The outcome of the election in Maine is proof positive that we should not be making decisions regarding people's civil rights at the ballot box.

Take it away, Melissa McEwan:

Historically, we have depended on the courts to make decisions about the application of constitutional guarantees in spite of popular opinion, and they have repeatedly secured protections for marginalised groups decades before Congress and state legislatures, which more closely track public opinion, would have done. John Rogers once noted that "when the supreme court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia v Loving, 72% of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until – sweet God – 1991".

That's exactly 30 years after our current president was born to an interracial couple.[1]

Waiting for the whole of society to be on board with granting equal rights to everyone is simply not in our collective best interest.

[1] And now, almost 20 years later, we have a justice of the peace who resigned rather than perform interracial marriages. Which just goes to show that prejudice against interracial couples is hardly dead. It isn't even hiding very well.

Attitudes do change. I have even seen them changing over my adulthood, to the point where a Washington state initiative legalizing strong civil unions is barely a blip on the national news radar. Remember when Vermont created civil unions and threw the entire nation into a tizzy? That was in 2000. Not even 10 years ago. So the tide will turn, eventually. We're seeing them in motion now. But (to switch metaphors) would the door even have started to open if judges -- first in Vermont, then in Massachusetts -- hadn't forced it a few cracks? Would Jim Crow laws ever have been defeated by popular vote? Guaranteeing our rights is what the court system is for. We should let it do its job.

Stayed home sick from work today. Perhaps that's why I didn't remember until after noon that today was Election Day. I considered dragging myself off the couch and away from my Gilmore Girls DVDs to go vote on the half-dozen stupid local propositions on the ballot (nothing statewide for us this year, and all the city officials were running unopposed), but ultimately I decided against it, mostly because I hadn't prepared myself on the issues at all. I only knew what one of the propositions was even about, hardly an informed voter making thoughtful decisions about the future of my city. Not that I delude myself that most of my fellow citizens are. But I like to hold myself to a standard, at least.

It looks like they're all passing, and as far as I can tell, there's nothing egregiously stupid, so that's something.

Speaking of egregiously stupid... as of this writing, Question 1, the Maine initiative that would block the legalization of same-sex marriage, is too close to call. On the other hand, things are looking good in Washington, which may be poised to create domestic partnerships at the ballot box for the first time ever. I'm not ready to get excited yet, though; I'm afraid I got too badly burned last year. We'll wait, and we'll see.

(The song that was playing as I was writing the title down was "Hope Fails" from the Return of the King soundtrack; before I finished typing, the next song came on, and it was "Beautiful Day" by U2. Perhaps iTunes is trying to tell me something...)

T and I were watching some of the videos generated by the latest Stephen Colbert remix challenge (now there is a man who knows how to harness the power of Web 2.0 to his advantage), and I mentioned that I think the ultimate speech-to-music remix is the Bill O'Reilly flip-out dance remix from a couple of years back. (Which, if you haven't seen it before, you really ought to do so, although it's helpful to watch the original Inside Edition outtake first.) This led him on a search for similar content, and thereby to the Political Remix Videos blog. The videos on there are of varying quality, but I found this mash-up of the three 2008 Obama/McCain debates to be particularly fascinating and well-done:



A few really telling moments in there, but my very favorite comes just at the end.

First, the Pew Global Attitudes survey which finds, among other things, a correlation between religiousness and wealth on a national level. The chart is about halfway down the page. None of this is too surprising, really, but I found it interesting to see it laid out graphically. Most notable outlier? Surprise, surprise: it's the United States.

Commenters on Alas, a Blog (where I found the graph) raise the fair point that we can't tell from that chart how religiosity is measured.

Next, a piece at Shakesville on the potential resurrection of the woolly mammoth. What does that have to do with religion? That's what the Shaker would like to know:

It was a geniunely fascinating article. Until i got to end, where I read this bit:

"Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically acceptable in humans," said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

What is that quote even doing in a science article? You never read a story about a church bake sale being interrupted with an interview from some Nietzschean saying "God is dead, cookies are pointless and futile."

It's as though the New York Times has a clause somewhere in all their science writers' contracts: no article about cloning without a quote from some religious official reminding us that human cloning is wrong.

Finally, on the lighter side, and also from Shakesville, here's a bit on write-in votes for Jesus, who came in fourth among in write-ins among Jacksonville, FL voters, tied with None of the Above. The write-in winner? Hillary Clinton. The whole post and as well as the comments are a highly amusing read; recommended.

Minnesota Public Radio gives us the opportunity to play ballot judge with actual ballots from the US Senate race.

It's neat to see all the different ways that ballots get spoiled and the reasons they get challenged. I voted with the majority almost every time. The only downside is that you don't get what decision the actual ballot judges made in the end.

It'll be interesting to see how this one comes out. At this point it sounds like it could really go either way.

Check out this overlay of two maps: cotton-producing regions of the South circa 1860, and 2008 presidential election results by county.

The correlation is remarkably strong, and becomes even more apparent when you take a look at some of the maps here, particularly the map that shows the population density of African-Americans about halfway down the page. You can also see tinges of the same pattern on maps showing results by county for all the presidential elections going back to 1860 (!) -- the pattern doesn't hold that far back, of course, but you can see it to varying degrees in every election since 1968 (although Jimmy Carter's being from Georgia dulls the effect somewhat in 1976 and, to a lesser degree, in 1980.

If you want to take the effect back even further, here are maps showing how ancient geological forces laid rich soil in certain areas of the South, thereby creating prime cotton-growing areas and, eventually, counties that went heavily for Barack Obama in2008.

On a related note, here's a complete national map of the African-American population density, which I also found really striking. I hadn't realized just how much of the US black population was concentrated in the South. Look at the West, and how empty it looks, even in the more urban areas. There are maps for other ethnic groups, too. Now that would make for all kinds of interesting overlays.

Really awesome write-ups and photos from all around the country:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/15/6302
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=20EB36801D27B2D54BC3555301B53515?diaryId=8237

And now, for my contribution. First of all, today was gorgeous. Perfectly clear blue sky, temperatures easily in the 70s, a light breeze. Literally, I don't think we could have asked for better weather. So that was a plus, although the minus is that I didn't bring a hat. I did wear sunblock, at least.

A, who was in town for work this week, and SB came from from Sunnyvale to join us; we left the house around 10am and arrived a little before 10:30. R & S met us there, and we walked over to the Civic Center, where the protesters had gathered in front of City Hall. We hadn't gotten our act together to make signs, so we were mostly there to add our voices and our headcount. Speakers included current State Senator Carole Migden, her recently-elected replacement Mark Leno (who sponsored the two bills legalizing same-sex marriage that the CA Legislature passed but the Governator vetoed), the Rev. Amos Brown (who was easily the most inspiring and charismatic of the lot -- no surprise, since he was taught by Dr. King himself), and many local community members and organizers. Unfortunately, it was hard to hear much and impossible to see at all, because they spoke on the steps of City Hall, not a raised platform, and the sound system was really inadequate. The chant we heard most frequently wasn't any particular call for equal rights, but rather the word "Louder!" But what I could hear was mostly energizing and hopeful, and it was nice to be part of a crowd. As we were walking from the subway to the plaza, we were all trying to remember the last time we had been part of a group action like this, and I decided it was probably my freshman year of college, when A and I went down to Washington DC with a bunch of other BMC folks for the March for Women's Lives. There's something exhilarating about being surrounded by people who feel strongly enough to get up early on a Saturday to lend their voices to a cause.

So the rally held in place for about an hour and a half, and then a group of folks broke off into a march. After about half the crowd had left, a speaker told us that the march was unofficial, but anyone was welcome to join. So we consulted, and then decided to follow. We marched down Polk Street to Market, then turned right to head for Castro. Clearly this march had not been planned, because except for Polk, none of the streets were officially closed, although there were cops around and they did direct traffic for us. Anyway, our turn toward the Castro led to some debate as to whether that neighborhood was really the best place to demonstrate in favor of gay marriage -- I think I said something about coals to Newcastle -- but then we reached Van Ness, and a large group had switched directions, shouting "Turn around, go downtown!" And we saw the effectiveness of chants and mob rule as the majority of walkers did indeed follow. We discussed our options; hunger beat out curiosity, and so we headed to Hayes Valley for lunch.

So it wasn't the best organized event ever. But it was satisfying, and I continue to be energized enough to stay involved. I don't know that there's much to do while the various cases wind their way through court, but I will keep my ears open for opportunities to lend my voice and my time.

Some more of T's photos here.

I really wanted to include this graphic in yesterday's post re. the Prop 8 protests tomorrow, but I couldn't find it online until now. I saw it as a poster in the Muni station on my way home last night, and I just loved the evocation of so many Americans standing together as one.

(The list of cities on this map isn't anywhere near exhaustive, btw; complete list here if you're looking to join in.)

Many of you have probably already heard about the nationwide protests against the passage of Proposition 8 on Saturday. At least one protest somewhere every state at 2:30 Eastern Time, Saturday, November 15th. The San Francisco event is at City Hall (of course), and I'm thinking really seriously about going. (Any locals interested in joining: ping me ASAP!)

I do wonder, though, about why now. Where was this outpouring of emotion and support two weeks ago, when it could have made a much more immediate difference? Dan Savage has a good take on why the reaction was delayed, but I still wonder. Of course, that raises the question of whether it would have made a difference. I think it would have, but who can say, really?

And I have to admit, late as it may be, it does me good to see how many other people are outraged by what happened to gay rights on November 4th. Momentum is shifting, and visibility can only help with that. Which is the main reason I am moved to join in on Saturday.

Back in January, SE and I placed a bet on the outcome of the presidential election. Not because we wanted different outcomes -- far from it! -- but because she felt that the American people were not yet ready to elect a president who wasn't a white man. I accepted her wager: if McCain was elected, I would owe her a bottle of wine (to share, because we would be needing it!); if not, she would take me to tea.

So today, I collected: we had a very posh tea at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose. I've had high tea at the Fairmont in San Francisco, but never San Jose, so it was a new venue for all of us. Good quality tea, tasty scones with lots of Devon cream, very very fancy tea sandwiches (the ham with fig was my favorite), and a selection of little French pastries, all while seated in cozy couches in the lobby of the hotel. Very nice, although the atmosphere would have been better if football hadn't been playing on a huge TV screen over the bar. Overall a nice little escape and celebration, followed by a trip to the used bookstore and its semi-annual 25% off sale and then some Chinese food for dinner.

My to-read pile is really out of control. I thought I was being nice and moderate by getting only 6 books, but then I also borrowed a volume of manga from SE ("Black Jack" by Tezuka), and then I got home and saw how many books I still have to read from my big Amazon haul a couple months ago, and once again I am despairing of ever catching up. I also really need to get some of my older books sold -- I have an overflowing box in the bedroom, and another bag hiding in a cupboard (it used to be in the bedroom, by the box, until Lexi decided one day that 5:30 AM would be an excellent time to start pouncing on it). Of course, once I get rid of those books, what will happen? That's right, I'm going to turn them into more books. And so the cycle continues.

I think I need a psychic cleansing or something. The election was three days ago, and yet it still occupies waaaaaay too much of my headspace; I keep wandering back into political blogs and news sites and Election night pictures and transition stories, not to mention scarfing up any and all analysis of and "what comes next" articles on Proposition 8 (and I accidentally stumbled into a nest of supporters in the comments to one article, which undid any Zen I might have managed to find).

anzubird pointed me to a story about political withdrawal, which I can totally relate to. This goes beyond looking for good distractions; I need some way to draw a bright line and say "Okay, enough of this for now; there's a whole world of other things to do, think about, write."

Any ideas?

But for now I still have a few cool things to share (from the happy joy part of the election this time, which definitely occupies plenty of my mindspace along with the sad side).

First, bottle_of_shine pointed me toward these presidential election maps that are altered to reflect voting percentages and population. The county-level maps are particularly interesting, and a good reminder that the red/blue divide in the US isn't really East versus West or coast versus central; it's urban versus rural. And also, that there's a lot more purple going on than we truly realize.

I remember looking at the maps from 2004 back at the time, and it's especially thought-provoking to compare the last two maps in this election and the last. Fewer bright red areas, and those that still exist are far more squeezed by various shades of purple around them. Quite a change for just four years. There are a lot of reasons for that, and many reasons to believe that the trend will shift back, eventually. But still interesting, and heartening for a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat like me.

Then, for some warm fuzzies, check out some photos that are worth several thousand words and a huge collection of newspaper front pages announcing Obama's victory

And finally: http://www.change.gov

Somehow, just the mere existence of this site makes me happy. 75 days to go.

They haven't quite finished counting the votes, but the first lawsuits against Proposition 8 have already been filed.

And so it begins.

ETA: Many more details here, especially in comments. I haven't read the whole thread yet, so enter at your own risk.

Barring some miracle in the absentee ballot count, Proposition 8 is going to pass with 52% of the vote. This percentage has held pretty steady since midnight, within a few tenths of a point (why yes, I did keep waking up in the middle of the night to check), so I think any extreme movement in that number is unlikely. In all likelihood, it's over.

This is a setback. It is, in fact, crushingly disappointing (but not as crushing as I was afraid it might be -- I think unconsciously I've been bracing myself for this for awhile, and of course Obama's win helps to cushion the blow). But it's not really a surprise, given the sheer amounts of poison poured into the ears of California voters by the Yes on 8 forces over the last month. Sure, they may have triumphed today, but look what it took for them to do it. Millions and millions of dollars of out of state money. Lies and exploitation of children in their campaign ads. Outright tricking people into voting for their hateful amendment.

Okay, I'm in tears now, so maybe I'm not as resigned as I thought I was.

So the forces of hate and fear won the day. There's no getting around that. But they've only won the battle. They haven't won the war. And this war, they will lose. I still have no doubt of that. In 2000, California passed the first law banning same-sex marriage by a vote of 61%. That's a 10% change in less than 10 years, which is huge progress. If we'd had a little more time between the Supreme Court decision and the vote for people to get used to the idea, I'm sure we would have defeated this. We will see marriage equality California again, and we will see it across the United States. It's coming, and nothing can stop it.

So today I take a few minutes to mourn. And then I'll pick myself up and start fighting again. Because I thought I was determined before, but now I know what true determination is.

Just in case the unthinkable happens and I'm too depressed to admit this later, I want to make sure everyone remembers that today was a good day.

A very, very VERY good day.

Hooray for all of us!!!

This is how hearts and minds are won.

Thanks to Jed for the link, and for the continual encouragement to not just vote against Proposition 8, but to speak out against it and fight for what matters.

By the morning, we should know.

My votes are cast. Now we settle in to wait.

I was at my polling place for about half an hour, which I know is nothing compared to the waits other people are facing, but I've never seen a line even half that long at my precinct before. And I know I'm seeing a higher percentage of "I Voted!" stickers than usual. So vital signs are strong.

Still, as I was waiting to fill out my ballot, two guys who had just finished ran off together, chanting "Obama! Obama!" Another guy standing in line pointed out that this is not exactly a courageous statement of conviction in San Francisco. Still, it warmed my heart. Not going to make any strong statements yet -- this article explains why. But this thing could really happen. Wow.

So I went to the No on 8 office tonight, as planned, and I ended up on the phones after all, calling people who had volunteered for Get Out the Vote efforts tomorrow, making sure that marriage equality supporters know how to vote and answering any last-minute questions from undecided or unsure voters. I was a little nervous about it at first, but it helped a lot to know that I wasn't cold-calling, and every person I talked to seemed glad to hear from me. Every person confirmed their shift but one, and she was double-booked doing Get Out the Vote for the Democratic party. But she promised to do her part against Proposition 8 at the same time, and it's hard to ask for more than that.

I feel pretty good about it, overall. It was nice to talk to a bunch of like-minded folks, even if I did spend more time talking to voice mail than to people. I even got one person who was standing on a street corner with a "No on 8" sign at that exact minute! And I do feel like I made a little bit of a difference. Probably not much. But a little.

Damm I hope it's enough.

Almost there. I can't believe that after two years of non-stop campaign news, we're finally less than 24 hours from the first polls closing.

All kinds of reasons to be excited and nervous and worried, but I've managed to narrow my focus to two: the presidential election, and Proposition 8. And since the alternative is unthinkable, I've made plans to head down to the No on Prop 8 San Francisco headquarters after work, to see if there's anything I can do. I'm not much for making phone calls to strangers, but surely there's office work that can be done, and, well, if not, maybe I'll just suck up the phone phobia for the evening. It might not even be a drop in the bucket, but I at least have to make the attempt.

In the meantime, have two owl-related distractions (I'm always posting moose stuff; it's about time to give the other half of my handle a little love):

Hiding place for sleeping owl is not so hidden after all.
Everyone is fond of owls. (Warning: Flash animation with loud sound, auto-plays with no way to stop or pause, extremely silly.)

Got a good owl picture, link, or story? Leave it in the comments!

Bloggers take a video arguing for Proposition 8 and replace every instance of "same-sex marriage" with "interracial marriage".

This is chillingly effective for a lot of reasons, but the thing that struck me immediately is that, had the California electorate been in the habit of voting on constitutional amendments in 1948, when the CA Supreme Court struck down the state's law against interracial marriage, not only could the opposition have made an ad exactly like this, they probably would have.

I said before that the fight for marriage equality is personal for me. This is the other reason why. Sixty years ago, within my parents' lifetime, people used this exact same rhetoric against my marriage. In some parts of the country, they still do. It's frightening and it's maddening and it's wrong. So I stand against it, and will continue to do so.