So what do Ca gays do now?

[_antishock8]

http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyle ... 2Y20081113

Malaysia frowns on oral and gay sex, describing them as against the order of nature. Under civil law, offenders -- male and female -- can be jailed for up to 20 years, caned or fined.

As well as women in trousers, the Fatwa Council is considering barring Muslims from practicing yoga.

Just over half of Malaysia's 27 million people are Malay Muslims, practicing the moderate form of Islam.

Well, crap. Maybe The Gays in California don't have it that bad? In contrast with Malaysia, where they can be jailed for being Gay, maybe they should just accept the will of the people?

The only other course I would imagine is to sue the State of California for discrimination, and just take it to the Supreme Court, if possible. The only way to really resolve this issue is to have a Federal mandate one way or the other.

[_asbestosman]

California gays should work on convincing blacks that homosexuality is inborn, sort of like African American identity. Most whites and hispanics already agree with this view, corresponding with a larger proportion of "NoOn8" votes from them. But African Americans tend to think homosexuality is a choice, and they probably don't accept the comparison to their own civil rights struggle.

That may very well be the winning strategy, but it shouldn't have to depend on whether or not homosexuality is inborn. Religion isn't inborn. I wonder how prop 8 supporters would feel if only Scientology was recognized as a religion.

The only way to really resolve this issue is to have a Federal mandate one way or the other.

And what if that mandate is the other way? Would it really resolve the issue, or would it just make things worse?

[Guest]

The simple, albeit time consuming solution is to wait for some of the older voters to die and for a few younger people to come of voting age then try again. 2010...'til victory. Support for gay rights increases as age decreases and this is a socio-cultural trend that isn't going to go away. Past prejudices are dying as those that hold them do. Views hostile to homosexuals and their rights are becoming increasingly shameful. It's almost bizarre to think of the kind of assertions about gays and their legal rights that could be said in open public with little shame even 15 years ago. Fortunately, now people like Orson Scott Card are increasingly reduced into the world's crazy uncles we all feel embarrassed for, much like I felt when my older relatives insisted that blacks could not succeed in the NFL as quarterbacks because they lack the mental requisites.

Making the LDS Church's name synonymous with bigotry good and decent people must fight wouldn't hurt either, and that appears to be gaining traction.

The current legal challenges to the validity of prop 8 make a great deal of sense, but for longterm success it's almost better if they fail. Of course, for the integrity of the law I hope they succeed or fail on the merits, but a popular vote victory will have more important ramifications.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Making the LDS Church's name synonymous with bigotry good and decent people must fight wouldn't hurt either, and that appears to be gaining traction.

This has been a PR disaster for the Church. Because of the priesthood ban up until 30 years ago, the Church is still seen by many as racist. Add homophobic to the list now, which will continue for a very long time even after the Church stops fighting gay rights and marriage.

[_Mister Scratch]

Making the LDS Church's name synonymous with bigotry good and decent people must fight wouldn't hurt either, and that appears to be gaining traction.

This has been a PR disaster for the Church. Because of the priesthood ban up until 30 years ago, the Church is still seen by many as racist. Add homophobic to the list now, which will continue for a very long time even after the Church stops fighting gay rights and marriage.

I agree. The other anti-gay-marriage factions, such as the EVs and the Knights of Columbus, were clearly just using the LDS Church to suit their own ends. When the time comes, these other organizations will happily toss the Church under the bus.

Further, there is a great deal of sympathy for gay rights in the "liberal" media and Hollywood. I think we can expect to see the Church's image continue to wither in these venues.

[_The Dude]

California gays should work on convincing blacks that homosexuality is inborn, sort of like African American identity. Most whites and hispanics already agree with this view, corresponding with a larger proportion of "NoOn8" votes from them. But African Americans tend to think homosexuality is a choice, and they probably don't accept the comparison to their own civil rights struggle.

That may very well be the winning strategy, but it shouldn't have to depend on whether or not homosexuality is inborn. Religion isn't inborn. I wonder how prop 8 supporters would feel if only Scientology was recognized as a religion.

I know. I'm not saying you can logically derive an ought (gay marriage) from an is (homosexuality is inborn). I'm just pointing out that there is a conceptual connection in peoples' minds and educating the black population would very likely convert them to the gay rights cause.

[_Jason Bourne]

This has been a PR disaster for the Church. Because of the priesthood ban up until 30 years ago, the Church is still seen by many as racist. Add homophobic to the list now, which will continue for a very long time even after the Church stops fighting gay rights and marriage.

Not really. Only for those who despise it already. FOr others it is a positive thing. What is the PR disaster is what the religophobes are doing now to the LDS and other churches.

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree. The other anti-gay-marriage factions, such as the EVs and the Knights of Columbus, were clearly just using the LDS Church to suit their own ends. When the time comes, these other organizations will happily toss the Church under the bus.

With this I agree. The EV right wing types only like the LDS Church when we pony up money to help with things like this. Other than that they are our enemy. THe Romney campaign revlealed that. One of many reasons why I abandon the republican party this year.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This has been a PR disaster for the Church. Because of the priesthood ban up until 30 years ago, the Church is still seen by many as racist. Add homophobic to the list now, which will continue for a very long time even after the Church stops fighting gay rights and marriage.

Not really. Only for those who despise it already.

I disagree. Regardless of how one feels about Prop. 8, many were put off by the fact Mormons make up such a small part of the state's population (2%) but donated the vast majority of money and other resources to the Yes on 8 campaign. Without the Mormons, there is no Prop. 8. Plus, the heavy involvement of Church leadership (unprecedented since the ERA) heightens the concern.

What is the PR disaster is what the religophobes are doing now to the LDS and other churches.

The Church spearheaded the battle to take away a fundamental right recognized by the CA state constitution. I don't believe this has ever occurred. The Church should have expected what's occurred and more, in my opinion.

[_Jason Bourne]

[/quote]
Not really. Only for those who despise it already.[/quote]

I disagree.

Of course you do.

Regardless of how one feels about Prop. 8, many were put off by the fact Mormons make up such a small part of the state's population (2%) but donated the vast majority of money and other resources to the Yes on 8 campaign. Without the Mormons, there is no Prop. 8. Plus, the heavy involvement of Church leadership (unprecedented since the ERA) heightens the concern.

We are talking PR. It may have helped in the eyes of many. It may have hurt in the eyes of others. Overall I do not think it hurt a lot. But if it did I think the Church is willing to take the heat over it accept for bigoted and violent actions that we are now seeing.

What is the PR disaster is what the religophobes are doing now to the LDS and other churches.

The Church spearheaded the battle to take away a fundamental right recognized by the CA state constitution. I don't believe this has ever occurred.

If I recall a law was passed initially on this. Some judges then detemined the law unconstitutional for CA. A legal process was then followed to amend the constition. This had never happened before? What amending a constitution or taking away something due to the amendment? Does not matter. Both have happened. The federal constitution was amended and took away the right the drink booze. Later it gave it back. The federal constitution also was amended to add the ability to the government to levy an income tax and thus take away the right to much of your money. The constitution was amended is some cases to grant rights and clarify other things. I am not sure where you get the idea that it cannot be amended to take away something.

The Church should have expected what's occurred and more, in my opinion.

Oh really. So you are ok with the violent bigotry gays and others are showing but and slow to condemn. But the words homophobe and bigot are quick off your lips against those for prop 8 even though they were not violent and followed the law. Amazing.