Gay Rights Protest San Francisco Fri Nov 7 2008

(the fluxlife crew vlogged/blogged at the scene on fri evening Nov 7 2008. post was edited, footage was youtubed (fluxlife's 1st youtube videos!), and resultant vids&text published on today):

wow. there are thousands of people marching, it's amazing! we're getting some footage through the lap top on this macbook iSight lens (words on the signs come out backwards without an adapter. oh, well...). the footage is pretty good for a lap top at night. pretty fun, funny, and feeling the good cause while holding my macbook up to the protest marchers, who'da' thunk it? it must look kind of funny to some (a guy holding up a lap top to thousands of marchers), but the protesters get it. :) anyway, all we've seen is LA protesting Prop 8. it's about time we started marching for the cause in san francisco! pretty exciting, copters flying above, thousands of people marching for a great cause. all the way from the civic center to dolores park. what a long and grueling march. these people are fighters... kudos to them! we can't believe prop 8's ban on same sex marriage passed, it's ridiculous! the next frontier in the fight for Civil Rights is on!!!

good background article to prop 8's inception: The Daily Beast

Gay Rights Protest San Francisco Nov 2008 (1)

Gay Rights Protest San Francisco Nov 2008 (2)

Prop 8 is of course, unconstitutional. if a team of lawyers stipulate to property rights/possessions in a case before the supreme court, there is a 99.9% chance that the supreme court will rescind Prop 8 prima facie. i know it sounds strange with the property rights thing, but that's actually how the constitution was constructed originally: to protect the colonist's wealth and property against the crown and unreasonable taxation. civil rights/the bill of rights/the first ten amendments didn't come 'til after the body of the constitution was written. most of the supreme court cases are won this way, by stipulating to property rights.

anyway, Prop 8 will not stand up to a legal challenge based on constitutional law, with lawyers who know what they are doing.

the mormons wasted a lot of money creating prop 8 that could have gone to much better use.

for fluxlife bloggin'/vloggin' at the SF rally go to:
Proposition 8 Rally San Francisco Nov 15 2008

see also, related post: prop 8

technorati tag(s):

Sphere: Related Content


nubiz said...

Nice MacJob fluxlife! Good job vloggin' from the hip!

Chris said...

It is ridiculous that Prop 8 passed. It's like one up for America with the Obama election and one down with this.

I really don't see how the Government can control this sort of thing. It is truly offensive. I can't stand how the government has to meddle in everything that citizens do.

Thanks for the coverage though. And the open-mindedness and acceptance of your fellow Americans.

fluxlife said...

apparently this proposition started with the mormons, and they put it on the ballot with millions invested.

at least gov. Schwarzenegger seems to be pro gay marriage/civil rights at this point in the game. i'm not sure what he can do about it, but we'll see if his sentiment amounts to anything.

thanks for your comments nubiz and chris!

-steve @ fluxlife

Anonymous said...

how did the mormons start this?

fluxlife said...

here's part of the answer to how the mormons started prop 8:

(the following is an excerpt from: Mother Jones)
"The Church of Latter Day Saints has all but ordered its congregants to campaign for, and donate to (the church has raised at least $10 million from its members), Prop 8's passage. From High Country News:

In June, the church's top prophets commanded Mormons "to do all you can" to work for Proposition 8 and donate money to the campaign. Mormon leaders throughout California read the instructions to their congregations, which have more than 750,000 members. Word spread everywhere in the Mormon realm. In August, the prophets added pages of elaboration: "The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in bonds of matrimony. ... Any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally...with harmful consequences for society."

-fluxlife sez:
"as for the mechanics of how they got it on the ballot? you need 694,354 signatures to start a proposition for amendment to the CA state constitution. then, you file all your papers and pay a $200 fee with the state. with 750,000 mormons in CA commanded by the mormon authorities to make prop 8 their priority, getting the signatures was easily within their grasp. the rest is history."

Anonymous said...

They have legally defined "marriage" as being of two objects ("a man and a woman") that have NOT been legally defined. This is a loophole opponents can use to battle prop 8 in the courtroom.

Don't let prop 8 get away with assuming exactly what body parts legally qualifies someone as a 'man'. Force them to follow thru with this law that legally defines marriage.

Laws have to be written carefully.

Without a legal definition of exactly what body parts are needed to qualify as a 'man' - we only have the dictionary - which defines it as a sperm-producing human.

FORCE prop 8 supporters to obey exactly what they voted for. Guys with no sperm can no longer legally marry in CA as per wording of prop 8 and a dictionary. If they decide this new law goes retro - and they force all prior same-sex marriages as invalid - make sure they also invalidate all marriage's that don't include a sperm-producer.

This is not a joke - I'm very serious.

People in CA need to petition the court for the definition of "a man" vs "a woman" - and the courts HAVE to legally define them - because they are the very objects that make up the new legal definition of marriage. Don't let prop 8 get to assume an opinion of what exactly "a man" is. If they can't legally define "a man" vs "a woman" - they would have no choice but to invalidate prop8.

Remember - a birth certificate only reflects one's gender that was an opinion based on appearance or common knowledge. That birth certificate reflection of gender is not a definition of gender. It is mearly a reflection.

We've always been able to assume the definition of a gender - just as we did with a definition of marriage. Don' let them take away the right to an opinion on the definition of marriage and still allow them to assume an opinion on gender.

If the law defines "marriage" as being of "a man and a woman" - FORCE them to legally define it all. Force them to define "a man" vs "a woman" for the purpose of obeying this law.

In the meantime - a dictionary says a man must be a sperm-producer. There is a man in Oregone who is pregnant. I don't what body part legally qualifies him as a man - but he has a uterus and is pregnant. Let them debate what body parts constitute a gender. It would be an impossible debate and they'd have to invalidate prop8.

They can't legally define an object as being made of two objects that are NOT legally defined - unless they people let them.

fluxlife said...

wow. if what you say is true, attacking the invalidity of the term "object" as they have used it within the legal document is a good strategy.

we could add this to the other pending lawsuits such as the one that the ACLU has filed. check out the details of this filing at:
ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Prop 8

Blurg said...

I hope Prop 8 is killed in court. In the meantime, encourage all your straight, married friends to go apply for a civil union. After all, if a legal "marriage" in CA = discrimination, than I don't want to be married anymore!!

fluxlife said...

hey Blurg!, thanks for your comment. either in court or with a new proposition, Prop 8 will be overturned.

Big Mack said...

Excuse me? The gay community [===>]already has[<===] legal protections in the California Family Code, Section 297.5. Read it verbatim:

Family Code
"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have [===>]the same rights, protections, and benefits[<===], and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, [===>]as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.[<===]

For you skeptics, here's the actual link:

Hello? Why did there even have to be a proposition on the ballot?

And in regards to that actual definition of a "man" or "woman", how about plain old common sense, or do you have to be told everything...? A man stands up go wee-wee and most women sit down. What comes out of the plumbing is irrelevant.

If your definition of "man" means a "producer of sperm", then is a father of 3 children who had a vasectomy (me) now considered to be a "non-man"? I don't think so. Ask my 3 grown kids if they think I'm still a "man"...

Have we have "dumbed ourselves down" to the point that we've evolved into such a lawsuit-happy society that everything must be absolutely defined in legal mumbo-jumbo in order to protect oneself?


Big Mack said...


Anonymous said...

I dont care what u homos do in your bedroom. ... but the more u try to overturn what the people voted for... the more the people will resort to amendment 2...

08Hayabusa said...


08Hayabusa said...

Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as the union between a husband and a wife.

The bible defines it the same way.

Why is it homosexuals want to change that definition?

No one is trying to infringe on any groups rights here, except homosexuals on heterosexuals, and religious group’s freedom to worship as they see fit.

Homosexuals are free to get laws passed so that their unions have the same rights as heterosexuals. They just are not going to be allowed to call it marriage.

You see as soon as the state recognizes it as marriage, then homosexuals are free to show up in church and demand to be married. And of course then the church will be in a legal situation, for refusing based on religious biblical reasons. They will probably lose their tax excempt status and their right to their religious moral belief system.

And if you think that’s not what they’re after, you’ve got another think coming.

Notice who they are attacking, the churches, under the guise
that they are denying them rights, or that they’re religious
zealots or nut jobs.

So you see, it’s not Heterosexuals denying rights to Homosexuals it’s the other way around.

They can call their unions anything they want, and enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, but they are not going to be allowed to call their unions marriage.