Dracil’s BlogJournal

January 15, 2009


So eightmaps is a site that shows all the people who donated to Prop 8.

So some people are really worried about their privacy because of this.

Except all this information has always been public knowledge.  The moment you donate, you lose your right to privacy because you’ve gone beyond merely voting.  The political system requires transparency to ensure that there isn’t corruption going on.

But no, Yes on 8 people want special treatment.  Sorry, that’s not how it works.

Others have called for a map of No on 8 donors so they can boycott business and stuff.  I say go right ahead.  I’d like to see you boycott Google and Apple.


December 4, 2008


Filed under: Controversy, Politics — Tags: , , , — dracil @ 6:16 pm

Taking someone’s rights away over something as trivial as a definition is like breaking into a home and murdering the entire family while they’re sleeping just so you can steal a stereo.

Sorry, but I just can’t accept that.  Not on an ethical level.  Not on what it means to be human.

Prop 8 The Musical

Prop 8 The Musical.  It’s about 3 min long.  Contains quite a few big names in the cast.

While we’re at it, let’s ban divorce.

November 16, 2008

Olbermann on Prop 8

Also, domestic partnerships are still inferior to marriages despite the people bringing up that one law.  And that’s not even including federal differences.

November 5, 2008

Proposition H8

Yes it passed.  It doesn’t affect me but the fact that such bigotry still exists so heavily pretty much dashed all joy I had of the Obama victory.  I’m ashamed to be living in CA.  On the other hand, I’m proud of the fact that SF had the highest percentage voting No on it, which isn’t actually surprising given the role the mayor Gavin Newsom played in all this.

I’m also upset that I went to a church once (Promised Land Fellowship) for some seminar with Joyce and that church supported Yes on H8.

The silver lining is that Prop H8 may actually be illegal.  The reason?  It conflicts with the Equal Protection clause so it’s not an amendment, it’s a revision.  So it needed to be passed as a constitutional revision instead of a constitutional amendment.

Also, if at any point, it affects previously married homosexuals, it becomes an ex post facto law, and would thus be illegal as well.  The attorney general has stated that it wouldn’t affect their marriages, but I don’t see how that’s possible given this part of the amendment: “Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”


Also, the Mormon church should lose their tax-exempt status for meddling in our political affairs (to the tune of $25 million).

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.