I'd like to thank "Mikes DELETED" from DELETED@yahoo.com. Mikes spammed me repeatedly with messages trying to convince me to supporting Prop 8. (Prop 8 would amend California's constitution to eliminate the right of gay couples to marry, and in doing so invalidate existing marriages.) Up until this point I'd figured I should stay out. After all, it's a California issue, and I live in Wisconsin. But Mikes's spam annoyed me and got me fired up about it. If Mikes thinks it's appropriate to spam out of state people, I think it's appropriate to meddle in Mikes's state. So congratulations, Mikes. In your attempt to get support for "Yes on Prop 8," you instead convinced me to donate to "No on Prop 8." I wish you and the rest of Yes on Prop 8 the worst of luck.

While I'm at it:

Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage, and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.

Normally I find such memes annoying and occasionally outright insulting, but this one rings true for me. It comes to me via billzilla.

On that note, that you can amend your state constitution with a simple majority vote is just one more brick in the Great Wall of Why California's Politics Are Insane.

Edit 2008-11-25: I noticed today that Mikes didn't email me entirely out of the blue. We had exchanged a few messages a few years ago about a programming question. However, he also emailed everyone in his address book, including both email addresses he had for me. There is no possible way this was a targeted message. This was unsolicited bulk email, and thus spam. However, out of respect for him as someone I had a perfectly aimable technical discussion with, I've redacted most of his name and his email address.

New rule: if you're on a talk show, talking about the California's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, and you say something to the effect, "They ignored the wishes of the 60% of Californians who voted to ban same-sex marriage in 2000," the host of the show shall be required to punch you in the face. If you think that courts should consider, even for a moment, the majority preference, you clearly have no idea what the purpose of the state Supreme Court is and should shut your pie hole.

If you argue that banning same sex marriage isn't sexist or religious, but instead the state encouraging childbearing so our population doesn't shrink, you might also need face punches administered. If you honestly believe this, you need to explain why it's legal for sterlized men and women to wed. Also, if you're really afraid that our country is about to shrink, check the numbers. We're expecting 4.3 million new births, but only 2.5 million deaths. We're not in any danger of having a shrinking population. Also, what's the point? Do you think that if same-sex marriage is banned, they'll decide to marry someone of the opposite sex and have kids?

Bleh. Too many stupid people on the radio.

By interesting coincidence, two articles which both come to the same point: to younger Americans, homosexuality is as boring and non-threatening as women voting, mixed-race marriages, rock and roll, and Dungeons & Dragons. I hope they're right.

From "Bid to Ban Gay Marriage Fails in Massachusetts" in the New York Times:

Most moving, [Massachusetts State Senator Gale Candaras] said, were older constituents who first supported the amendment, but changed after meeting with gay men and lesbians.

One woman had “asked me to put [a gay marriage ban] on the ballot for a vote, but since then a lovely couple moved in,” Ms. Candaras said. “She said, ‘They help me with my lawn, and if there can’t be marriage in Massachusetts, they’ll leave and they can’t help me with my lawn.’ ”

(Via ronin_kakuhito's blog which was pointed out to me by Eva.)

The article "The Quiet Gay Revolution" in Time doesn't have any quotes that pull out well, but it points out that the Republican party is on the wrong side of history in this matter.

This anti gay marriage amendment won't "protect marriage." Heterosexuals have been doing a great job screwing up marriage all by themselves. That two guys down the street might get married won't harm your marriage in the slightest. By any stretch of the imagination this is homophobia and sexism.

Even ignoring that, the clause prohibiting "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals" is a terrible idea. Absent that clause, I imagine the amendment would, regrettably, have been a slam dunk. But that clause will eliminate existing domestic partner benefits offered by some local governments (including the UW itself). And this isn't just about homosexuals, many people using domestic partner benefits are heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, are not married.