with his life history during Vietnam in the presidency mobilized conservative Baby Boomers into a frenzy. Of course, W is the ultimate polarizer by far. As much as liberals despised Reagan, he won two decisive victories, one a 49-state landslide. Clinton won two convincing popular and electoral victories (albeit in three-way races). W, OTOH, squeaked by in the popular and electoral votes twice, with some controversy both times. The guy literally managed to get about half the country to love him and the other half to hate him.

EDIT: phpbb doesn't like Wikipedia urls with parentheses in them.