Prop 8 to pass?

[KarlXII]

God help us.

Yes- Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry 5,387,939 52.5% For 4,883,460 47.5% Against.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR

[KarlXII]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Yeah! No gay marriage in my Christain nation!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Come on, McCain got beat and Rossi lost as well. This and the defeat of Darcy Burner are what I'm bitterly clinging to. Along with my guns.

CR

[KarlXII]

Come on, McCain got beat and Rossi lost as well. This and the defeat of Darcy Burner are what I'm bitterly clinging to. Along with my guns.

CR

And? McCain being defeated does not cause an amendment to the consitution saying "Presidents are only recognized as 30 year old men or woman".

[Strike For The South]

Score one for states rights.

[GoreBag]

Christain

Hur hur hur.

[Xiahou]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR

Gay marriage supporters could have gotten some sort of civil unions bill through without too much trouble- it's California after all. But instead of convincing people to support it, they did an end around and got an activist judge to rewrite the marriage laws. Now they face a constitutional amendment that will ban it permanently.

The lesson? Persuade people to support you instead of using the courts- they can backfire.

[CountArach]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR

The election was already over by the time it came to the west coast, and as such the Democratic Turnout later in the day was severely dampened. When you add this with the fact that the "No on 8" group had no GOTV operation, whereas the Yes vote had the churches (Particularly the Mormon church) then there was always going to be much less chance of ithe No vote winning.

On the other hand, it ain't over yet. The ACLU has launched a campaign to get the vote declared invalid. Its an interesting read - it says that the Proposition is directly contradicted by the part of the Constitution that led to Gay Marriage being legalised in the first place.

[Xiahou]

On the other hand, it ain't over yet. The ACLU has launched a campaign to get the vote declared invalid. Its an interesting read - it says that the Proposition is directly contradicted by the part of the Constitution that led to Gay Marriage being legalised in the first place.

Which is why their argument is so asinine- it's an amendment to the constitution. It's changing what the document says.

Mind you, I'm not saying their case won't win. Liberal judges are supposed to rule based on compassion and empathy, not any sort of rational standards, like the law.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Which is why their argument is so asinine- it's an amendment to the constitution. It's changing what the document says.

Mind you, I'm not saying their case won't win. Liberal judges are supposed to rule based on compassion and empathy, not any sort of rational standards, like the law.

Really, the initiative is changing the constitution of the state - but those ACLU idiots will support their ideologies first over what's in a constitution always.

CR

[KarlXII]

Really, the initiative is changing the constitution of the state - but those ACLU idiots will support their ideologies first over what's in a constitution always.

CR

Huh. Really, isn't that what the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd is doing? Putting their religion and ideologies over what the Constitution says?

[Koga No Goshi]

Boo-yah.

Take that, legislating courts.

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

CR

Yup, huzzah, a win for misdirection, misinformation and fear tactics based upon prejudice.

I heard somewhere between 3 and 5 "yes on 8" ads on the radio for every 1 "no on 8" ad. I don't have hard number stats in front of me but out of the 74 million dollars spent on 8, I can't possibly imagine no had a greater budget than yes. I'm sure a lot of the money was flowing in from all over the country on both ends.

But the "yes" campaign was downright shameful--- they dealt, almost ENTIRELY, with things that were misleading to outright false, and had nothing to do with the law itself. I had only heard the title "Knights of Columbus" here and there a few times before but they definitely have a very bad reputation with me now.

All of the ads covered one of the following points: first graders viewing a lesbian wedding, parents not being able to get notification or remove their children from instruction in school about gay marriage, gay marriage being taught in schools, and churches losing their tax-exempt status.

Whatever teacher took their first grade class to a lesbian wedding, especially considering that either one of the parents or the media or both had a flippin cow over it and made it a scandal in the press, had remarkably bad judgment. But this had nothing to do with Prop 8. Mind you, I think there is nothing wrong with seeing a lesbian wedding and I think the idea that kids were scarred or traumatized or stripped of their moral fiber by seeing one was ridiculous. I just think in the political climate a teacher who thought this wouldn't turn into a fiasco wasn't using very good sense.

Parents not being able to get notification and remove their children from instruction? Come ON. I'm a pacifist, does that mean I am entitled to be notified when wars will be covered in history classes and remove my child? (Assuming I'd want to, which I wouldn't... I don't see how ignorance of war would help me raise my child as a better person.) Somehow I think if this were a story about Muslim parents demanding notification and wanting to remove their children on days when sexual education, reproduction or evolution would be taught in a school somewhere in Paris or Stockholm, the defense our board conservatives will give of this concept would disappear in a hurry.

Teaching gay marriage in public schools (some of the ads were as vapid and petty as to say "it is a joke among children in schools, just like when it was legalized in Massachussetts.. this is a reason to vote for or against a law? That's pretty pathetic) was a lie and a scare tactic, they stopped just short of basically frightening parents that gay marriage was going to be "encouraged" or that kids would be taught to be gay or something. The California schools superintendent pointed out that schools do not teach anything about marriage (other than, I suppose, any incidental conversations where it would come up) and that nothing about Prop 8 had anything to do with "Teaching kids gay marriage"--- prop 8 proposed eliminating gay marriage rights in the California state constitution. How are these two related issues? Pure scare tactic.

Churches losing tax exempt status-- again, had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and was pure scare tactic. No church has ever or will ever be singled out and punished for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony which is not in keeping with their particular religion or denomination's beliefs. Take the Mormons, for example--- traditional Mormons do not allow any non-Mormons into Mormon religious ceremonies, including weddings. My coworker, whose friend is Mormon and lives in Utah, married a woman who was from Japan. Her family, not knowing anything about Mormonism (I suspect that the wife didn't know much either) flew out, only to be told they could not actually sit in the church for the ceremony itself because they were non-Mormons. Kinda crappy, but the Mormon Church is not going to lose their tax-exempt status over it.

It's one thing to not approve of gay marriage. It's another thing to try to defend the religiously-based ad campaign which flat out lied and misled people into voting yes on 8 NOT for any of the tired old arguments about protecting traditional marriage, but on things which had nothing to do with prop 8 whatsoever, and played on people's fears. This law might very well have failed if honest arguments had been presented--- so the people supporting yes on 8, apparently feeling smug and self-righteous enough in the correctness of their moral view of banning gay marriage, felt entitled to outright lie and use fear and prejudice and misinformation to get their way. And it worked.

You can call this a victory, but not for democracy, or for morals. Only for getting your way at any cost, using fear and ignorance and prejudice.

[ajaxfetish]

Churches losing tax exempt status-- again, had NOTHING to do with Prop 8, and was pure scare tactic. No church has ever or will ever be singled out and punished for refusing to conduct a marriage ceremony which is not in keeping with their particular religion or denomination's beliefs. Take the Mormons, for example--- traditional Mormons do not allow any non-Mormons into Mormon religious ceremonies, including weddings. My coworker, whose friend is Mormon and lives in Utah, married a woman who was from Japan. Her family, not knowing anything about Mormonism (I suspect that the wife didn't know much either) flew out, only to be told they could not actually sit in the church for the ceremony itself because they were non-Mormons. Kinda crappy, but the Mormon Church is not going to lose their tax-exempt status over it.

Okay, first a point of clarification. Non-Mormons are not allowed to attend Mormon temple ceremonies (neither are Mormons without a valid and current temple recommend). The vast majority of Mormon services and religious ceremonies do not take place in temples, and are open to anyone who wishes to attend. Furthermore, if your friend and his fiance failed to clearly explain the situation and their intentions to her family well ahead of time, that was gross negligence on their part and very discourteous.

Second, unless I'm mistaken, this amendment is not retroactive. I know my lesbian aunts in Berkeley were planning to be married before the election for that reason. Their union should still be legally protected, right? They've been together for many years and have two children, so it's about time their family becomes official, imo. And in case it hasn't come through already, not all Mormons are against gay marriage--just the vast majority .

Finally, as we live under a democratic nation and the will of the people of California has been expressed, even if misguided by whatever campaign tactics, the decision should be respected as final and legally binding until further legislation reverses it. As some posters have already mentioned, the effort to allow the legal protections of marriage to gay families must start with winning people over and move on to popular legislation. The straightforward way is the best.

Ajax

[Redleg]

Look folks its a constitutional democracy, then its up to the people to vote on what they wish for their society to have. So like in any election if you dont like the results not live in a democracy.

It could of gone the other way also, its the risk one takes when living in a democracy. The people of California have been allowed to vote their opinion on how they wish their society to precede. As long as individual rights are not being violated the new proposition to the constitution should not be overturned by the courts.

So the arguement returns to what rights are being denied to a gay couple? For instance a gay couple can indeed grant their partner most if not all of the marriage priviledges through legal means, one being a civil union and the other being a last will and testiment.

Is it a violation of their individual rights, when they indeed have a path to procede on/

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Passed, ironically, in part by the high turnout for Obama; this measure was supported strongly by minorities.

Must be really rough for Log Cabin Republicans...

o/ democracy

[Whacker]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans.

[Decker]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans.

Marriage is a religious act brought up and started by religions around the world. It was never really for men to marry men or women to marry women. It was for a man and a woman to marry. It was never started by some government. In the end it's not bigotry, they have all the same rights as straight couples but I guess that's not enough for them and they just want more more more even using the whole being treated like the slave shtick. That's a load of bull, but I guess we "have" to listen to it because they have a right to feel like the slaves? Really. That's rediculous for marriage to be fought over in a state's constitution, it appears that separation of church and state has no application here. So if it did pass and a church refuses to allows gays to marry because of their belief system, who is in the wrong? And calling people bigotry over something like this is exactly what they want you to feel like. That for me, was their biggest problem, they cried wolf and played the "victim" when in reality they have as many rights as any straight couple.

[Koga No Goshi]

Marriage is a religious act brought up and started by religions around the world. It was never really for men to marry men or women to marry women. It was for a man and a woman to marry. It was never started by some government. In the end it's not bigotry, they have all the same rights as straight couples but I guess that's not enough for them and they just want more more more even using the whole being treated like the slave shtick. That's a load of bull, but I guess we "have" to listen to it because they have a right to feel like the slaves? Really. That's rediculous for marriage to be fought over in a state's constitution, it appears that separation of church and state has no application here. So if it did pass and a church refuses to allows gays to marry because of their belief system, who is in the wrong? And calling people bigotry over something like this is exactly what they want you to feel like. That for me, was their biggest problem, they cried wolf and played the "victim" when in reality they have as many rights as any straight couple.

This is the same argument used by almost everyone who opposes gay marriage rights. Gay people aren't demanding that religion recognize gay unions. Gay people want the same ability to insure each other on insurance policies, own property together, file taxes together, allow each other medical decisions and hospital visitation access, inheritance rights, pension and social security rights, that any other couple would receive-- if they weren't a gay couple. Legal rights.

If you believe marriage is purely religious and governments have no place in the marriage discussion, go take that up with your government, because I guarantee whatever country you live in affords levels of legally sanctioned rights like the ones I listed above based on whether or not the individuals are married. The claim that gay people have the "same rights", but just have to go marry someone of the opposite gender who isn't their life partner, to make medical decisions for them or inherit their property if they die-- is ridiculous.

Your position on gay people's stance about marriage rights does come across as not looking at the issue from their shoes. If you did that, I don't see how you can objectively look at all the rights straight people may take for granted upon marrying someone and say eh, they're nothing, gay people have absolutely no legitimate complaint in not being able to get them.

And no civil union right in existence, anywhere, carries all the power and all-encompassing status of legal marriage. You may get certain rights such as property and hospital visitation, but your "spouse" may not be entitled to receive any of your pension if you die. Or your "spouse" may not be insurable under your insurance policy which only recognizes "single" and "married."

[Spino]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans.

So you don't like the opposition to gay marriage?!? Welcome to planet Earth! Please remain seated while the tour bus is in motion and kindly refrain from feeding the primates. We hope you enjoy your stay!

Seriously, since its inception marriage has been an exclusively heterosexual union of man and woman coming together for the purpose of creating legitimate offspring and the secondary purpose of strengthening inter-familial ties (i.e. blood bonds)... period. This whole love marriage thing is a recent phenomenon. Even more recent is this phenomenon where couples who have no intention of having children get married anyway... I mean, what's the point?!?

Love?!? What's love got to do with it? What's love but a second hand emotion?

[Devastatin Dave]

Wow. Bigotry at it's finest. Makes me ashamed of my fellow Americans.

The same shame I feel for electing a commie after we've spent most of the last century trying to keep them from taking over. Sometimes you can't have everything you want....

[Hosakawa Tito]

Like union seniority rights, democracy is great till one doesn't get what they want, then it's not fair.

[CrossLOPER]

The same shame I feel for electing a commie after we've spent most of the last century trying to keep them from taking over. Sometimes you can't have everything you want....

hur dur hur redurstibyoootin teh welth