When Majorities Rule

Jesus' General gives us a little history lesson.


(Photo via LA Times)

Judgement Day

Protests against bigotry are being organized across the country, scheduled for this Saturday.

Locally, there are 2 venues: Panama Shitty and Pcola.

We'll be in Pensacola because it's closer...and because Panama Shitty is a shit hole.

Liveblogging and video will be attempted...pending on alcohol comsumption before and after.

Prop 8: NEVER FORGET

The backdraft continues...as it should:

Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

..."At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

Today's Godtube Moment

A re-post, but a refresher on what Mormos believe.

Stunning.

It's A Reckoning

Condsidering the Space Jesus money poured in to the successful Cali Prop 8 agenda, it's time for retaliation:

Gay people are fed up and have learned a thing or two about mobilizing themselves -- and not just for angry rallies. Some pro-Proposition 8 folks may come to regret their not so private support of hate. And were you thinking about skiing in Utah this year? Hmmm, Colorado's looking pretty appealing these days.

Yet somehow an economic boycott doesn't feel direct enough; those who team up against gay people must learn that there are consequences.

That's why we are seeking to strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization. According to IRS law, "no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)." [Emphasis added.]

Please join our efforts and show the world that gay people -- and their friends and families -- know how to hit back. Sign this petition to support the legal effort to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status.


Again, we reiterate... SIGN THIS PETITION

It's a reckoning :

Black Community Lynches Equality

Prop 2 here in Florida was going to pass no matter what.

However, new numbers in California show that Prop 8 passed with the aide of higher black turnout:

A few people seem to be interested in whether or not the black vote was decisive.

If the following standard analysis assumptions are true the answer is probably a very close ‘no’, but at least one of the assumptions seems very possibly false and with other fairly likely assumptions the answer looks like a ‘yes’.

My assumptions are:

1. that the vote among black people was as reported (69% Yes on 8).

2. that black people make up 6.7% of the CA population

3. that black people represented a share of the votes equal to their share of the population

I further assume that 8 passes with 52% which seems the likely number at this point.

Given each 1000 voters, black people in CA represent 67 of them.

There are 520 Yes votes and 480 No votes for each 1000.

At 69%, Black voters voted 46 Yes and 21 No for each 1000.

If they voted like White voters (55% No) they would have voted 31 Yes votes and 36 No votes.

That would make the final tally 505 Yes and 495 No votes. (50.5% to 49.5%). [numbers very slightly rounded]

But this analysis is VERY sensitive to assumption #3. It appears that black people in CA may have voted in a greater share than that of their representation of the population. Right around 10% of the vote.

That would mean that given each 1000 voters black people in CA represent 100 of them.

At 69% Yes on 8 that would be 69 Yes and 31 No for each 1000. If they had voted like White voters they would have voted 45 Yes and 55 No. That would make the final vote equal 496 Yes and 504 No (proposition loses 49.6% to 50.4%).

Interestingly, at the 10% vote share level, if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss at 49.9%).

Basically, if the black voter share is 10% or higher, the black vote difference from the white vote made the difference so long as the final total is at or below 52%. And if the black voter share is any higher than 10%, it made the difference even if black voters had only split 50-50 instead of the 45-55 shown in white voters.

Bruno Crashes Prop 8 Rally

Link:

Also, Fuck The Mormons

Sully explains:

It's actually even bigger than previously understood. Yesterday, I linked to stories alleging up to 40 percent of the financing for the California proposition to strip gay couples of their right to marry was coming from LDS Church members. Now, the numbers claimed by the opponents of Proposition 8 are even higher - more like a staggering 77 percent.

Downside Of Gaymarriage

From Dan Fishback:

Thanks a lot, California!

Thanks a whole freaking lot.

via omg

Wedding Clips

Great video by SF Gate here.

Meet The People Who Are Destroying Your Marriage

Story here.

Photo via Sully

Guess Who's Getting Gaymarried?

Queen Latifah.

Now that California okayed the demise of heterosexual relationships all across the country, King Latifah can stop living in sin with her trainer/girlfriend and start really pissing Jesus off:

This is somehow a big deal since Queen Latifah is not technically out of the closet, despite the fact that America has known she's lesbian ever since she played one in that dopey heist flick Set it Off back in 1996. It's also seemingly a big deal because Latifah has endorsement deals with Cover Girl, Pizza Hut, and Jenny Craig, among others, and it's unclear how those companies would react to having an openly gay spokesperson. (Never mind that gay marriage is now legal in California.)

Those concerns happen to be completely unfounded—if any of those companies were to drop Latifiah for coming out of the closet, the backlash would quickly result in a public relations disaster of gigantic proportion. So let's just agree this isn't a big deal at all, okay? Wake us up when Lindsay is officially out.

via Radar

Snake Handlers Get Enough Sigs In CA For Marriage Band

From Monterey County Herald:

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure, known as the California Marriage Protection Act, would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

FOX On California Ruling

via BraveNewFilms

California Marriage Ban Overturned

Calfornia's Supreme Court rules:

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

Sully responds:

As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?

One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people ... for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.

Either way, brickbat congratulates California sodomists. Enjoy these last days before Hurricane Falwell lands and wipes your state off the map.