PROP 8 PROTEST 11/9/08 CENTRAL SQUARE CAMBRIDGE

caravaggiste

caravaggiste

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
PROTEST PROPOSITION 8 RULING IN CALIFORNIA
Sunday, November 9, 2008, 12:00-3:00pm, CENTRAL SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE

Hello,

There will be a protest in Central Square, Cambridge as a result of the recent proposition 8 ruling in California. Not only is it an illegal constitutional revision that altered the guarantee of equal protection but the legitimacy of such a bill should be questioned because of the Mormon Church's involvement - whether indirect or not. Such a matter should be highly illegal and shunned if we are to preserve personal freedoms and equal rights for all citizens. There are 18,000 couples whose marriages are in jeopardy.

The majority will NEVER support the minority so it is up to us to advocate personal freedoms for all Americans.

I'm sure many of you are surprised that a state such as California would vote in such a way. Being from MA where we are lucky to have the right to marry the ones we love, we should make it clear that even on the other side of the country that this stripping away of someones personal freedoms will not be tolerated, nor will the church's influence in government affairs. This needs to become a national movement. IT NEEDS TO CHANGE. We need to take to the streets. If you are interested, please come and help. There will be media coverage. Please forward this to as many people as you know. I'm trying to mobilize hundreds. This will be the first protest of many in the next few weeks. There are similar efforts going on around the country in major urban areas.

See you there! Make signs!

Thanks,
Ryan
 
Last edited:
I probably can't go but I just want to say I support you 100%.
 
Waste of time to walk around with like-minded people whom already agree with you. Holding a stupid sign, chanting, and generally annoying everyone passing through isn't going to change a thing in California, when you are in Massachusetts.

The majority of voters in California voted against the proposition. You don't like that your side was voted down, typically in a democracy that is called 'tough shit'. Votes don't exist to reaffirm your opinion, they serve to exert the will of the majority opinion. There is no veto of the public's vote because it didn't agree with your particular view.

"I question the legitimacy of such a bill because of the Mormon Church's involvement"

Guess what? Every gay marriage proponent in the country give millions and millions to essentially buy the right in this state. You don't question their investment, yet one church donates to the opposite of your desires and it bothers you? Even without Mormon involvement the bill would have passed in California give the large number of all other religious, ethnic, political, etc groups which voted for it. Changing that in court, or backroom dealing it into law as was done in this state, is only going to infuriate the public and cause a backlash with many unforseen consequences.

I can't say the LA times reports of white gay couples screaming "nigger" at black communities in Oakland, because of the large percentage of African Americans whom voted against gay marriage, is a recipe for civility now is it?

If you don't like how people voted, and want the law amended, move to California. Start an educational or activist group there, petition another ballot amendment initiative, and vote. Be constructive, be civil, and conduct action in places where it actually matters. Otherwise you are doing nothing but wasting time and probably annoying people on the sidewalk.
 
That isn't the point. It doesn't matter where we are geographically. This is helping to catalyze a new movement in gay rights around the country. Why should homosexual couples have to pay taxes or abide by the law if they're unable to share their lives with someone they love? It's treating someone like a second class citizen.

And good, there should be civil unrest, its the only way of getting things regarding CIVIL RIGHTS done. It's discriminatory legislation and should be BANNED around the country. Everyone has the right to equal protection under the law no matter what sexuality you are. The church should have NOTHING to do with government affairs whether its indirect or direct. A civil rights bill SHOULD NOT BE VOTED ON BY THE MAJORITY.

This is a movement, this is the time to get things done.
 
A civil rights bill SHOULD NOT BE VOTED ON BY THE MAJORITY.
Click to expand...

I recognize that you're making a normative statement rather than a descriptive one, but I wanted to make this clear. A majority can vote on a civil rights bill, but it can usually be invalidated by a court (as it was in California). But in this instance, the vote was to amend the California constitution in order to invalidate the court's judgment. There's nothing that can be done save another referendum to amend the constitution - that will require majority support.
 
"That isn't the point. It doesn't matter where we are geographically."
Preaching to the choir does nothing to change the minds of those who voted against your wishes.

This is helping to catalyze a new movement in gay rights around the country.

No, it is pissing off people in states where homosexuality isn't even that common and those states are passing similar bans. You're going about the whole idea WRONG. Make people understand and be comfortable with the idea, don't ram it down their throats, or they will spit up back in your face.

Why should homosexual couples have to pay taxes or abide by the law if they're unable to share their lives with someone they love? It's treating someone like a second class citizen.

Sexuality is considered a 'preference' under current law and the views of the general public. Accommodating every preference leads down a very slippery slope if it isn't well defined. What happens when polygamists argue they're unable to share their lives with those they love? What about age limits? The argument needs to be carefully crafted and defined to avoid any future loopholes or outrage by truly fringe groups.

And good, there should be civil unrest, its the only way of getting things regarding CIVIL RIGHTS done. It's discriminatory legislation and should be BANNED around the country.

I think you don't understand the difference between civil disobedience and civil unrest/disorder.

Everyone has the right to equal protection under the law no matter what sexuality you are.

Equal protection under law yes, unless it violates the law or well being of others like pedophilia, necrophilia, or bestiality.

The church should have NOTHING to do with government affairs whether its indirect or direct.

Marriage is the government recognition of a traditional religious institution/status. If the government no longer issued recognition of the contractual obligations of 'marriage' by no calling the status 'marriage' but instead giving it some other legal name and leaving it to religion to define 'marriage', I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.

A civil rights bill SHOULD NOT BE VOTED ON BY THE MAJORITY.

13th Amendment was enacted how?

This is a movement, this is the time to get things done.

I'm sure all the activists who already agree with you will be super pumped by the rally here, while the people whom are actually trying to do something will be busy in California.
 
I'll just say that I see the point of both sides, but keep in mind that Prop 8 helps Massachusetts as its role for gay tourism will be reinforced by it being one of now only two states where gay marriage is currently legal, and by its high number of already existing gay destinations (Provincetown of course, and more). Of course if Prop 8 failed, then San Francisco would be a much bigger destination, but for now, it seems like Provincetown's the best that there is (where gay marriage is legal).
 
Lurker said:
If you don't like how people voted, and want the law amended, move to California. Start an educational or activist group there, petition another ballot amendment initiative, and vote. Be constructive, be civil, and conduct action in places where it actually matters. Otherwise you are doing nothing but wasting time and probably annoying people on the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

That is exactly like saying if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one, otherwise you piss off a large group of people.
 
"That is exactly like saying if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one, otherwise you piss off a large group of people."

No it's saying if you have a problem, you make an effort to repair it at the source. You have an issue with the law in California, DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY AFFECT CALIFORNIA. Walking in circles in Cambridge isn't going to change anything in California! THINK!

Lurker = DudeWheresMyCar 2.0

Um, I think you mean DudeUrSisterIsHot? I don't drink kool-aid..

Look my first American friends are a pair of married (well technically under a civil union) lesbians whom now reside in Vermont and I've lived in the South End for close to thirty years, I think I've been around these issues long enough to make an intelligent comment on appropriate civil action.
 
I see this conversation going nowhere, fast.

Lurker, I think John Stewart summed it up best last week when he showed a tape of a woman in California who was against gay marriage but said, "I have gay friends, and they don't mind that I feel this way," to which he responded, "You know what? Your friends don't like you, they don't like you at all."

Showing support through a protest is showing solidarity.

".. technically a civil union ...?" Exactly. It's not marriage.

Here in Massachusetts we have "marriages" for everyone. Until every other state does, as well, no one's work is done.
 
I just saw some Prop 8 protesters in Harvard Sq. Were they lost, or is every square in Cambridge holding a rally today?
 
Just wondering: What does it take to get this issue up to the US supreme court?
 
You would need to sue in a federal court alleging that the changes to the California constitution violated the 14th amendment, and then appeal the decision up (assuming the fed. court doesn't agree).

The chances of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the issue, let alone ruling that the changes violate the 14th amendment, however, are slim. The current composition of the court would not want the move to be taken as precedent to assume that state constitutions presume the protection of gay marriage.
 
Lurker said:
"That is exactly like saying if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one, otherwise you piss off a large group of people."

No it's saying if you have a problem, you make an effort to repair it at the source. You have an issue with the law in California, DO SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY AFFECT CALIFORNIA. Walking in circles in Cambridge isn't going to change anything in California! THINK!
Click to expand...

This is utterly a piece of crap. As you may know, not everyone can just simply move to California or fly over there to protest. But does that mean we should keep our goddamn mouth shut and not voice our opinion? Can we not support something we believe in? That's like telling Yankees fan to get the fuck out of Boston and go to NYC to support their team and vice versa. That's like telling each of us forumers to go move to the South End to voice our support for Columbus Center. What we are trying to do is get more people aware of the problem. We are showing those in California that we support them all the way from here and know that not all people are submissive. We are doing the best we can do with the resource we have. So why don't you piss off and let them protest. If you don't like going by a protest, then go take another route.
 
Lurker said:
A civil rights bill SHOULD NOT BE VOTED ON BY THE MAJORITY.

13th Amendment was enacted how?
Click to expand...

Lurker, I understand your political philosophy and where you're coming from, but I wanted to clarify the above. The 13th (14th and to some point, the 15th) Amendments were passed while the Southern states were not part of the USA, but controlled by the US military and therefore had no vote on the issue. They were required to accept the amendments as part of becoming a state again. So I see where you're getting at, but I wanted to clarify the timeline on your example.
 
In case you didn't 'get it', I do support gay marriage. I don't however think walking in circles with signs is an effective means of change.

Grassroots education and information campaigns, petitions to government officials, appeals to the courts, and fund-raising for support of said actions are valuable and productive. Appearing in an unrelated state to an injustice, where it is unlikely anyone from the state where the objectionable actions are occurring will even see you, is ineffective and a waste of time. Making the argument in the right forum, where action can actually make a difference and be seen is a better use of time. If you can't go to California, work the phones and the internet to provide logistical support to those whom can.
 
Yep. Truly there have been no productive or valuable protests in American history. World history, for that matter. Nope. They have never, ever done a lick of good.
 
I'm going to protest NIMBYs on this board, make silly graphics, and never go to a single meeting, write any letter, petition, or take legal action. Let's see how effective that is compared to people whom actually go out and do something productive, like Itchy. You're not picking up on the fact I'm suggesting taking proactive action rather than sitting around gabbing with like minded peers to no effect on the subject at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top