In California's wild world of ballot initiatives, the chickens defeated the egg factory owners, and an anti-abortion parental notification proposition was defeated.

Prop. 8, the ban on gay marriage, is winning 52-48 with 95 per cent reporting: see our separate coverage today by Richard Kim.

California's anti-abortion/parental notification initiative is losing, 52-48, with 95 percent of precincts reporting. The campaign was deeply dishonest – proponents called their proposition "Sarah's Law," supposedly in honor of a 15-year-old girl who died from an abortion gone wrong 14 years ago, an abortion where the parents were not notified. As the LA Times pointed out in an editorial, "Much of that is false. The girl's name wasn't Sarah; she lived in Texas, not California; and though she was 15, she already had a child and was in a common-law marriage, which means she wouldn't have been covered by the law Californians are being asked to consider."

The ad campaign for the proposition described "older men" who "exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes." But as the Times pointed out, "The most recent known case of serious injury that might have been prevented by Proposition 4 occurred in the 1980s." It was basically an anti-abortion initiative, with more than half of its funding coming from a single source, according to San Diego CityBeat: James Holman, editor and publisher of the San Diego Reader, who contributed about $1.5 million of the $2.7 million spent by the proponents.

Prop. 2, sponsored by the Humane Society, combated inhumane treatment of animals being bred for food – primarily chickens, who under the proposition would have to be able to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs in their cages. Similar provisions govern the treatment of pigs and cows. Egg farmers would have six full years before the new rules took full effect.

You might think everyone in California would support it, except for egg factory owners – but the L.A. Times officially recommended a "No" vote, on the grounds that it would increase the cost of California eggs and encourage the importation of cheaper out-of-state eggs. The voters didn't go for that argument – the proposition passed, 63-37 per cent.

Reform of the treatment of low-level drug users was the subject of a proposition asking voters to reverse the trend toward more draconian criminal law. Prop. 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, funded in part by George Soros, would have been "the most ambitious sentencing and prison reform in U.S. history," according to the Drug Policy Alliance Network. The measure would have substituted treatment for incarceration of those who committed nonviolent crimes involving drugs. It also would have ended the practice of returning to prison many ex-convicts with low-level parole violations.

The initiative was opposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and four predecessors from both parties: former governors Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Jerry Brown. The prison guards union spent $1.8 million to defeat the proposition. And it was defeated, 60-40.

Comments (33)

1. The Prop 5 defeat is especially troubling as it continues the extraordinary waste of taxpayer resources on the unnecessary incarceration of non-violent persons.

   Voters wonder why we do not have enough money for schools and infrastructure but are not willing to use common sense and reserving prison for violent people who harm others.

   Drug addiction is a health and medical concern, and drug dealing is an economic and education issue.

   Jerry Brown, you have lost every ounce of respect for opposing this common sense initiative and turning your back on the principles of compassion that you learned from Buddhism.

   And Dianne Feinstein proves once again that she has completely abandoned her progressive roots, just like she did by supporting her husband's Haliburton-like ambitions in starting and continuing wars on behalf of war profiteers.

   Californians cannot continue this vengeance against primarily Hispanic and African-American men who are stuck in California prisons, or continue to be held hostage to the prison guard lobby. How can anyone in good conscience deem the jobs of prison guards to be more important than rehabilitating non-violent offenders so that they can lead productive lives and contribute to society?

   It is time to learn from the hugely successful examples in some European countries that drug addiction can be treated and drug dealing can be dramatically reduced by creating viable economic alternatives for inner-city youth and fixing a failing k-12 education system that doesn't prepare sufficient numbers of students to go on to college or learn a meaningful trade so one can live lives of dignity and respect.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2008 @ 12:57pm

2. Nice post, Metteyya.

   There is a pretty daunting --and still growing (see NY Times op-ed of 11-3, "So little time, so much damage")-- list of tasks for the incoming Obama administration to tackle.

   I'd put in a strong vote for the deconstruction of Incarceration Nation somewhere on the top ten.

   As things currently stand, America is neck deep in a sea of absurdities.

   Postscript:

   I was fascinated today with the NY Times electoral map (top of today's webpage-- just click on the map, and click on the individual states) --especially the details of state voting by county.

   Among my observations:

   McCain should move to Oklahoma. They apparently love him there as if he were a native son. How the hell can vast swaths of counties vote 70 to 85 percent for McCain? Methinks I smell more than a trace of rac.....

   New York breakdown:

   Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Bronx percentages for Obama--75, 79, 85 and 88 respectively. Impressive numbers.

   Staten Island: 47 percent for Obama.

   Finally, the voting for third party candidates says a lot about the rancid illness in our body politic. In a landslide election even landslide states never got above roughly 2 percent for third party choices.

   Pathetic.

   And sad.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/05/2008 @ 2:03pm

3. My advice to Calif egg eaters. Avoid ordinary eggs altogether & use range eggs. More humane conditions for those birds & better tasting. Producers complaints? Out of state imports? Out of their minds!

   Posted by Sorelish at 11/05/2008 @ 2:48pm

4. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 6:58pm

   "Jim Crow" was "state law" too, Darin.

   Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 7:51pm

5. Thanks for the California report. I am happy for the chickens and pigs, and very surprised and happy the parental notification proposition was defeated -- I thought Prop. 8 would distract people from that part of the ballot.

   I don't want to jinx No. on 8, if there's still any hope for its defeat, by making any premature post-mortems. I'll just say that I think it's time for the mainline Protestant churches to step forward and stop letting the evangelical churches dominate the gay rights/same-sex marriage conversation. The Episcopal church elected a gay bishop in New England, and on a congregational level many Presbyterian and Methodist churches have found ways to be inclusive. It's not "Christians versus San Franciscans" any more than it's "Real Americans versus liberals." We got half of that right last night; soon we'll get the other part right, too.

   Posted by RLawrence at 11/05/2008 @ 10:04pm

6. If consistency applied to Wiener and The Nation they would have opposed this new vote on gay marriage, as it was thoroughly defeated by Californians a few years ago.

   KVH denounced as undemocratic Bloomberg's recent insistence on yet another vote on term limits, because it had already been rejected. Will The Nation oppose the gay marriage issue the next time California puts it to the voters, because such resubmissions are undemocratic?

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/06/2008 @ 04:08am

7. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 08:41am

   Explain why banning gay citizens from getting married like heterosexual citizens doesn't violate the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause?

   Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 08:52am

8. Well, I can see hate is alive and well in the form of the ban of Gay Marriage! Who gives a s... but some right wing nut case! I can't agree with their lifestyle but am enough to an adult to mind my own business. To bad most California voters allow religion to dictate morality in their state! That's all this ban is religion interfering once more in people's behavior.

   Posted by ganddw42 at 11/06/2008 @ 09:41am

9. Why do Mormons leave "Jesus Christ" out of their LDS acronym? Probably because their religion has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and everything to do with their pedophile polygamist prophet Joseph Smith who married girls as young as 14.

   And why do Mormons spend 20 million on Prop 8 and do NOTHING to stop Mormon polygamists in Utah who practice tyranny over women and children and receive tens of millions annually in taxpayer handouts?

   Watch the video: http://www.bankingonheaven.com

   **It's ironic that Prop 8 supporter Ahmanson has Tourette's Syndrome, a common affliction among Mormon FLDS polygamists in Hildale, Utah.

   **There are 50-100,000 Mormon polygamists in the Utah region.

   **Mormon polygamists are moving into Texas, South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and New Mexico.

   **Mormon polygamists breed 5-7 times faster than the national average. In 1953 there were less than 300 members in the FLDS - today 10,000. The FLDS only represent approx 15% of Mormon polygamists. Do the math.

   **Nearly 200 countries support the United Nation's ban on polygamy because of the human rights violations. Male to female birthrates are 50-50, globally.

   The AXIS OF EVIL are Utah Mormons.

   Posted by XPolygamistWife at 11/06/2008 @ 10:40am

10. Why is it even necessary to pass a law to require parental notification for an abortion? Isn't it already illegal for, say, a dentist or an endocrinologist to treat a 16 year old kid without notification and permission from a parent or guardian? Is there now some law on the books specifically exempting abortion?

    On another subject, does anyone feel that the backlash against Obama is beginning already, with the passage of Proposition 8?

    Posted by Mistral at 11/06/2008 @ 11:24am

11. Explain why banning gay citizens from getting married like heterosexual citizens doesn't violate the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 08:52am

    Gay citizens are not banned from getting married.

    Any unmarried gay man past the age of majority can marry any unmarried woman past the age of majority who is not a blood relative.

    Why would he want to do that? Well, if he wanted to have children and raise them with their mother, that would be an attractive option.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Impeccable logic Darin. But isn't it circular?

    Posted by OneVote at 11/06/2008 @ 8:16pm

12. Posted by Metteyya at 11/05/2008 @ 12:57pm

    Which European countries are successful with drug rehab? I know of their generous drug laws, but I've not heard they have good intervention programs. When a person abuses drugs or alcohol for an extened period of time, serious therapy and not counseling is needed.

    Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 9:19pm

13. Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 9:19pm

    One would surmise, any country with fewer drug users.

    This would either imply rehabilitation or the long term effect of fewer people starting drug use.

    This, of course, would be the case in <i>almost</i> (no almost, as far as I know. just covering my ass there) every european country with more liberal drug laws than the US.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/06/2008 @ 9:58pm

14. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 12:02pm

    LOL

    Your "impression"?

    Are you serious?

    It seems to me that a majority of STRAIGHT marriages don't work out...that's not a reason to keep straights from marrying, now is it?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 10:27pm

15. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 12:05pm

    And how, exactly, is that related to gay people getting married? I mean, other than in your tiny brain.

    Because being gay is like having sex with your brother or sister?

    Errr........

    That's funny, I don't remember gay people being able to procreate. In fact, non married gay people adopt kids all the time...

    Perhaps there's been new technology developed toward that end.

    I tell ya, that iPhone can do freakin everything!

    LOL!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 10:32pm

16. Explain why banning gay citizens from getting married like heterosexual citizens doesn't violate the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause?

    Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 08:52am

    Gay citizens are not banned from getting married.

    Any unmarried gay man past the age of majority can marry any unmarried woman past the age of majority who is not a blood relative.

    Why would he want to do that? Well, if he wanted to have children and raise them with their mother, that would be an attractive option.

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 11:50am

    Now, please tell me where in the equal protection clause (I'll give you a second to google it) there is a definition of marriage between one man, and one woman.

    Go ahead, I'll wait.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/06/2008 @ 10:38pm

17. Mask at 08:52am asks:

    <<< Explain why banning gay citizens from getting married like heterosexual citizens doesn't violate the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause? >>>

    It is legal for the same reason the age and health stipulations of the US military are legal, why non-citizens may not vote, and creationism and evolution are not scientific equivalents.

    The unitary family is our oldest sociological structure. Marriage was created to insure society's future by securing the survival of its young. The point was and is, to bind a man to the mother of his offspring so that he will be her protector and supplier while she births and rears their children. To promote marriage society made it a hollowed institution, studded with beneficial laws and an aura of respectability and prestige.

    That attractiveness has now attracted homosexuals. They want the status although, if they receive it, they will destroy that status. The unitary family is already under siege, men are refusing to accept responsibility for their children, marriage is already in disrepute. If now marriage is shared with homosexuals, its legitimacy, its raison d'etre, and its prestige, will unravel further.

    Homosexuals are clearly not getting married to give their progeny a better chance to survive. Theirs is a self-indulgent breaking into an institution to which they have no claim, but whose status they desire.

    It makes as much sense as the claim of a quadriplegic to join the armed forces. He desires the prestige of wearing the uniform, even though he can't perform in that job. A foreigner's demand t0 vote in our elections defeats the whole idea of citizenship. Creationists think it only fair that their idea is accorded the same respect as evolutionary theory. But is it?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/06/2008 @ 10:47pm

18. Utah, LDS, and Marriott Hotel,

    You messed with the WRONG people, we (LGBTs) know how to hold a GRUDGE, decades later I still won't buy FL Orange Juice, or COORS beer. Utah, even with half my family as LDS members who love and respect me as openly gay, I will NEVER return to Utah or spend a dime on your products.

    KEEP your G*D DAMN H8 in your own State.

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/mormon2.jpg and http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/Mormons1.jpg

    Posted by mensa7 at 11/07/2008 @ 12:10am

19. Out of their minds!

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/05/2008 @ 2:48pm

    i buy my eggs from henry.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:23pm

20. ATTENTION GAY PEOPLE!!!!

    come to ontario. get married. i know a great band for the reception.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:24pm

21. One of the litany of arguments in favor of Prop 8 we heard in Cali was that allowing gays to marry would somehow damage or hurt the institution of marriage. I am a happily married heterosexual man, have been for six years now. At not one point did I feel any effects, positive or negative, inflicted upon my marriage when gays were finally treated equal to me. However, now that Prop 8 has passed, my heterosexual marriage now carries a discriminatory connotation to it. I am allowed to be happy, but someone else cannot. Now "marriage" equates to "intolerant homophobia" because of a small group of wealthy, narrow-minded religious extremists based out of Utah and an affiliate of the Catholic church (among others). Someone please explain to me how the institution of marriage has been enhanced by equating it with discrimination?? Or conversely, explain to me how the institution of marriage was destroyed by being more inclusive??

    Posted by mach375 at 11/07/2008 @ 5:26pm

22. From the Voloch Conspiracy blog:

    "According to the Exit Polls, the decisive difference in Proposition 8's passage was two reasons. First, 70% of black voters supported it. There were 10,357,002 votes case on Prop 8. The winning margin was 492,830 votes. And they were 10% of the electorate. So that means there were 1,035,700 votes cast by black voters. That right there provided a difference of 414,280 votes. If I'm doing my math right, that is 84% of the winning margin. There was an article in the Washington Post on this today. A majority of Hispanic voters also supported Proposition 8.

    "The second group that strongly supported Prop 8 appear to be Married people with children under the age of 18. Married people were 62% of the vote and voted 60-40 in favor; people with children under the age of 18 were 40% of the electorate and voted 64-36 in favor. 31 percent identified themselves as "Married with Children" (it doesn't say whether that is minor children) and they voted 68-32 in support."

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 6:30pm

23. FZ

    Question--How do you find Henrys from the freeway?

    Answer--You take the right eggs-it.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/07/2008 @ 9:23pm

24. >>>Which European countries are successful with drug rehab? I know of their generous drug laws, but I've not heard they have good intervention programs. When a person abuses drugs or alcohol for an extened period of time, serious therapy and not counseling is needed.

    Posted by ACook at 11/06/2008 @ 9:19pm<<<

    Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and The Netherlands have just the OPPOSITE recidivism rate as the US, in that 10% or less re-commit crimes after being released from incarceration.

    America has gone on this "lock 'em up and throw away the key" vengeance ever since Reagan, and we now are the leading incarcerater in the world. Prisons cost LOTS OF MONEY, money most states cannot afford - including California.

    It is just common sense that one would want to dramatically reduce these incarceration rates to have money for other priorities like k-12 education. A prison guard should NEVER make more than a school teacher in a society that has its priorities straight.

    This dramatic reduction starts with getting non-violent offenders out of prison and into some half-way house setup where they can earn a living and pay for their treatment and training rather than the taxpayer. Rehabilitation can no longer be a "dirty word", and it must be the focus if one is truly concerned about victims. For ever ex-offender who is released without rehabilitation, another victim is created as this person re-offends and goes back to prison.

    Any victims rights advocate should be alarmed at the 90% recidivism rate in the US and fully embrace measures that keep ex-offenders- especially the non-violent ones - employed or in training so that they are not compelled to rob or steal because no one wants to hire them.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/08/2008 @ 1:09pm

25. I'm from California and I can tell you that the yes vote on 8 is an anachronism driven by a huge campaign of deliberate lies and misrepresentations. The Mormon Church and other ultra conservative religious groups targeted black and latino and lower income communities and told them they needed to vote yes to protect marriage and their children. These people did not understand the civil rights issues around marriage equality and I believe most of them would never have voted for this measure which institutionalizes prejudice had they realized the truth. Unfortunately the No on 8 Campaign did not reach these people. These churches who deliberately violated the regulations governing their tax exempt 501c3 status by direct political action should have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS. They were so eager to establish a beach head in my state they forgot to obey the law and will be held to account for it. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

    Posted by macdon1 at 11/08/2008 @ 4:28pm

26. Posted by Metteyya at 11/08/2008 @ 1:09pm

    Mett, I'm talking about intervention methods.

    For instance...Norway's idea for intervention is geared toward "harm reduction" and outreach work. They've opened up injection rooms (just like BC Canada) "to contribute to enhancing the dignity of hardcore drug users, to provide an opportunity for contact and conversation between drug users and the support services, to contribute to preventing infections and the spread of infections and to reduce the number of overdoses and overdose fatalities".

    This alone should tell you this method defeats the purpose of reducing and preventing sustance abuse.

    Posted by ACook at 11/08/2008 @ 7:26pm

27. "This alone should tell you this method defeats the purpose of reducing and preventing sustance abuse."

    Posted by ACook at 11/08/2008 @ 7:26pm

    It should? Your post says to me that they are all about mitigating harm, by and to, these hardcore users.

    That aside, you have completely ignored the statistics that indicate their methods are superior to ours. i.e. lower recidivism rate, fewer users.

    That is the bottom line, which your tiny, warped worldview tries to keep you from acknowledging.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/08/2008 @ 8:33pm

28. ATTENTION GAY PEOPLE!!!!

    come to ontario. get married. i know a great band for the reception.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/07/2008 @ 2:24pm

    Feel like a road trip to Stanley Park? I decided even before the equal marriage decision in Canada I was going to get married there. And I'm even in discussions to get married to a Canuck!

    Posted by yutsano at 11/08/2008 @ 8:40pm

29. Can we finally considering pulling the tax exempt status from all religious organizations? From time immemorial, they have been directly involved in the political process, while the rest of us subsidize them, while we carry their societal load. Most of these institutions are utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt at the institutional level, their leaders live in relative ease, or flat-out splendor, and those people contribute little or nothing to the betterment of the people. How much did the Mormon and Catholic churches spend in their lying attacks on others? How many millions went out in service to their depraved bigotries, rather than helping to feed the hungry? Enough. If they want to be temporal political organizations, and they most assuredly do, let them pay their freight like the rest of us.

    Posted by jmusolino at 11/09/2008 @ 12:47am

30. I can't understand why the Parental Notification initiative (Proposition 4) was defeated (or frankly why anyone would not support it). If a child gets a headache, and the school nurse wants to administer an aspirin (which I doubt they will even consider doing anymore, but in the 1970s, when I was in elementary school, that remained an option), they have to call your parents on the phone in order to ascertain that it is an approved treatment. I don't see any reason why abortion should be the one, single medical procedure that does not require parental permission (as opposed to mere notification). And if that is going to be the law of the land, shouldn't we have had to pass an initiative to make it that way? It seems the law should treat abortion as the same as all other medical procedures, and that any ballot initiative should have been directed at changing its status so that it no longer required parental permission, like any other surgical procedure quite rightly would so require. Surely Roe vs Wade did not mandate that 12-year olds can get substantial surgery without the permission of their parents?

    I also don't understand why there was so little support for Propositions 7 and 10. The arguments against them were largely vague appeals to abstract authority ("trust us, the experts don't think this is a good idea"), and said that while these were well-meaning environmental measures, they were somehow too "flawed" to merit support. Well, I voted for them, on the simple basis of the fact that it wasn't a choice between doing something "flawed" for the environment, or doing something less flawed, but rather a choice between passing 7 and 10, or doing nothing at all. If they want us to reject "flawed" environmental measures, then give us some good ones we can vote for.

    Posted by KevinRiley at 11/09/2008 @ 09:26am

31. "These churches who deliberately violated the regulations governing their tax exempt 501c3 status by direct political action should have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS. They were so eager to establish a beach head in my state they forgot to obey the law and will be held to account for it."

    Plenty of Black churches supported Barack Obama's election, while the Episcopalian and Unitarian churches were quite active in the "No on 8" campaign. Are you going to go after them as well? Did't think so. Your outrage here clearly stems from people disagreeing with you, and the fact that some of those people did so within the context of religious institutions is a mere pretext. A pretext which you apparently want to use in order to unleash the minions of the state, so as to crush those with whom you disagree. Real nice. Talk about "change." Makes me glad I voted for Nader (although don't get me wrong; I'm very glad McCain/Palin were defeated).

    "Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?"

    Last time I checked, there was no established church anywhere in the USA.

    Posted by KevinRiley at 11/09/2008 @ 09:38am

32. "Any victims rights advocate should be alarmed at the 90% recidivism rate in the US and fully embrace measures that keep ex-offenders- especially the non-violent ones - employed or in training so that they are not compelled to rob or steal because no one wants to hire them."

    This is a very key point. I was convicted of a felony in 1999, and ever since I got laid off in 2002, I have discovered it is essentially impossible to get a job, any job at all, anywhere (I suspect some new security measures were undertaken post-9/11, to the effect that employers now receive lower insurance rates if they are very strict about not hiring felons - I certainly had no difficulty getting the two best jobs I've ever had in my life, after being released from jail in 2000 - but then I got laid off nearly a year after 9/11, and its since been a completely different story). I managed to get another job, due to a personal friendship with someone who managed a grocery store, but then got laid off again in 2006, when Cerberus (a consortium of investors, including Dan Quayle) bought Albertson's, and shut down half their stores, in order to sell off the real estate. I've now been unemployed for over two years. I never let my diagnosed bipolar condition slow me down in life (although it probably had a lot to do with why I so idiotically got myself into legal trouble back in '99), but now I have decided that in order to survive, I have no choice but to apply for Social Security disability. Because I can't get a job (although illegal aliens apparently can; some of them now work at the store I used to work at before being laid off in 2006).

    There aren't enough of us felons to really matter, I suppose, but if we're going to have any hope what-so-ever, we need to become employable again.

    Posted by KevinRiley at 11/09/2008 @ 09:54am

33. "I think it's time for the mainline Protestant churches to step forward and stop letting the evangelical churches dominate the gay rights/same-sex marriage conversation. The Episcopal church elected a gay bishop in New England, and on a congregational level many Presbyterian and Methodist churches have found ways to be inclusive."

    You know why this won't work? I've lived in Northern California almost continuously, since I was toddler in 1972, and I don't think I've ever met an Episcopalian, or a Methodist. I once very briefly dated a Lutheran (charming lady; apparently the only non-elderly person in her congregation). Everyone in this state is either a Catholic, a Mormon, or one of those Evangelical types who think dinosaurs were invented by Todd Palin (or are Atheists, or an agnostic like yours truly, plus the Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, of course). Zoroastrians perhaps outnumber Episcopalians in this state.

    Let me tell you something about the mainline Protestant sects: They don't exist anymore. I'm sure there are still Lutherans in Minnesota, and Methodists somewhere in New England (maybe), and I'm sure the Episcopalians have some big, fancy cathedral in Washington, DC., but these sects are simply not part of human existence here in California. They're something we read about in history books. They sure as Hell ain't gonna be leading any charge to the rescue of one person's political agenda, or another person's. The local neo-Druids in the Santa Cruz Mountains are probably more important than the mainline Protestant sects around here. Hell, I actually considered joining them at one time. I've never heard anyone mention the possibility of becoming a mainline Protestant. And I'm pretty sure I never will.

    Posted by KevinRiley at 11/09/2008 @ 10:20am