Are there any current residents of California (or those who could be residents of California) who are currently not registered to vote?

If so, can I help you?

The biggest problem I had that kept me from registering was my laziness. At this point, that's no longer an excuse. As I'm sure all of you know, California has a ballot measure in the upcoming election in November to ban gay marriage. If this ban succeeds, it will set the progress of the United States back (in my opinion) by an incredible amount of time.

We need all of the help we can get. We need every single vote. The organizations that "defend the family" have an incredible amount of support: Fear is an INCREDIBLE motivator.

Let's get our act together. Let's show them that love surpasses fear, and let's defeat this ballot.

If anyone needs ANY help on registering for the vote you can check out the link below, or you can PM me directly. I will happily and without complaint walk you through the process of registration. I don't know of a single time in history that a restrictive, non-progressive mentality led to the betterment of society. Help us keep moving forward. Register to vote. Vote against the ban.

I'll post as much info as I can as we get closer to the election, though by that time I'm sure you all will be inundated.

Link with information on CA registration: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm

Edit: I forgot to say, chances are even if you're not a CA resident, you know someone who is. Spread the word! Talking to someone about it, convincing them to register if they aren't, will go a very long way.

My accounting firm is also recommending to all of you who make charitable contributions. Perhaps you're relying on the itemized deductions to reduce your taxes, but we implore our clients, and I implore you: Give to the HRC, or Equality California. You won't get a tax deduction for it, but I think it will go a long way to making a better world.

Equality California's accepting donations to fight the initiative: https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/sd/don...JhIVJaPOIhI4IsJ

Edit2: I have yet to find a forum signature/banner that I can use to link people to information. If any of you know of, or have one, please share! I'll immediately put it in.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Everyone should have to vote.

I'll be voting for us, Myndy.

I am weary of this measure coming up. On the one hand, I am a Catholic, and the church makes valid points, from a biblical point of view that such a measure should be passed.

On the other hand, I am also very much a patriot of this country, I serve the country through law enforcement, and what that means is that I have made it my duty in life to champion the causes of those I do not agree in because they have to be championed.

I believe the court ruling in May was a mistake, the Justices were right to call the 'legal union' between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples the same name, but I think it would of been a legally more sound decision to call all 'government' marriage civil unions. As far as the forms are concerned, it does not really matter what it is called, as long as it is the same thing for both types of couples.

I have to say though, I will probably abstain on that measure when I vote. I do not agree either side is handling this issue responsibly or intelligently, to many of the 'Gay Pride' groups (Note: I do not refer to all members of the gay community here, I am referring specifically to the outer most extreme vocal fringe.)
have made hard for me to have any sympathy for them, which sadly does extend to the members of the community who actual want to emphasize that they are the same, not that they are drastically different.

But the current politics of this society reward the extremes, and in doing so punish the moderates, which creates the problems we have overseas, in this country and so on and so forth.

In the end, marriage as a whole needs to be considered in the context of modern romance, child rearing, and economics. The push to call it 'marriage' for everyone is destroying any chance of this needed reform. It is also masking far more important issues, such as the rising crime rates, the highly unsustainable influx of immigrants, and the vanishing economy via the engine of the soon to be for the rich oil prices.

I am not belittling the issue, and I think both sides of the argument are completely wrong in the approach to the issue, and the middle ground is ignored. Welcome to the United States, where actors influence politics, and Congress takes days off to watch football games that air after office hours. To bad the troops, law enforcement, and countless other Americans who risk there life to actually protect this country can't blow off work like that.

I don't know how I missed this... Did you ninja it in??

I don't agree with anyone who is against this for religious reasons. It's as if you're saying that I can not be married because I do not practice a religion. Anyone want to start a religion for gays? Perhaps then we could get equal treatment.

As far as granting "civil union" status to everyone (including same-sex individuals), and reserving marriage (as one man and one woman) for the church... This theoretically is fine by me... But let's be realistic. Do you (non-specific) think that the nation will change its designation from 'marriage' to 'civil union' any time soon, practically speaking? I don't... So until then, I still believe that it's right for same-sex couples to be granted marriage.

I also believe that the fact that it's "masking far more important issues" is irrelevant. Whether or not same-sex couples will be able to be married is coming on the ballet in just under 2 months, whether or not these other concededly important issues are resolved or even addressed. Abstaining from the vote will not make these measures more noticeable.
If, however, you were going to vote in favor of the ban, by all means, abstain. :X


Now for the reason I wanted to necro this thread

With the elections coming shortly, has anyone of the age to vote, not yet registered? Absentees, have you requested absentee ballots?

If anyone has any question or needs any information regarding voting, please ask them here and I'm sure, as a collective, they'll be answered.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

(PS. If you haven't yet donated funds to Barack Obama or No On 8, please do so! Every single bit helps. www.barackobama.com and www.noonprop8.com)

This is incredible..

You know, I never knew, are you part of our big gay family too?

I claim religious persecution! ASYLUM!

Feel free to disagree if you like, however, it is not at all saying that you can't be married because you don't practice a religion. I'm not even sure why you think that is what it is saying at all.

What it is saying, is that they believe that the teachings taught by their religion are correct. And it would be bad to go against them.

Why is that so complicated?

The problem is that "they" are holding government by the ballsack, separation of church and state be damned. You are correct in saying that it has nothing to do with the religion being practiced. There's no trouble getting a marriage ceremony held by a UU minister. The government may or may not acknowledge it.

So, you might say, who cares if the government acknowledges it? You can have a ceremony, you can call yourselves married, you can live together, right? This is also true, but the law is caught up in marriage. The law guarantees rights to married couples. If your spouse gets sick, the law guarantees your right to take 480 hours (12 whole weeks!) off each year to care for her. The law guarantees that if you die without a will, your spouse will get the bulk of what was yours. Married couples can jointly hold property without legal documentation. Married couples have a process for separation. Married couples can adopt children with fewer restrictions. All of these are not religious issues. As such, for fair treatment under the law, there are two options: recognize gay marriage or split benefits from marital status. One is a whole lot easier than the other.

"they" are doing no such thing. "they" are, like the million of americans before them, and the millions other Americans around them, they are allowing thier faith to influence their political views. Only Judges and Lawyers and congressmen are supposed to have such dual personalitis (that they can seperate thier own personal beliefs from those of the law), voters are not, nor should the be expected to.

Just as people who have the faith that marriage is a right and a civil liberty are voting based on those beliefs.

When you vote against giving Americans equal rights, you vote in favor of bigotry. That should be easy to understand. Marriage isn't just marriage. Marriage is a status with benefits conferred by the law. If your religious beliefs lead you to believe that gays should have lesser rights to government protection and services, you are a bigot. I'm sorry, Daganev, but there is no way around that.

Blah blah blah, name it Civil Unions and give it the full rights of "marriage" under anything regarding legality. You're never going to get it passed as "marriage" because "marriage" is an invention of the Church, and any time you use the word you will incite rampant religious fervor. I don't even think people who hate same-sex couples care if people get the legal rights, but the second you say "marriage" you are just kicking a beehive.

But in that case than nothing recognized by the state should be called marriage. Marriage should be a term reserved solely for religious usage and civil unions can be the "official" name for anything not sanctioned by your particular flavor of religion. Not that this will ever happen but just calling them "civil unions" while heterosexual couples are recognized by the state with a different name is just a case of seperate but equal. And we all know seperate but equal does not work and is not equal.

All or nothing in this case will net you nothing. If same-sex couples are looking for a moral victory around the word marriage that's not going to happen unless the religious majority in the country sinks into the ocean. If same-sex couples are actually looking for the legal/tax/whatever rights afforded to those who fall under the legal term "marriage", then taking the name Civil Union along with all the benefits of "marriage" is win. I'm by no means religious but I still recognize that marriage is a religious institution adopted by state for the sake of convenience. It's easy to see that continuing the "marriage" line is just going to end in fist shaking and adamant denial, if the real issue at hand is the legal rights afforded, why does it matter?

I think the real issue is that there's a push for a moral victory against standardized Christianity and that always goes really well in this country. Idealists can always thump the podium and say "separation of church and state", but the same people who wrote that said "one nation, under God" not ten minutes before signing it.

To clear up my stance on the issue, I believe same-sex couples should have every single right/taxbreak/legality-concern what-have-you that married couples do. I also happen to feel that it's "not just about the rights", which is their current issue with procuring said rights.

If you're talking about the pledge of allegiance, the 'one nation, under God' wasn't added till 1954.

I don't disagree with you. Marriage is far harder to push through than civil unions. That doesn't mean it's "right" and apparently right now activists are more concerned with going for what is right rather than what is easy. I imagine some compromise will be reached the same as was reached with civil rights for african americans and then eventually the country will be ready to do the right thing again. Eventually.

Blame Dumbledore!

Seriously though, isn't that how it should be?

It should be but it's not always practical or necessarily even in the short term best interests of the represented group. In this case there are very real issues that need fixing now (i.e. the classic scenario of a partner not being able to visit in the hospital or inherit without convoluted legal processes taken for granted by heterosexual couples). So its questionable if this is the best course, though obviously it's the most "noble" course.

We won't even mention that there's a fight going on for marriage when people can still get fired just for being gay.

Right, and anyone who disagrees with me is antisemitic. :roll:


I'm all for giving Americans equal rights... on issues that are rights.


Personally, I'd rather the government not be involved with marriage at all. But of course, if we did that, the gay lobbyists would be just as upset. They don't want legal acceptance, they want social acceptance, and they are searching for that social acceptance via the state sponsorship of the government.

If people really wanted a separation of church and state, they would be looking at the whole institution of Marriage and asking why we are involved with it at all. But of course, nobody really wants to have that conversation either. People would rather start a civil war than actually discuss the real issue.

Actually I do think they most likely want legal acceptance. :/