Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Report from California: Dialing for gay marriage
Other Things I Learned During My First Week:
If you use your own cell phone to phone bank, several people will hang up on your voicemail the next day as they try to figure out who called them and why. I just hope suspicious wives, husbands, and lovers remember that it’s election season.
If you, the callee, would like election volunteers to stop calling you, it’s worth the initial pain in the butt of picking up the phone and giving an answer or asking to be removed from the list. Screening or claiming not to be yourself and not to be in just cycles your name and number right back through for tomorrow’s shift.People are bad, bad liars. “Yeah, who’s calling? Oh… Um… He’s in the shower,” is beneath both of us. Put your back into it.
The little old ladies of L.A. County are the freaking bomb. I don’t know what made them so gay-friendly, but they are, and they are full of piss and vinegar about it. Hearing a feisty elderly woman shout “Why can’t they leave the gays alone?!” into the phone will do your heart good for hours and hours.
Week Two
By the time I returned to Silverlake for another Tuesday shift, things had changed quite a bit. Our side’s commercials refuting the ‘They will teach your sons to flat-iron their hair in kindergarten!’ hysteria were running to good effect, and all those people who claimed they needed to do more research had apparently actually done it.
Only a week had gone by, but instead of Undecideds being a healthy portion of the people I talked to, I was getting almost none. Instead I was getting strongly stated Yesses and Nos. (And one hilarious old broad who was sick of the whole damn thing.)
NEXT PAGE: What happens when they say they’re voting against gay marriage
A very enjoyable read. Thank you for being an awesome volunteer.
For my part, I’ve supported the local No on 8 campaign, and I and several friends have hung “Yes on 8 = Yes on Hate” banners on the rear windshields of our cars.
A genuinely fantastic article. Two points. One, thank you to ALL the volunteers who have given their time, which is often more valuable than money. And, two, scandalized by the outright lies of the opposition, I want to thank you for yor integrity, Ms Davis. ( It was particularly horrific to hear that they try to manipulate a ‘yes’ vote as a ‘no’! ) I’m proud to know their are people like you whom are unwilling to deceive anyone for political gain. That is the America I know and in which I belive!
Even if Prop. 8 passes with voter approval the courts can still weigh in after on it’s constitutionality. That was proposed to the supreme court earlier but they declined to take it up before the election which they don’t usually do.
Todd, it is also possible to nominate a person of your own choice to “solemnize” the marriage certificate. It could be anyone you want. It doesn’t have to be someone in any religion or that works for the govt.
This is the information straight from the San Diego County Assessor’s office:
The San Diego County Deputy Marriage Commissioner for a Day offers a unique opportunity to have a special friend or family member of your choice perform your ceremony. This person can be commissioned for the day of your wedding by completing a short form for a nominal fee of $50.00. Instructions for the completion of the license, sample vows and the commission will be sent upon receipt.
And here is the link to the “nomination” form:
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/docs/depform.pdf
What other argument could you possibly offer now?
how can people spend so much time to oppose gays. our lives does not take any thing off them . they should worry about other general matter of real public interest . if gays are declared by the vote unable to wed that would be the dictatorship of the majority on the minority , sad America !
Scott in SF,
Yeah you can get the license but that’s only part of the process, the marriage has to be officiated or solemnized by a person recognized by the state and right now part of the group of people the state recognizes for that are “A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination.”.
That’s from California’s law Family Code Section 400. It also says others can too like judges or U.S. magistrates etc..
But do you see how religion is connected officially to the state in that regard? See the circumstance I posted before. See how that could create a problem? There doesn’t even HAVE to be that kind of problem. How can the state legally recognized a group for solemnizing CIVIL marriages that would willingly discriminate, for example, gay marriages?
Do you see the problem now? Yeah, you can say a judge or U.S. Magistrate or whatever could do it, but that is not the point or principle of the matter. What if there is not one available but there there are religious leaders available?
I think there really is legal precedent for churches to be fearful, but that’s only because they shouldn’t be involved AT ALL in civil marriages with the state or government. That’s the problem in the first place. The state should not be recognizing their solemnization of marriages.
From Ali’s article: “I don’t know how one can spread deliberate lies and not start to think that maybe you’re not really on the side of righteousness, but apparently you can. I really want to understand that mindset and how a person gets there.”
To get a handle on understanding that mindset, try the following online book. It’s online, and it’s a free download.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ – The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba
The author’s research into the authoritarian mentality was used by John Dean, the former Nixon legal counsel, in his book called Conservatives Without Conscience, in which he points out that the GOP has been taken over by fundamentalists and other right-wing extremists, and that authoritarianism now dominates conservative thinking.
Todd, you’re missing the point. The Church officiating a wedding does not make it valid, the marriage license does. Since you must go get a marriage license, which churches don’t hand out, you can get married there. There would never be the situation where someone had a marriage license but could only have it officiated at a church.
Thomas,
I’m talking legally though. Why is the state recognizing ANYTHING from the church regarding marriage? It shouldn’t at all then. If it does, then that opens the door for a lawsuit. If a church is a recognized body by the state for officiating marriages.. – see the problem it presents?
You said a couple could go to a court house. What if there isn’t one within reasonable distance? What if the only state recognized officiating body near such a couple is a church and that church refuses? Should that couple have to travel farther, incur more expense, etc. because a particular body recognized by the state won’t officiate them for being a gay couple?
It doesn’t seem like a problem to me except for the connection to the state that is involved which looks like it opens the door for legal problems.
You have an incredible talent for writing, Ali! I enjoyed every word and page. It was very inspiring.
Thank you, thank you to all of the volunteers who have contributed to the NO on 8 campaign. You all totally rock! I was married in SF 4 years ago and married again the second week it was possible after the Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional. Those experiences are profound realizations how much we have accepted less than equal status for a very long time. The time has come for true equality, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks again, volunteers!
No The church would not lose its tax exempt status because they are not the ones that issue the marriage license. You can go to a court house to get a license you don’t need a church to get married. Allowing gay marriage in no way forces a church to recognize it or have to sanction it. In fact if there were no churches marriage could go happily along without them.
Couldn’t it be possible for a church to lose it’s tax exempt status if the state recognizes marriages it officiates? That’s the state recognizing something a religious institution is doing – but not for everyone possibly?
That doesn’t sound legal. What if a gay couple wants to be married but the only place within reasonable distance for them to do so is a church that the state recognizes can officiate them but the church won’t do it because they don’t agree with gay marriage?
See what I mean? The state should then not recognize in any form marriages performed by a church, otherwise it’s like the church is performing a state function in a discriminatory fashion – possibly.
The state shouldn’t recognize it at all anyway otherwise it seems like a government/religion issue.
Also, are the people so upset about the gay marriage taught in school thing ok with domestic partnerships being taught in school then or civil unions?
“Mommy! Mommy! I can have a domestic partnership with a princess!”
Or are the religious conservatives too dull to catch that?
Ali,
Great artical. Makes me want to fly to Cali for the week to help you fight the yes vote. I can’t of course due to a new job but I did send you guys $50 so I see that its going to good use.
BTW what are you doing next Saturday night?
Very funny story! Thanks for sharing your experiences!