Thanks for making us aware of this. It's such an stupid concept that people shouldn't be able to marry if they want to. But then again, considering what religion generally runs this country...I suppose no stupidity should be surprising anymore...

Hey, I'm all about people worshiping how they want to worship, but as long as the religious freedoms provided to us in the 1st Amendment hold, the Constitution protects me from having to bow to the tenets of anyone else's religion. If the only argument that can be made against homosexuality are based in Christian doctrine, then they do not form a basis for discrimination to be written into the law.

A good way to gather support, great picture!

Thanks! I realize it's kind of preaching to the choir here, but maybe somebody will spread the message to someone who still needs a little convincing ^_^ (Not that homoeroticism is probably the best way to reach those people, but... 9_9)

Well maybe not *giggle* but every little helps. I never understood why some people can't just let others be happy. I doubt gay marriage has given anybody a sleepless night, but still they poke their noses in.

WOW! This looks awesome! =333 FAVING!

Wow! What the hell is California thinking!? =O That's retarded! If only I was 18 and still in Cali...

If you don't mind, I can link to this page and message, if you want =3

Thanks! And sure, feel free to link away! The whole idea is to get people aware that this thing is happening, so go for it!

Wonderful awesome mindeblowing picture~~!

The colour is just... fantasmagorical!!

Also.... you are my hero for the no on prop 8 message. I may not be a CA resident but I believe that denying anyone, gay or straight(or anything!), is stupid and wrong. I've been following the prop 8 campaign in some blogs too, so you get a hug.... *hug*

Good for you for keeping an eye on it even though you're not in-state. You pass the word along, and I'll keep doing what I do ^_^

Your message is crafted exceptionally well, and the art is INCREDIBLE (as per usual).

Can I and/or other people repost the art with commentary (credit given, of course)?

Absolutely! Feel free to post it up and let us know where you posted it so we can all flock there and hype it ^_^

Feel free to spread it around, and let me know what you think! ---> http://istences.livejournal.com/102426.html

Its so ignorant. There's no reason besides biased bigotry that the majority can decide on minority rights. And I thought Californians were open minded!

Northern Californians are ^_^ The Orange County / "Inland Empire" are quite conservative, and LA is more or less split on the measure.

But yeah, I tend to agree that we need to ensure the rights of minorities who are unable to do so for themselves by majority vote.

Unfortunately in southern California, or at least where I live... which is near the boarder, every available spot of land is littered with the yellow "Vote yes on Prop 8" signs... I've only seen 1 "Vote no on Prop 8" sign. At least my family and my friends know not to vote yes on it.

I'm also thinking that half of the people with that yellow sign on their lawns don't really know what prop 8 is and they just have the sign up because everyone else does too.

You should talk to your neighbors about it! If you think there's a chance they're just going along with it instead of actually thinking it through, you'd be doing them a huge favor, to say nothing of the rest of us <3

Our court systems are liberal-stocked. Our people, however, can really vary. The gay marriage ban already came to bat a few years ago and was passed, before being overturned by the courts (and subesquently legalizing gay marriage).

As much as I don't want this prop to pass, I'd be morbidly interested in seeing it go through. Last time we banned gay marriage, it actually *legalized* it. Goodness knows what'll happen when it goes in again (gays get free cars?).

You'd think the people pushing this proposition would learn from history...or at least not cut-&-paste the same failboat legislature as before.

Frankly, I'd be content to just keep my marriage rights, thanks ^_^

*nods softly* I feel lucky to live in New England and not have to deal with the crap. Although I could deal for free cars, haha (mine's falling apart).

I just don't get what's running through those people's minds, the ones who want to ban same-sex marriage. x.x Nothing bad comes of it, so there's no reason to not allow it - that goes for the country as a whole. The government shouldn't judge whether or not two adults, regardless of gender and orientation, can marry.

But yeah, very nice image. :3 I'd vote against it were it not the fact I'm over in Texas now (WAS in NY). >.> And unless something federal passes that allows same-sex marriage, I don't think it's happening here; too many Jesus freaks. Hell, even civil unions would be ok, just so it'd be "equal" rights and privileges.

Yeah, I agree with you. It means so much to the people it affects directly, and so little to everyone else. The idea that two people who love each other getting married could hurt you or your children in some way is just so offensive to rational thinkers...

In any case, thanks, and keep spreading the word ^_^

Well those kinds of people are under the assumption it would hurt the "sanctity of marriage"... as if divorce and marrying into wedlock doesn't do that anyway. :P I swear, if the religious nuts get their way more and more often, we'll wind up a theocracy. x.x

I think the biggest problem right now is that the media is saying that gay marriage would "be taught in California schools" but that is entirely /false/! California schools have NO educational programs on marriage that I am aware of - gay or otherwise, and if we did I /highly doubt/ they would be mandatory classes! That's just not how our school systems function out here.

Sadly, a lot of people with kids are buyin' it. Fear mongering at it's finest. :/ I'm reaaallly hoping that this doesn't pass on yes - it would be a very sad day for California, and I would be ashamed.
Honestly, I think you're right - I think this issue needs to go Federal. I think States should not be allowed to pick and choose one by one. We're never going to break the sexist, racist, etc. mentalities in America until we address them openly and up front, across the board. We've done enough tip-toeing if you ask me.

Wouldn't this be considered as part of a civil rights movement though? And thus a part of history? o.o I mean that amendment that allowed interracial marriage is taught so what if it's same-sex marriage? Not that I'm saying that it's imperative that it should be taught, but it shouldn't make a difference.

Furthermore, as we've seen with the recent presidential campaigns, the nation is more or less divided completely, and some people's true colors are coming full circle. Who knows what it would take to unite people in a logical manner and get rid of discrimination completely?

*sighs* I doubt we'll see the sort of paradigm shift needed for nationwide unity in our lifetimes. :P But rest assured that someday, there will exist a better unity than there is now, and people may truely be equal, regardless of race, creed, gender, orientation, beliefs, or anything else.

But you may be right with the civil rights thing... and that would certainly not be a bad thing to teach in schools. This is, in ways, a part of history, yes. But it's not so terrible as what people are expecting - it may yet be banned from being taught in schools. There are a number of other things banned from teaching in school, after all. Point is, it's a bunch of darn propaganda with the media saying it'll essentially 'affect our children'. And what is so awful about raising a child without prejudice anyway? Oi. :/ I could go on and on, but I know I'm preaching to the choir. At least I'll be doing my part, and voting no on 8. A number of friends will be too.

I guess I would ask what the issue is with teaching children that gay marriage is legal. That knowledge isn't going to spontaneously turn kids gay. The idea that teaching that there is nothing fundamentally harmful or wrong about homosexuality will alter children's sexuality is entirely spurious. It may make closeted kids less willing to stay in the closet, yes, but it's not going to suddenly overwrite a straight kid's sexuality. That's just not how it works.

I guess as long as people are preaching that homosexuality is a choice and a lifestyle as opposed to an immutable axis of identity, we'll continue to see arguments like these. Parents who want their children to lead happy, unpersecuted, normal lives, falsely believing that they or their children have any control over their children's sexual orientation. It's a noble desire on the parts of these parents, but their fundamental assumption is wrong, and the result is damaging.

Teaching tolerance to children is never a bad thing.

I agree in full. It's never bad to teach anyone tolerance.

Those ads took the extreme case(s) of Mass. and are trying to fear monger with it. Honestly, listening to the Yes-on-8, that really is their only "oh noes!" point they make (coming short of just trying to thrive in outright bigotry).

Fortunately, the No-on-8 ads have seen this effective point and are confronting it directly on their new ads. Hopefully they diffuse them before people hit the polls next week.

Instant fav, ~ish going to vote no on 8~

Rock on! Thanks, dude <3

Yush, I was in my drama class and with a friend, preformed a skit about 'Prop 8' Banning Straight marriage. A part of it I really liked. "Religion is a personal choice, what place does it have in Civil Rights?" And I thought "Yeah!" If its a religious issue, what about other people? We all have our own way of loving God and following that religion.

Yeah, thanks to the 1st Amendment of the capital-C Constitution <3

The whole "our forefathers were Christian so this is a Christian country" thing is nonsense. Our forefathers came here to establish a haven for religious freedom.

*grins* I'm glad i'm in Cali and going to vote NOv. 4th

also very cute pic

Yaaay, you win. And hopefully, together, we'll win again come November <3

So, what does this mean for civil unions?

They're not really at issue here because gay marriage is currently legal in California. This proposition would take that already present right away. Prop 8 doesn't give anyone anything -- it just takes existing rights away to assuage the ignorant fears of people who would sooner draw limiting lines on the lives of others than learn the truth about a minority.

The way I see it, they're trying to protect what they believe is a religious operation. That's why a gay marriage and a civil union are different. Ignoring the fact that we're a pretending to be a Christian nation (though our Constitution was written by Deists), is it within someone's Constitutional right to take a religious operation and change it? Interesting point to ponder.

I don't think a gay marriage is Constitutional—I think a civil union is. Even if you were two bachelors living together with like minds in a business, you should have at least some gov. perks on your side. In fact, if you had a gay relationship in celibacy and had a civil union you totally just sidestepped every verse or soccer mom that would have a problem with it (although most of my gay friends have argued that it isn't a gay relationship without sex).

Back to your last sentence—what is this "truth about a minority" that ignorant people need to know?

"Back to your last sentence—what is this "truth about a minority" that ignorant people need to know?"

I can't speak for Kamui, but my take would be "we're just like you". Prejudice is based on seeing the other as semi-human (or less), right? Those pushing Proposition 8 can't envision homosexuals as anything but deviants doomed to the fires of hell.

I'd dispute the suggestion that gay marriage isn't Constitutionally protected. If we're about protecting people from the tyranny of the majority, seems like it's exactly the sort of issue that the document's meant to cover. Are we pivoting on the idea of marriage being a "religious operation"? That's what I'm getting from this argument....is that right? I think (if this is accurate) that it crumbles on a couple of sharp points. Since we don't live in a Church-controlled state, this issue should just be viewed through the filter of civil rights, period. We are a secular nation governed by humanist laws. "Religious operations" fall outside of the context of law-making. Government shouldn't interfere in how people worship, but gay marriage doesn't effect that in any real way. It just gives equal rights to those on both sides of the sexual fence. The concept of marriage isn't inherently religious. There are so many other things tangled in that web (cultural traditions, concepts of ownership, preservation of the family name, etc.) it deserves a broader inspection than being seen through a narrow (Evangelical) microscope.

Secondly, your argument in favor of civil unions fits neatly into the concept of "Separate but equal". Segregation. It's okay for two gay guys to live together so long as they don't touch each other. Think about that. Is it fair to say a straight relationship IS a relationship without sex being a part of it? How would that feel? Can you imagine how you'd take it if you were told "hey, it's cool, be with your partner, it's a civil union and we're fine with that. OH....but it's gotta just be Platonic, okay?" It's a proposal designed to sidestep the problem. It leaves the inequality in place.

Two bachelors living together, running a business, already get perks. I've run a business from my home. There's a host of write-offs available. I don't see what purpose a civil union would serve here at all.

Hell, then there's the issue of taxes. Gay marriage means more taxes. That should appeal to even the hardnosed GOP holdouts.

Lastly, to make a Constitutional amendment that restricts rights in favor of a Taliban-like take on what's "right" should make everyone scream. It would be codifying one sect's religious laws into civil law. No thank you.

Evangelicals, like zealots of any faith, are welcome to their views. They don't have to surrender their prejudice. Marriage, however, doesn't need "defending" against homosexuals. Gay marriage will not cause the institution to dissolve, any more than it will cause it to rain frogs or the oceans to boil away. It's been in existence for about twenty years in this world and you know what's funny? The nations where it's legal have gotten better. I don't know that it can be said gay marriage made those nations better...but it's sure interesting to think about.

I think defending some sort of integrity of marriage is completely worthless, as it hasn't been taken seriously as a whole for a long time. I wouldn't enter this discussion from the point of, "we need to keep marriage holy [in Christian context]" because it simply is NOT worth fighting against all of humanity, and more specifically against all the "straight" and "Christian" marriages that have totally failed (read: a majority of them).

I used the bachelor-business analogy because it was the first thing to come to my mind. I know that in some civil unions you are entitled to all the benefits of a marriage, while sidestepping the muck of derailing something someone views as a religious sanction.

On the issue of truth about a minority:

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. It's possible you've never talked to a real Christian in your life (in fact, very possible). When Americans where polled on the first things that came to mind when they thought of a Christian they responded (in order of popularity) : "Gay bashers, liars, hypocrites". If you were talking to someone with the attitude of Christ, defending your own humanity as a homosexual should not even need to be addressed. But that's how public opinion works. My fake-dad thinks that if "gays" are given their "rights" they will never stop cramming their beliefs down Christian's throats, which is:
1) Ironic
2) A pun

You're not entirely correct in saying we are a secular nation being governed by humanist law, because you have religion to thank for those laws being initialized in the first place. Humanist laws at their core would be promoting the evolution of humans by killing off the weakest, not by making everything fair for everyone else; you know, something Reich-ier than civil rights. Dinesh D'souza (look him up on Youtube) has some good commentary to share on how Christianity has had a positive, albeit now overlooked, impact on humanity.

Lastly, I wasn't saying a gay relationship (or any) should not include sex. Culture has shown exactly how much we prioritize sex, and I'd never overlook that. But I was mentioning that not even the most stiff-necked of fundamentalists could use the Bible to contest a celibate gay relationship. But you can still have a relationship without sex. You won't be shafting your better half if you both live to be really old, but you can still love them. I know sex is a beautiful and intimate expression when used correctly (also a cool metaphor for your relationship, itself) but using it as a standard to define a relationship is probably setting yourself up for failure–defining it on sex is defining your relationship with your partner by something he/she/it can do, instead of who they are.

We're in agreement on the silliness of the whole "defense of marriage" issue.

Suggesting I've never spoken with a "real Christian" is presumptuous on your part. You're making assumptions when you've got nothing to base 'em on. Please don't do that.

You're mixing and matching humanist theory with social Darwinism; they're apples and oranges. Our laws have much more to do with Greek philosophy and the Enlightenment than they do the Bible. Social Darwinism doesn't even enter the mix. I'd agree with you on this point if there was some evidence to support it. Thing is, the Constitution's pretty clear about the division of rights, and they don't follow a religious model. They follow the secular humanist tradition.

I'm familiar with Dinesh D'souza. I'd recommend reading some Joseph Campbell to start with. Then some Thom Hartmann. Christianity has had positive effects on our culture, no one's disputing that (no one worth listening to at any rate). Dogmatic adherence to religion has also killed tens of millions of people and destroyed whole cultures. You have to remember both. (Frankly not clear on how this is even pertinent.)

"Using sex as a standard" isn't the issue. If you are suggesting that two gay men should settle for a Platonic civil union as a way to circumvent religious intolerance, that's broken at its core. Sex is not the standard, nor was that what I was saying. Whether or not your still schtuping at age 80 is irrelevant. Locking homosexuals out of marriage unless they don't fuck each other *is* making sex the issue.

Hey dude, thanks for the comment, and for bringing discussion in a thoughtful and respectful way <3

In response to same-sex marriage being a religious operation, the answer is quite clear-cut. The same-sex marriage provided for by the recent law is civil marriage. Meaning that you get married by the State and not by any church. It's a legal contract as opposed to a holy sacrament, and no church that chooses not to participate is forced to have any part of it.

One of the major arguments against same-sex marriage has been that it will force churches that disagree with homosexuality to perform gay marriages. That's patently false, because those churches are protected by the 1st Amendment. You are allowed, Constitutionally, to believe in a religion that doesn't allow homosexuals. Or women. Or black people. Or children. Religious organizations are more or less exempt from anti-discrimination law. In short, even if Proposition 8 fails and same-sex marriage remains legal, that does not mean that any religion will have to participate that chooses not to. Gay marriage is civil marriage, and it is a strictly non-religious affair.


As far as the "truth about the minority" I was (vaguely, and sorry about that) talking primarily about the fact that homosexuals aren't this predatorial, corrupting influence on society that people seem to think. It's also not a choice. Given that it's not a choice, that means that "homosexual recruitment" is a myth, so all these fears about how same-sex marriage is going to turn kids gay is ridiculous. It also means that there is a strong need for marriage provisions for homosexuals; it's not that they are just obstinately pursuing a "deviant lifestyle choice" -- this is simply how they are.

Hopefully that at least clarifies my stance on a few points. Thanks for asking!

Like I said before, If this were the turn of the twentieth century, the marriage-church issue would be much harder to combat. Cool, I'm down with that.

Just so I get you better, you say homosexuality isn't a choice. Just so I get your point better, how do you define homosexuality?

I don't know that I follow you on your "turn of the twentieth century" comment -- would you mind being a little more specific there? If you mean that marriage was a strictly religious affair before later in the 20th Century, I would respectfully disagree. Civil marriage completely outside of the context of religion has a long history, reaching back well into the middle ages in Europe. If I'm interpreting your comment incorrectly, let me know ^_^

I would probably define homosexuality as the presence of same-sex-oriented sexual/romantic urges and the absence of opposite-sex-oriented sexual/romantic urges. I think that manages to circumvent issues of self-identification (which is always tricky), and issues of celibacy versus sexual activity (which seems like a silly way to split it).

Does that clarify my point, or would you like more discussion on why I believe sexuality is not a choice, specifically?

I viewed marriages earlier in American history as being more grounded in the Church than they are now. Old fashioned dogmas and whatnot, America having a bigger piece of religion in the culture back then. It was more religious as a whole before, wasn't it?

I define homosexuality as pursuing happiness in (a) same-sex relationship(s). I view it as a condition of your heart. I figured that sexual urges, as primal as they are, could be influenced by a number of things, so I don't focus on that immediately in my definition. I don't think that who/what we're sexually attracted to is a choice (although I would love to do case studies and cross examinations involving fetishes).

If you believe yourself to be attracted to the same sex you can either go with it or go against it. In that way my definition of it makes it a choice. I personally am sexually attracted dominantly to the same sex (in raw proportions of attraction I'd say 70:30 guy:girl). My attraction to the same sex varies with how often I masturbate, look at sexual images, etc…. That's my personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt. But it leads me to understand that, at least in my own life, my sexuality waivers on where I want it to go.
…There's also the issue of the Holy Spirit's conviction (and how it's not just placebo effect for me), which is an entirely different wall of text.

Thanks for your responses. You have been most helpful :3

It actually was not -- the claim that the founding fathers of America (Washington, Jefferson, et al) were pious Christians is actually patently false. They were, for the vast majority, Deists, meaning that they did NOT believe that God had an active and direct influence on our lives. It's a philosophy with firm roots in the Enlightenment, and it is a far cry from the fundamentalist Christianity we're seeing now, which is actually a relatively recent development, historically. Christianity in American politics has actually gotten significantly more intense in the 20th Century.

In response to your suggestion that sexuality is a choice, I would ask what you would say to someone whose sexual attraction ratio is 100% same-sex and 0% opposite-sex (like me <3). In that case, the option becomes one of acting on one's urges or of maintaining celibacy. I would argue that in either case, I'm still gay. I'm just having sex, or not. A celibate gay man is not a straight man.

As an atheist, I can't really speak to the Holy Spirit one way or the other. I believe that with enough conviction, people can convince themselves of a lot of things. Whether you call that denial or self-hypnosis or what have you is more or less just a nomenclature issue (and I don't say that with any value judgments attached -- if you want to stop feeling homosexual urges, and find a way to do that sustainably through powerful denial, more power to you, I guess).

That said, even if someone can choose to stifle their natural inclinations towards same-sex attraction, I don't think that means that people should have to. It strikes me that choosing to do so is very much more a "choice" than feeling the homosexual urges in the first place is.

And absolutely! I'm happy to discuss the issues at hand here with anyone willing to do so in a calm and respectful way. There's a lot of stuff going on in this debate, and a lot at stake, and I think it's important that every question be answered to make sure that people can make the decision that's right for them. Thanks for helping to keep it a reasoned discussion ^_^

I was aware of the Deist founding fathers thing. I actually referenced it in one of my earlier comments that wasn't in direct response to you. But now I know!

I don't want you to think that my opinion is that a celibate gay man is not gay, because I don't believe it's the case at all. I hinted that an act itself should not define a state of mind, but now I will outright say it: gay sex ≠ gay. I think sodomy is wrong, outside of a very old text just telling me so, because it's not even good for your body. I understand it's stimulating (and dare I say, hawt) but wreaking havoc on the body, and the pooping from there… eh; something seems fishy about it. It's about as wrong as overeating or being malnourished, from a humanist point of view. (I don't know if you've heard how a homosexual male has a lower life expectancy than a straight male, but I can't research that, what with internet filters where I am. Can you confirm that or give me any insight to that at all? It may just be something crazy I heard in the back of the school bus.)

One can repress these urges, if one wants. From a religious point of view, it would be no different than dismissing anything else wrong one may want to do, since sodomy is a "sin". (Just to address: I wouldn't get upset over/judge/flame a non-Christian for sinning at all, as I'd have no reason to).
You have many natural inclinations that you have to repress because you're civilized, and that comes with the package of living in the 21st century. You have come to terms with homosexuality, but at some point you need to provide a standard for your own moral code (as everyone has one). Some religious sects say the gay agenda's a no-no. Eh.

Like I said, I'd like to talk Holy Spirit, but I apologize. You and I already know it's illogical and I'd just be wasting my time. Out of respect for you I'm not pursuing that topic (unless you think I could blow your mind with my little insight, which I probably couldn't). xD

Sure thing!

First off, there's plenty of info out there about the effects of safely practiced anal intercourse on the body (which, as it turns out, are negligible), but rather than get into detail there, I'll simply say that each person should be deciding whether anal sex is right for them, rather than whether it's right for everyone else. I certainly know gay people who think than anal sex isn't for them, and I know straight people who think it's fun -- tying "sodomy" to the gay identity doesn't really make sense.

You've definitely stated a couple of times that you don't tie the gay identity to gay sex, and I think you're absolutely right. I'm gay, and I'm not having sex any time soon -- it's not because I have gay sex that I'm gay.

The study on gay men's life expectancies that you bring up is the 1993 "Scandinavian Gay Lifespan" study, conducted by Paul Cameron from the conservative lobbying group, the Family Research Institute. Independent scholars on all sides of the ideological fence have debunked the study due to Cameron's critically flawed methodology. You can read more about the study and its flaws here.

I guess in response to homosexual urges being a sin that people need to suppress, I would say that the definition of "sin" is a strictly religious one, and varies from religion to religion. Whereas murder, theft, assault, and other "sinful" behavior are crimes with victims and have obvious and direct negative effects on society (and are therefore also illegal, ie, secularly prohibited), homosexuality hurts no one. It has been around since the dawn of time, in every civilization in history -- sometimes tolerated, sometimes venerated, sometimes persecuted. It happens in any number of different animal species. The idea that it is bad or wrong is purely cultural, and in contemporary American culture, the reasons behind that are largely religious. For those who choose not to follow through on their innate homosexual urges because of their religious beliefs, I would say I wish them nothing but the best. That's entirely their prerogative. But to say that people outside of their religion shouldn't do something (or to attempt to write prohibitions founded in religious morality into secular law) because it's a "sin" is misguided. The word simply doesn't apply. I suppose I can't blame Christians for wanting me to follow the rules that they believe are correct, but I also think it is a profound mistake to try to make those moral guidelines into laws that everyone has to follow, any more than it would be right for a group of conservative Muslims to try to pass a law about women wearing head scarves here, or for Hindus to try to prevent anyone in America from eating Beef, or for Shintoists to try to regulate our bathing practices to ensure maximum cleanliness, etc. America is not a Christian nation. The Church and State are separate.

We need to examine the Constitution in both letter and spirit, see if the current set of laws are in line with it, and make corrections as needed. I believe that the Constitution was written to ensure the civil rights and equality of all Americans. Amendments extending equal rights where there were none before to women, people of non-white race, etc. have already happened. This is just another step towards true equality for all American citizens.

Oh my, good link. Thanks for that.

If I could change anything about my (Christian) university I'd make a mandatory class for Church history application. Some Christians that under the "Christian nation" motion do not understand how scary it is to marry the Church and State as one.

I think we all need to be aware of our biases (and I don't mean to say that bias is inherently bad -- it's basically the same thing as having an opinion, we just need to realize we have them), and to make sure that we know the objective facts about the world in addition to our subjective views on it. I would hope that a Christian university would teach objective fact in its non-ecclesiastical courses, rather than inflecting each subject with a Christian spin, and I agree with you completely that a history of the Church course would be incredibly important for members of that Church. We all need to know our roots, right?

From a religious aspect, it isn't a bad idea to say you want to to everything you enjoy to glorify God, but if I'm in a colour theory class and my teacher finds it necessary to remind us how God created light and shadow I get a little peeved.

From an art standpoint I also think it's important. Some people look to their artistic endeavors for ultimate satisfaction, and they're usually let down by that because they keep improving. If you have a standard of truth and happiness that happens to be a made-up, light and fluffy Lord, it's unshakable. Not to say I don't believe in my own God, but you gather my meaning.

Challenging oneself and introspecting on one's beliefs is never a bad thing ^_^

And I agree -- just as the artist who stops turning a critical eye to his art stagnates creatively, I believe that those who don't question themselves philosophically and spiritually face the danger of spiritual stagnation. What you ultimately choose to believe in, much like what you choose to make as your art, is totally up to you, but I think it means a lot more if it's the result of a process of thought and questioning.

You're just so fun to talk to! I'm glad I initially commented on a political image and was never a douche about it.

I'm glad you commented and weren't a douche, too ^_^

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic......DTL&tsp=1

It's issues like this that make me wish I still lived in CA just so I could vote NO.

These people are more than willing to use blackmail and extortion to get it passed too. OH those wacky conservative values people!

I think it's more than a little ironic that the Mormons are involved as well:
Marrying off your 13 year old daughters as sex slaves? AOK!
Commited monogamous same sex relationships? Whoa there! Back the fun-bus the f*ck up! Can't be lettin that happen oooohhh no.

Yeah, there have been business boycotts on both sides, and people have been calling foul on both sides. At the end of the day, all tactics and strategies aside, this is an issue of profound importance to a minority and of negligible importance to the majority. To decide in the favor of the majority "because they can" is selfish and damaging us all as a society, I think.

Instafave'd. And I'm sure you already know why.


(I've been tracking it through one of their sites for a while, and gods, I hope it gets shot down. Hard.)

You and me both, dude <3

let me borrow that top : V

ONLY IF YOU VOTE NO ON 8.

betch. :U

Wow beauty cat!

Woo~ And if you don't go out to vote, he'll pound you in a way you will not enjoy.

I don't see 8 being passed! 'o'

We can only hope!

I'm a canadian homo but all my support to the gays of california!

You guys are waaaaaay ahead of us >_<

Hopefully we can catch up some come November, though!

Unfortunately with the conservatives back in office again (minority government or no) we may be stuck in the same spot.

Are they making motions at taking away same-sex marriage up there? I was kind of under the impression that the Canadian conservative party was still reasonably centrist, unlike the conservative party in America, which tends to be more extreme, at least in its power-base.

Not really. There's talk here and there about it, always has seem to been D:

That's a shame, dude. Hopefully, should it come to a popular vote, folks like you will ensure that same-sex marriage stays on the books!

Damn straight! (rofl), i honestly don't think they'll get to do much but... if they DO... /nervous

Strength and fortune to you! Here in Canada we already have gay marriage. Guess what impact it has on straight marriages?

Big fat nothing that's what. When it passed, nobody noticed, except for us, the people who it matters most for.

You have all my support in defeating this amendment.

I really appreciate it! And yeah, it's been legal in Massachusetts for some time now, and even here in California for a solid few months. I honestly don't know what sort of apocalypse scenario conservatives are imagining, but it certainly hasn't happened yet 9_9

The conservatives were saying the same thing when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. They were saying "If they legalize gay marriage, next they'll legalize pedophilia and bestiality!"

Which is totally sensible, except that children and animals can't enter into any form of legally binding contract 9_9

I support my friends at my college who set up a table with voter registration forms and big No on 8 Signs. One day someone there was chanting "8 is Hate"

Definitely! We've got a NO on 8 poster up in our window here <3 Keep spreading the word!

This kind of crap shouldn't even need to be voted on.
Marriage should be for all. End of story.

WORD.

AWESOME!!!! NO ON 8!!! I got married legally 2 days ago and don't want that taken away!!! Thank you so much for making art supporting NO ON 8!!

Absolutely, and congratulations! I attended my first gay marriage a couple of days ago, and it was completely beautiful and entirely positive. I only wish that everyone could find that sort of happiness.

I moved out of California because this kinda crap is retarded... this measure should die. I used to be a photo guy, and I remember developing pictures for a couple that had a marriage ceremony thrown for them... it was wonderful.

Unfortunately, California is closer to letting gay marriage happen than a lot of other states 9_9.

Hopefully we'll all catch up to Massachusetts and Connecticut soon ^_^

This hip cat and I have quite similar fashion tastes! I love going to or from the beach / pool, since it gives me an excuse to sagging my shorts a couple inches to expose my speedo. Guys should only sag when there are truly sleek and stylish undergarments involved, none of this boxer silliness!

I hate boxers almost as much as I hate Proposition 8.

Well, maybe not quite that much, but I'm with you on this.

Dude where do you live, we need to become manfriends.

Seriously, boxers are just the most impractical, uncomfortable, unstylish, and unflattering undergarments ever. They imply that the male figure is something to be shamefully obscured in vague, undefining fabric, when the male figure should boldly flaunted like a freshly groomed handlebar moustache or fancy musculature.

Oh, I'm in SF with all the other homos ^_^

And yeah, I feel like boxers are junk deathtraps with the way they bunch and twist with your sensitive bits inside them, not to mention offering absolutely zero support 9_9


So, um...VOTE NO ON 8!

word!!!

<3

Word!!!!!!!

<3

:D

Fortunately some california teachers associate made an anti-Yes on 8 ad where they basically said "uhhh what? This is has nothing to do with education".

Yeah, I was really happy to see that <3

Agreed! Exploiting people's fears and concerns for the well-being of their children is about as low as you can go.

I nominate Kamui for the Furry Nobel Peace Prize!

This is all doubly important because the proposition is gaining support in the latest polls: 44% Yes, 52% No. (Source: L.A. Times)

Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!

If we let this slide I think it's unlikely we'll get another chance to fix it for a very long time. We've finally got some equality, let's not blow it!

Rock on Kamui! Rock on!

Idea: Favorite this image and leave it as your top fave untill after the election. Every gay furry's profile page should have this poster displayed. It's what I'm doing!

Zoid

If folks are willing, that'd be a great way to ensure visibility! Thanks, dude <3

Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!

<3

On one hand, I thought it was interesting that judges overruled the people's vote, as gay marriage wasn't legal.

But on the other hand, I don't believe that basic human rights should have to be voted for. They should just apply to everyone.

Yeah, people give the judges a hard time, but if a law is unconstitutional, it's their job to point that out and strike the law. I mean, that's kind of what a supreme court justice does, you know? All this business about "activist judges" is silliness, in my book. They're doing their job.

That said, if the people disagree with a judge's decision, they can take it to a vote like this, and that's their prerogative, too. I just hope the vote turns out in favor of upholding their decision ^_^

I can't stand those campaign ads for Yes. They're filled with fear tactics and most, if not pretty much all of the claims are completely untrue. It's pretty sad how narrow-minded some people can be in this world.

Yeah, I really have to wonder what these folks think they're gaining from making rules for other people. Protecting the moral fiber of America, I guess -- whatever that means 9_9

All you California fags saying no on 8. In Arizona we have 102. Same thing, it's going to pass. Nothing we can do about it. We're part of dumbfuckistan :(

You have my condolensces, anyway >_< And making gay marriage legal in California is a good first step to making it legal elsewhere in the States as well! So, uh, spread the word, I guess?

Fav'd for fuck-yeahness.

Also doing my part to vote a big fat NO on prop 2 down here in Florida.

Also, woo~

And good on you, dude. Rock on!

Woo~

Even though you have no money, and you cannot vote, you can still help!
The PhoneBank needs you! And it's not as scary as you think. They have scripts for you to speak, so you don't even have to make it up. They desperately need the man (and woman) power during day time when most of the volunteers are working.
http://www.noonprop8.com/action/phone-bank

Excellent point! Thank you, thank you!

The subject makes me pissed, but the artwork makes me sooo happpyyyyy

Yeah, man! Gotta get energized, get the word out, and get this thing beat!

Seriously, dude, all the gay rights nay sayers are starting to get annoying, and prop 8 makes me ill. I'm in Newport Beach right now and I"m surrounded by homophobes. There was a guy standing on a corner with a "Prop 8 = parental rights" sign. Obviously he has a lot to do with his life.

I really hope prop eight is vetoed by the voters. I can't stand when people want to strip others of basic human rights.

Exactly yes, dude. Completely exactly yes.

Already voted against it, already walked around with my No on 8 sign that I made at the local farmer's market (where, btw, No on 8 people outnumbered Yes on 8 people at least 3 to 1, hurray).

I cannot believe the lies that the Yes on 8 people are pushing to try and get this passed. They're making it about "parental rights", "religious freedom", and, can you believe it? "Less government". How the HELL does prop 8 make less government? The only thing it does is make the rule book have to be re-written again after the courts struck down prop 22 (twice) earlier this year.

Yaaay! You, sir, are a part of the solution.

And yeah, there's some pretty heinous misdirection and dissembling going on. I guess these folks feel that it's doing "the right thing" by any means necessary, but it's tough to play the moral high ground card when you're running attack ads made entirely of misinformation 9_9

i dont understand why gay marrage is a problem i dont think it hurt any oneor killed anyone

Hasn't yet, anyway! If they want that death statistic, they're gonna have to let us keep trying!

Awe, but the pro 8 adds are *so* funny! X3

Fail!

誰を好きになってもいいし、誰と結婚してもいいと僕は思うよ。

自分も同意見です！

ありがとうございます<3

I disagree with Marriage period. Changes people for the worst.

But I dont like laws limiting who you can or cant love.

Voting no and I got a bunch of folks over here voting against it as well... (VENICE BEACH :D)

But seriously I really dont know and I dont know alot of friends that know people who are attracted to the same sex and all that, but I guess we dont think its right for the government to say you cant love someone.

Great drawing though haha, if furries we're more accepted socially i'd totally be posting these up everywhere.

Yeah, I think posting this up outside of a certain sphere would probably have a negative effect ^_^

As far as marriage goes, I agree that it's probably not for everyone, but I think it's great that it's there as an option for the people who decide it's for them. And I totally agree that the decision of whether you get married or not should be a personal one and not a government-made one.

Thanks for the support, dude <3

XD I'm against the bill but I'm not 18 yet nor will I be 18 by the time this whole epic voting thing will go on.

Even though I'm AGAINST the bill I would like to point out something about the people who are FOR the bill. Most people who are voting FOR the bill aren't against gay marriage like so many people would like to think; they're against the fact that the FIRST time gay marriage was allowed that it was AGAINST over 50% of California voters wishes. California (I live there by the way) did NOT want gay marriage allowed and was COMPLETELY ignored. So most voters FOR the bill are angry and scared that they have been ignored by the government who is SUPPOSED to listen to them when they make such a big decision like this. Wouldn't you be scared too if the one thing that protected you rights, protected your interests, your livelihoods, your children, and had power over you suddenly ignored you?

Again. I'm AGAINST the bill. Gay marriage should be allowed. Times are changing for god's sake. But please, understand the other side and how they feel. Not everyone against gay marriage is out to get them.

P.S. By the way, I'm Christian and my parents are too, so all the "Evangelistic people are against gay marriage and are unreasonable about it blahblahblah" bull can go down the drain thank you VERY much.

Thanks for the comment, and that's a reasonable point! I'd like to address it ^_^

First, I would say that a number of years have passed between the last time the populace voted on gay marriage and this coming November, so it's probably healthy to have the issue aired again. I'm all for the population deciding it, but it does sadden me to see scare tactic-based ads being used to push people into voting yes based on information that simply isn't true (that it will change the way kids are taught in school, that it will open the floodgates to incest and pedophilia and bestiality, etc.).

While I do think it's a fair thing to put before a referendum, I don't think that the judges who made the decision back in July should be slammed for doing so. They passed review on California's civil union laws because a lawsuit came before them, and a majority of the California Supreme Court judges determined that law to be in violation of the state constitution. It's not that they set out one day to just make a law saying that gay marriage was now legal -- the case that was brought before them lead them to ask whether the law involved was in direct conflict with the state's supreme law or not, and they agreed that it was.


And for the record, I have no problem with Christians or people of any other religion. Even ones that don't like gays, really. Within the context of their religion, they're free to do whatever they want. That said, they have no right to force people who are not a part of their religion to follow the dictates of their religion. In other words, if a church wants to say that gays can't get married in their church, and that their church will not recognize or perform that marriage, that's totally within their rights. If a church wants to say that gays can't get married anywhere in the state, in a civil ceremony that has nothing to do with any religion, that's not within their rights. No church rules this nation, and even the church of the majority has no right to arbitrate the laws and moral code of the country.

Thanks for the names. I'll look 'em up.

I meant no insult in the Christian assuming thing, and I wasn't assuming anything of your character. I was reminding you that viewing both sides of the party brings up these generalizations. (Also thinking of how I went until high school without ever meeting someone that I associated with Christ; I guess I viewed that as my basis.)

I never suggesting that two gay men should settle for a Platonic civil union to circumvent religious intolerance, I said they could if they wanted to. Some sites out there cater to gay communities just like that. I was essentially playing Devil's Advocate, but I'd never offer that "solution", because as you said it is still denying them the right to a sex life.

"Is it fair to say a straight relationship IS a relationship without sex being a part of it? How would that feel?"
Was it wrong of me to take from this statement that you view sex as a standard? I wasn't trying to take out of context, but I felt that was something you addressed therein.

It's appreciated ^_^

And feel free to spread the word in any way you can <3

I'm not political either...but this one PISSES ME THE HELL OFF.

Yesterday, whilst driving back from a festival, myself and my friend saw a couple Yes on 8 bumper stickers and I nearly hit and cars they were attached to.

The best part about this drive was the picketers we saw further up the road. Yes on 8 signs everywhere. >8C Not only that, but most of the people holding the signs were CHILDREN. I couldn't believe that parents had thier KIDS out there holding the signs up. Like... kids under 12. Oh, my blood boiled.

Now, I'm straight as a pole, but equality is what the issue is here. I do not understand how those voting yes cannot see that they aren't protecting anything. They're attacking and segregating (omg, we still segregate people????) a specific group based on SEXUALITY of all things. And dear gods, why does it matter so much to them? How is a gay couple getting married HURTING THEM in any way?

K... I'm done.

I feel you, dude >_< Do you live in the inland empire? Yes no 8 signs are crazy rare, up by me, but in some ways it's scarier not being able to see the opposition, as it were.

And yeah, I agree that the use of children in the campaign as a tool of fear-mongering is really low. I guess the poetic conclusion to that would be for their children to grow up gay, for the parents to have a huge change of heart, but for it to be too late for their children to get married because they already voted yes on 8. Whoops!

And wow, I can't even say that I hope for that in the slightest. Nobody deserves that. Everybody deserves marriage rights and for their kids to grow up happy. Let's just all vote no and save ourselves this hypothetical future heartache >_< To all the folks planning to vote yes on 8 because they want to protect your kids: you can't prevent your kids from being gay. All you can do is prevent them from being happy.

Yeah. That's what we said. Most of the kids there will probably be gay and therefore rejected by their parents that "love" them.

Gah... it's so stupid.

I'm actually in California... and Southern California at that! I couldn't believe I was seeing the signs here.

Yeah, the inland empire is what they call the area around San Bernadino, just east of LA and Orange Counties, and it's traditionally super conservative. Then LA is a bit more liberal, and folks like us up in the Bay are all loopy leftists ^_^ Go go California diversity, I guess.

And yeah, you have to wonder how different people's voting habits would be if they actually knew/were related to a homosexual and attempted to get to know them as a person instead of cutting them out because of something as arbitrary as sexual orientation.

Haha, SoCal is generally more liberal from what I've gathered... You go up a little into the Central Valley and you get the conservatives. I would say that NorCal is much more liberal than down here though, that's for sure. You hippies X3 J/k

I dunno. My point is that it shouldn't matter at all. There's no reason what-so-ever to say someone can't get married because it's a same sex marriage. Now, I don't really like how marriage works now anyhow... but that doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't have rights to it. It just doesn't make sense XD Everyone's a person, aren't they?
Seems like the new "minority" to pick on is the gay/lesbian groups. Which is says to me, we haven't moved on from anything. Cos we're still segregating. Whether it's a certain race, a certain life or a certain orientation, even gender... it's all the same sort of persecution that we supposedly pride ourselves in moving past, when in reality we just find something else to hate instead.

Yeah, you have to wonder how someone can look back to the interracial marriage issue and not see the direct correlation to same-sex marriage today. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, it has to be pretty obvious by now that it's going to happen.

*nod-nod* It's in the same boat there. And hopefully, people will just get used to it. They don't have to like it, but don't act like it's the end of the world for a same-sex couple to be married.

Yeah, seriously. I was just at a gay wedding, and it's not like it turned me... OH @$&%!!

Hehehe

america needs to get with the times :c

MAKE IT SO.

GOD DAMN HOMOS
RUINING THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
EVEN THOUGH THE MAJORITY OF THEM DONT LAST
and california still hasnt been engulfed in a black hole since allowing them
and yeah

HOMOS

this is not about your topic but can you tell me how you get those sweet textures on the background ? are they from photos ?

Haha, it's my latest texture boyfriend <3 It's a sort of mottled neutral patch of colors from an oil painting on canvas that I set to Overlay or Vivid Light or whatever, and it picks up the colors I put it over, but adds the awesome painty texture! Try scanning a roughly painted canvas, or just google image search for "oil painting canvas texture" or something ^_^

thanks!

though i didn't understand the boyfriend sentence : /

Support the right of people to marry textures they love! Vote vote vote!

According to my priest, Jesus loves everyone!... except gays, blacks, women, amerindians... *rambles on*

Yeah, it's totally not my place to criticize anybody's religion, but I hope that people realize that this isn't a religious issue, but one of basic human rights and equality.

Barring that, I hope they'll at least look at the few scant mentions of homosexuality in the Bible and weigh that against the huge number of passages about loving one's neighbor, doing to others as you'd want done to you, etc. Let's stay focused on the big picture here, folks.

They should amend it to the opposite, "Marriage may be anyone who loves each other, regardless of sex," so that they can't keep trying to ban gay rights.

Well, hopefully if we beat Prop 8, it will at least be a while until they can get it back on the ballot, and by then even more same-sex marriages will have happened, and people will see for themselves that it isn't a big deal at all, except to the people getting married, to whom it means the world.

my mom voted no ! why cant they just leave gay ppl alone

Your mom is a classy lady! And hopefully, with support from enough people like her, folks will just leave gay people alone. Or even better, marry them!

lol! nice pic though much better than my journal on prop 8

There is no negotiation with this matter, banning gay marriage is just disgusting

I'm always happy to discuss things with folks, and I would love if everyone could get every question and concern answered thoroughly and with accurate information. Unfortunately, this is kind of a time-constrained thing, so I guess I'd say vote no now and ask questions later ^_^ Haha, does that make me a fascist?

nope, there are opinions but there is also right and wrong!
there is absolutely 0 wrong with gays or gay marriage, it's just impossible for it to be wrong, there is not one reason in existence that gay marriage is wrong ^^

so it is complete justice that we should defend what is right :)

I am kinda still in disbelief that there are so many people in the country and even in the world view gay and lesbian as low class and inferior and filthy and unethical. Even when we advance into age of information and acceptance, many are still revolting against the revolutionary and cultural change.

I always believe that marriage and love should be broadly defined as Union and Bond and Ties and Affection Between Two Legally Aged Beings.

Emphasize on BEING, as in two individuals together regardless of race, matured age, religion, and even gender. The essence and soul of each and every person are infinitely and undisputedly equal and should have every rights to legally marry with the person they love regardless of race, age, religion, and gender. To simply put a ban on same sex marriage just for protection of social standing on marriage and family is downright ridiculous and stereotypical and discriminating, which will put this country back a few decade and keep our society trap in cultural wars. Like the theme of election campaign we are recently experiencing, we need to unify and bring people together rather than diversify. To divide create more problem between Homosexuals and other groups rather than reconcile together and settle conflict.

definitely a NO on Prop 8 is the way to go for California and this nation.


sorry for my long rant ^^;;

I definitely share your opinion that all the divisiveness and polemic campaigning that has polarized the country into two sides that absolutely hate and fear each other is a terribly sad and destructive thing. As long as we're sharing the same space, liberals and conservatives need to learn to speak openly with one another, and to work together to accomplish the huge list of difficult tasks ahead of us.

I also agree that depriving a minority of their right to marry is deplorable. It's interracial marriage all over again, except this time, they don't even want to marry into the majority -- they want to marry among themselves! It's wholly self-contained and holds absolutely no effect for heterosexuals.

And no worries -- I've been doing a fair bit of ranting here myself ^_^

heh, guess I am not the only one who think the same here ^_^

hopefully there will be a landslide for NO on Nov. 4

good luck, California

Wow, nice work and show of support. Let's hope this doesn't get passed. If same-sex marriage is banned in CA, then there sure as hell isn't any hope here in VA, heh..

Yeah, this is going to set a pretty powerful precendent, either way. Let's hope we can mobilize enough voters to ensure that it's a precedent of tolerance and equality. If gay marriage stands in California, it'll mean the rest of the nation is one step closer as well.

On a personal level I'm against gay maariage. I love my BF more than enough to go through with it if he wanted, but I just don't see the point. If you love someone... Stay with them. Marriage is more a protection for the children and, unless adoption or a previous partner are involved, that doesn't happen.

HOWEVER... I do think it should be allowed for those who feel the need (be they 'hopeless' romantics or that insecure) and the thought of a political body fighting to remove a right that the gay community fought so long and hard to gain seems ridiculous. All this is likely to do is FAIL to have it removed and then have a few gay parades spring up WHICH WILL PISS OFF THOSE WHO WANTED IT GONE and cause them to find some other way to try and victimise gays.

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone (well, I suppose it hurts those who hate gays SO MUCH that ruining our lives is their own hollow little life goal) so it's pointless to vote it out. Hopefully not too many of the Californians are that blinded by hate or stupidity ;)

I think that marriage should be a choice that's available to everyone, should they choose it. Like you say, some people won't choose to exercise that right because marriage isn't what they want for themselves and their relationship, and that's totally cool. But to eliminate the right to marry for those who do want it would be a very sad thing.

And speaking of sad things, the most recent poll I've seen shows declared intended voter response at about 48% YES, 45% NO, 7% Undecided, with a margin of error of +/-4%, meaning that it's statistically impossible to call the result. It's pretty much a dead heat going into the election, so every little bit of help counts.

This thing could easily pass -- call, write, fax, whatever anyone you know in California and ask them to vote NO come Nov. 4th!

As an FYI for both of you, the matter of banning gay marriage in California came to vote in recent history and was passed (later overturned by California Supreme Court).

I'm well aware of Proposition 22 from back in 2000. Was that purely a fact that you wanted to point out, or was there some suggestion to it (ie, that the judges should or shouldn't have overturned it, or that we should all base our votes on the decisions people made in 2000, or that if it passes we just have to wait another 8 years again, or...?).

I don't want to assume you meant anything more or less than what you specifically said, but your comment has left me scratching my head a little. Would you care to clarify your stance?

I was pointing it out as a basis to what our voting base "feels" (ie. this vote is up in the air, who the hell knows what'll happen after the dust settles).

And thanks for lookin' that up. I was Googling our California history, but couldn't find the old prop. from before. I did get a plethora of gay wedding pics though (hey, some were cute!).

Dude, gay weddings are totally adorable.

And yeah, it was Prop 22, also called the Knight Initiative.

I would hope that we, as a state and as a culture, have come a good distance over the span of 8 years. We've seen a lot more mainstream visibility of homosexuals, and I think a more generally tolerant culture has begun to arise. We can only hope it'll be enough.

Well, hope and VOTE A LOT.

Heh, I'm questioning vote for my dad (deceased 1992, RIP). Even though we sent the state his death certificate, they keep mailing us his ballot. This is going to be a close enough election that every vote counts.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, but I say go for it <3

Oh, and on a personal note, I feel our voting base is either retarded or insane. Every time one of these "racial/gender/sex" issues comes up, we %*@#ing pass them, and our Supreme Court has to beat the sh*t outta them.

Prop 187? Deny undocumented immigrants health care (and other state services)? PASS.
Prop 22? Ban gay marriage from the state? PASS.
Did I miss anything?

As liberal as people say California is, our voters sure as hell don't realize it.

I think when people think of crazy liberal California, they're thinking of northern California. We're reeeally blue up here. But areas like the central valley and the inland empire are very conservative and quite religious. More metropolitan areas of SoCal like LA and Orange County are fairly conservative, but with a few more liberals mixed in.

I'm clearly No-on-8, but I really find this proposition facinating. Listening to radio or watching our TV, you're guaranteed to see something about Prop. 8 in *every* advertising blurb. Why are so many focus groups so damn interested about what's in my pants and what I do with it?

Pervs.

Yeah, it's an issue that a lot of folks who I would assume have no direct stake in it (aka straight folk)seem to think of as a big personal crusade. Exactly how gay people being able to marry other gay people is going to affect their marriage or their family or their children is utterly beyond me. It's like they're taught that homosexuality is "bad" as a kid, and they just maintain that twitch reflex to vote no on gay rights for the rest of their lives without ever stopping to think what effects that has on the lives of the gay people in question.

Yay for being No on 8, tho ^_^

Feelings about the proposition aside, awesome work on the image. love the clothing, and excellent shading, too :)

Thanks ^_^

This kinda makes me want to become a California resident just so I could vote no on this. Its very sad to know that people are trying to nullify the legal marriages that have already taken place there since they legalized it. *Sighs* But, sadly to say I am a Wyoming resident and can't place my say in the matter.

Yeah, it's a pretty bad scene. But even if you can't vote here, you can help spread the word! Draw or post a journal entry or call/write friends in CA or whatever you can to get the word out ^_^

Yeesh, America is so a hypocritical.

It's supposedly the "Land of the free" and a "Free Country" yet there's things like this that tell people "NO, you can't do that!" when it's something as small as same-sex marriage? How is same-sex marriage going to affect the country? I don't see anything that it could possibly do to harm the country.

I agree that same-sex marriage poses no threat to the country. Unfortunately, it hasn't been allowed here for very long, so there isn't much concrete data to take to people on the other side of the fence and say SEE?!, and ballot measures like this one are trying to ensure that that never happens.

its really funny, that they are trying to pass a law prop that in itself goes against the country's foundation>_>

Well, don't forget that the nature of the country's foundation has been completely bastardized by now. When a group of people fled England to avoid religious persecution, and when later a group of humanist Deists drafted our Constitution, things like a separation of Church and State listed high among their priorities.

To listen to conservatives talk today, America is a Christian nation, founded by devout Christians. It's completely false 9_9

indeed, funny thing though, christianity was not their primary religion at the time, as i recall it was still catholicism O-o

either way they claim we're not ruled by religion but its the exact opposite...government cannot exist without a religion backing it>_>

tis the foundation for government sadly....kinda why i go anarchist lol

My husband and I got married this August on our ten year anniversary. We had several straight married friends and family at our reception and all of their marriages are still going strong. They didn't require any protection from us.

I put up my own protest image http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1644117/

And my husband put up a protest picture at http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1654110/

As for arguments in favor of Prop 8 I have yet to hear a single rational one.

The big arguments in favor of Prop 8 are to protect the children from learning about gays. "Why, if it doesn't pass I'll have to explain to my child that two people of the same-sex can love each other!" DUN DUN DUNNNN!

How horrid, your children will be exposed to people that exist in our society. Gays exist, I know that's a radical idea but we do, sorry. Whether or not we can be married we will still exist and your child will still hear about us. Trying to hide the existence of gays from your children is like trying to hide the existence of Jewish people, you may be able to succeed for a little while but sooner or later they're going to turn on the TV or make a friend with a different family.

Denying people of basic human rights because you don't want to talk to your kids does not sound like any kind of family values I'd want to be a part of.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Congratulations to you and your husband, and I thank you both for your support with this <3

Thanks and thank you for getting the message out.

I hope that no one would attack anyone here. So far, everyone has been quite reasonable and calm in the discussion -- I've been very impressed. There have been folks with differing views, and the discussion has remained rational and respectful.

That said, I have no idea what your views are, and I can only guarantee that I, personally, would respond to anything you wrote with calm discussion. I can't speak for anyone else here ^_^

It's an open forum, but being that the entire thrust of this thread is support for the NO on 8 movement, it would be understandable to refrain from voicing a yes on 8 viewpoint, because it probably will lead to a shouting match with at least someone here.

Good luck down there, you guys ^_^

http://roflrazzi.com/2008/10/14/ell.....peak/#comments

What I wouldn't give to be able to move to California before the elections and vote "No."

You can, at least, help us spread the word. If you don't know anyone in California personally, make a post here and help reach the folks who do!

in with those textures!

Then why don't you marry them?????

Hehe, sorry ^_^

XD ok..I will!!!

That's prop 2 here in Florida, I already voted and voted no on it. They're trying to write intentional discrimination into the constitution. I have a hard time grasping how some people can be in favor of it, there's no good excuse anyone can come up with. There's bigger issues at stake then if gay couples get married. If the lesbians down the street get hitched, how will that effect the straight couples and their family's on the street? It won't, and I don't like hearing a religious tone put over it....you may go to the church to get married, but where the hell do you go to get divorced? The courthouse! I think some people have the idea if you ban gay marriage, gay people will just "go away" . Well, I'm done XD Nice work on this! Fav'd Vote no on 8 in CA no on 2 in FL.

And no on 108 in Arizona as well!

Yeah, I've kind of given up trying to understand the reasons behind it, because I think the real reason, on some level, is always "I hate fags," and that's just a depressing thought. Here's hoping that the people of our respective states manage to see past themselves and do what's right next Tuesday.

Well now, that's an issue that should be shot down if I ever saw one. I certainly hope you win this battle.

That's much more important than Ohio's Issue 8. I wish I knew what it was; we have commercials telling us to vote against it, but it's not actually on the ballot!

Haha, what? A ballot initiative that missed the ballot?

And anyway, thanks for the support -- help spread the word!

:O vote yes on Prop 2 too! Animal cruelty!

There are a lot of worthwhile measures on the ballot this year.

And then we have a local proposition here to rename our sewage treatment facility the George W. Bush plant, haha. Funny, but real mature, guys.

where do you live? Im in SF :O

SF ^_^

Whuttt :> We should totally chill sometime, doood :X!!

Haha, I'm such a workaholic hermit here >_< But I've got a panel at FC, so I'll be around there, if not before.

Uh huh, that sucks man, gotta go to London during FC but thanks.

D'oh! Well, London should be fun anyway, right?

Great picture and good support of the "No on Prop 8".

Seriously, the advertising in favor of Prop 8 is some of the most bigoted and context-dropping stuff I have seen.

The whole anti-same-sex marriage campaign has been almost entirely context-free from the start. It's amazing how effective it can be to shout, "BE AFRAID" and make vague implications without ever explaining, "...of what?"

Thanks likewise for the support, and spread the word <3

Prop 8 is something I'll be watching closely tonight....I've already voted, and this horrible initiative strikes close to my heart. Being in a gay relationship that is leading towards marriage. So let's hope this fails miserably tonight!

I've already donated 3 times, and I've spread the word as much as I can, this will be defeated!

Likewise, I'll definitely be keeping a close watch with everything crossable crossed.

Good on you for donating your time and money for a just cause -- hopefully all of our sacrifices will pay off with interest tonight <3

holler at it, I just gave a dood holding a 'no on 8' sign a thumbs up!

Haha, yeah, I was just out buyin' booze, and there are No on 8 people on like every street corner ^_^ I was waving and thumbs-upping like crazy, it was rad <3

I love my neighborhood.

hoorah for equality at my college and everywhere!

I'm normally a lurker, but I just have to say, for those who think this is a religious issue, it is, but not in the way you've been told
If Prop 8 passes, it takes away the rights of Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, and dozens of other religions from ordaining homosexual unions.

All this crap about churches being forced to make homosexual unions is complete nonsense.
If it fails, nothing changes. The government isn't allowed to interfere with the practices of churches; it's right in the California constitution, next to the equal protection clause and that caused the overturn of prop 20 in the first place.
But if Prop 8 passes, those religions I mention LOSE their rights as churches to freely unite the couples they wish to.

There are tens of thousands of married homosexual couples in California, many of them with families, and those families will be hurt by Prop 8. There is a very real possibility that they'll be stripped of their marriages.

The " four activist judges" who "went against the will of the people?" That's what they're there for. America, and California, are not democracies. They're constitutional republics with systems of checks and balances. The supreme court is there to make sure that minorities, like homosexuals, aren't oppressed by hateful majorities. The tyranny of the majority has been written about extensively, and this is exactly what it's talking about.

The FAILURE of prop 8 protects religions.
The FAILURE of prop 8 protects families.
The FAILURE of prop 8 maintains the sanctity of the constitution of California.

If it passes, which, God help me, it looks like it's going to right now, it's because a small handful of people who hate gay people have manufactured lies and bred a culture of fear and hatred through tens of millions of dollars in out of state funding, and lied to voters to get them to take away the rights of an oppressed minority. California will become the first state in the union to amend its constitution to take away rights, and it will set a dangerous precedent for a simple majority of voters to change the state however they please and hurt people.

53% to 47% Yes with 25% in.
Don't to this to me, California.

Thank you for the post. Needless to say, I'm in total agreement.

At 53.1% in favor and 46.9% against with 56.7% of precincts at least partially reporting, I'm afraid it looks like these may well be the figures we're going to wind up with. I'll keep hope alive until the last vote is counted, but a part of me has already moved on to internally consoling myself with the knowledge that Prop 22 passed with a 62% majority in 2000, and now Prop 8 is only on track to pass with 53%. If this trend holds, 2016 will see a 54% majority in favor of same-sex marriage, and hopefully an end to the unjust laws that stand in its way.

That's exactly the way to look at it. We've already seen history made tonight. We've seen progress. But progress comes one step at a time, not in leaps and bounds - and we don't want to completely turn the nation upside-down, else those with feeble minds may have their heads explode It'll happen eventually, you'll see.

I would be lying if I said I didn't want progress to come in leaps and bounds, or for a nation that would strip the human rights of its citizens unfairly to be turned upside-down, or (dare I say it) for the bigots to have their heads explode just a bit.

I hear you, though, and you're absolutely right that it's only a matter of time. I'll still have to mourn this particular instance of intolerance being voted into our constitution, but I'm neither down, nor out.

Well, okay -- I am out, but I'm sure as hell not down <3

W.T.F! seriously! a straight right wing Christian can be more liberal than half of California! Seriously! What the fu**! that defys all logic! I am from TEXAS! how the hell did this pass?

I guess the answer is, "very, very narrowly." Comparing the margin this time around with Prop 22 from 2000, it paints a very optimistic picture for the near future. We're right on the precipice, and the religious right has to know its time is coming fast.

Wow, everything about this feels so odd now. Like more odd than replying to my own post. the only true statement that remains is that i am still from Texas and still hate the fact H8 passed and then even the latter part of that statement is changed in many ways in that H8 is now more or less dead.

Oh well... we do have a black president.... gues that is something for civil rights even if i wouldn't vote for him. Ron Paul in 12!

Wow that sound strange... in 12.... in Twelve? in one two. nope in twelve is slightly less awkward. /end rant and babble

In addition to being a personal example of the triumphs of the American civil rights movement so far, he's a progressive, liberal, fair-minded, rational, secular humanist. I'd say we did preeeetty well this year <3

well nuts to rights, huh?

We'll get 'em ^_^

I know. I just don't understand why it's an issue.
The argument is "well if we allow them, we'll have to allow pedophilia and bestiality etc etc"
They also forget that homosexuals are two CONSENTING adults, don't throw rice in YOUR face when you get married...it's not like it's much to ask, ya know?
Fuckin' A. I am just so upset with humanity. I mean we got a bloack pres and all but an interesting stat-75% of black voters were for prop 8. Like...
WUT?! I mean, it's totally bass ackwards fucked up.
I mean. AGH!
I know one day rights for everyone equally will persevere. I am just so disillusioned at the moment.

Yeah, I hear you, man. I'm just going day by day, trying to channel my frustrations and anger into something constructive. It's going to take a while to stop being upset, but hopefully afterwards I'll be able to look back and say, "Well, at least I went and did X about it."

Hopefully you'll find some ways to work off all the totally legitimate anger and frustration there, too. Try to use that energy for progress ^_^

Maaan, I really wanna do that now. Camp out some wedding in San Francisco pelt rice in the faces of hetereosexual couples.

"If it's not good enough for us, it's not good enough for you!"

But that would probably only make the situation worse.

well...inevitably the pigeons would explode onto the happy married couple.
No no...
here's what we do
...righ Like..
we get all this fucking rice, see and feed it to pigeons and later stuff them into the happy couples car with enough time for pigeon detonation.
THAT'LL SHOW EM!
o.o;

I have no idea how things are going on Cali, but if I was american I would vote against 8. Everyone should be allowed to marry (except Dalai Lama)

The ban did pass, by a very narrow margin, but action is already underway to have it repealed. Hopefully it won't stand on the books for long ^_^

Hopefully the bigots will have their asses kicked in the end :)

If at least I had wings like my fursona...

Eh, I'm confident it'll all work out in the end.

It was legal in California from July to November of 2008, yes. Proposition 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) passed in November, and same-sex weddings have stopped there. There have been multiple lawsuits filed to overturn it and make same-sex marriage legal again, but that has not happened yet.

As long as we don't support whom?

Just so we're clear, I voted to keep same-sex marriage legal. I think any two adults who love each other should be treated equally by the law and by their community, and that means gay, straight, bi, or whatever.

In places like Canada, or areas of Europe where same-sex marriage has been legal for a few years now, absolutely nothing bad has happened as a result. Very, very little has changed at all, except that now thousands of gay people are living happily married lives.

i only wish i could help
(if only i had duel citizen ship like i was soposed to have for years ..but im a canadian so theirs not much i can do from here )

i don't think it should mater what sex you like, love is love and nobody can stop that

the pictures for this was obviously not done last night so what was the result of the vote and the situation now ...

Unfortunately, the proposition passed, and same-sex marriage is not currently allowed in California. There's a lawsuit underway to overturn that, and I'm sure new efforts will continue to arise until same-sex marriage is allowed. It will be a done deal within the next five years or so, to be sure, but it's sad that this particular opportunity for Californians to gather together to show support for equality ended in defeat.

Or this either. I remember voting, and then there was a demonstration in Silverlake, and these showed up in my feed. Why didn't I fav this? Sorry to be creepy, and commenting 4 years later, but these posts meant a lot then, and still are huge now.

Haha, it's cool, dude. Ain't no time limit on this business <3

Prop 8 and DOMA are DEAD! Fuck yeah America!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest.....e-sex-marriage

Damn straight! I'm getting married to like seven dudes today.