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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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."

[Kralizec]

I'm entirely for gay marriage, but doing it by stretching existing laws in court is crossing the line of what should belong the legislature instead of the judiciary.
And apparently it can backfire, too.

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."

Civil unions in the UK and most other European countries that have adopted them are marriages in all but name.

Also...

[Redleg]

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.

Now are you attempting to claim that these abilities are not present for a gay couple through the legal process?

Inheritance rights are covered by a last will and testiment for examble. If you dont have a will, the probate court can decide how your assets get distributed regardless of your marriage status, historically the court will rule to the spouse, then the oldest offspring, and then to the closest surviving kin. However anyone can protest to a probate court and cause a different ruling. So in today's society to protect inheritance one has to have a last will and testment.

Social Security payments come from the Federal statute concerning who gets surviving benefits. So individual states might not have much influence on that aspect regardless of how they pass same sex marriage statutes.

Medical decision can be made via a living will and a power of attorney, which often has to be done even for hetro-sex couples. Only situation I know of is a care of a child, and the genic parent has priority over the apodted parent. Adopted parents have the same right regardless of sex if the genic parent is not available. So this is not a same-sex marriage issue from what I can tell.

Own property together is also covered on how one purchases the property - regardless if you married or not.

So that leaves insurance policies - most insurance companies have policies on this, and some even cover same-sex couples alreadly. So I am not sure if this qualifies as a violation of rights/

file taxes together goes back to the Federal statute for everyone, and each state can cover how that is done for their state, but it does not override the Federal requirement. So in this aspect there might be a case of violation of a right, but one would have to establish the case that paying taxes is a right, not a requirement of the law.

So like I stated earlier what individual rights are being denied because an individual is gay? What priviledges are being denied to a couple who happens to be gay? are those priviledges by necessity also 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.

I dont see that as a valid arguement either since a medical decision can be made by having established the right documentation, for examble my wife also has a power of attorney to make medical decisions for me if I become incapatiated - I did this because we currently live in two different states to insure she has the ability to make that decision for me. Even hetro-sex couples have to have this power of attorney to insure medical care is within what the individual wanted, its called a living will I believe.

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."

Your spouse can be un-insurable regardless of her being of the same sex or a different sex.
Pensions now can only be inheritable if they are established as such. Spouses are not automatically entitled to some types of penisions.

Like I said before - establish the proof that individual rights are being denied to gay couples and I might change my mind on the issue, but as far as I can tell there individual rights are not being denied. state sanctioned priviledges might be limited - but one can have their ability to drive an automobile denied because of poor vision - its a state sanctioned license event - which means it is not a right in itself.

[Whacker]

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 contempt for gay people seeking equal rights does, indeed, come across as motivated and informed by an intolerance of gay people and not wanting to hear their so called "whining", and a total lack of empathy or ability to place yourself in their shoes. If you could do that, even for a moment, you wouldn't 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."

Well said.

@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.

Edit - @ Redleg - I apologize in advance, I skimmed your post, gotta get to work. A number of points you made in your post are incorrect, inheritance being one of the more glaring ones, there are quite a number of laws that trump will statements and requirements. The fact of the matter is that current legal venues and instruments have a huge gap when it comes to offering gay couples the same means as straight couples. My (gay) friend once gave me a big rundown of what some of the larger issues are, but suffice to say that there's a rather large discrepancy. If folks are curious I can ask him again and post them.

[Don Corleone]

I cannot believe how naive you're all being. Lambda has come out and said they were hoping for somebody to modify a State Constitution. Why? Because that is what it takes to get the federal government involved. You cannot pass ammendments to your state constitution that do not jibe with the federal constitution. As soon as this ammendment gets puts into the California Constitution, its' going to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which will find that all attempts at the state level to legislate or decide by executive act at the state level are unconstitutional, by virtue of the 14th ammendment. From there, either it will go to the Supreme Court, which will validate that decision, or as I predict it won't be picked up and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Decision, which trumps state constitutions, will be the final say on the matter.

Translation, this is the backdoor for gay marriage (no pun intended) to become a national law. Sorry folks, game over. Even in Utah, they're going to have to allow for gay marriage. My guess is it will happen sometime before June, to allow for the traditional wedding season.

[Yoyoma1910]

Why don't we just ban all marriage?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If they were real christians they'd do some actual good with the 25 million dollars they spent on the campaign rather than pushing through an issue that will just be on the ballot again next year.

[seireikhaan]

Good for California. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the vote, the fact is, this is how things are supposed to work. They wanted to change the constitution, so they did it with a vote. If people cared about the bill, they should have showed up. If they wanna change it again, vote on it again.

[Yoyoma1910]

If they were real christians they'd do some actual good with the 25 million dollars they spent on the campaign rather than pushing through an issue that will just be on the ballot again next year.

And if they were really good Christians, they would use that paper money to build a pyre with which to burn gay witches on.

[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?

[Decker]

@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.

Alright, I don't think I was exactly clear in my initial post.

What I'm saying is that I believe that marriage is more of a religious tradition than how it was presented in the campaigns for and against prop 8. I think that they should get the rights, but fighting over them on something that is known to be a touchy subject is just the wrong way about it. From the outset I thought prop 8 was wrongly written, and figured that there are better ways for them (the gay community) to recieve any rights that they need or need fixing. I don't see them wanting the whole image of marriage more than the legal rights that accompany it. There are better ways to go about aquiring the necessary rights for them whereas I see marriage and religion going more hand-in-hand with the legal rights attached.

[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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

@ Decker - I don't give one hoot about various religious institutions' views on marriage/civil unions/partnerships/whatever the hell you want to call it. If religion X refuses to recognize partnerships between gay couples then I don't care, that's entirely within their right to do so. But these folks deserve every single other legal right and benefit that normal "straight" couples do, and that's a government issue.

Did you not read the story Don posted about that NJ Church losing part of their tax exemption for not letting lesbians marry on property they owned?

I don't want gay couples to be called 'married' in any way. Civil contracts that let them have hospital visitation rights are acceptable, but this isn't about 'equality' - no one's rights are being denied because people of the same sex can't marry.

EDIT: So much has been made of opponents being 'homophobic' or other nonsense. But its because the gay lobby is trying to tear down an institution sacred to most Americans, even in California, that this passed. Three constitutional gay marriage bans passed (by 62% in Florida!) this election, which might be enough to stop the gay lobby for a while.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

This issue is going to come up again, and again, and again, and again, until the rights are recognized. It is not really my purpose to "convince" people who are against it. There were people who went to their graves against interracial marriage rights and fully recognized equal rights for black people. Let 'em rot. The current unequal recognition of full rights--- or, as Redleg suggested-- having to go and spend a lot of money with an attorney to draw up complicated equivalent rights privately, which you then might get tied up in court anyway having to defend when they are challenged by family members or hospital administrators or an insurance company, is not supportable and courts are doing their job PERFECTLY when they find problems with the double standard. The idea that courts have absolutely no role at all-- indeed, that they are usurping power and abusively "legislating from the bench" when they make a ruling that a particular law is unconstitutional or violates equal protections, is regressive. If not for courts, if every decision was left purely up to popular legislation, I would not be surprised to still see antimiscegenation on the books in many southern states. Or the stay of Japanese Americans in internment camps to have lasted four times longer than it did. Or for schools in the south to still have formally segregated white and black proms. A state of unrecognition of gay equal rights is going to go the way of the dinosaur, but the social conservative and religious constituencies in the U.S. are just being used in the meanwhile as tools to come to the polls for a hotly controversial wedge issue, and a ton of money is being spent on it. I have extreme skepticism that the huge money people are willing to spend to encode bans on gay rights into state or Federal constitutions is only out of sheer moral conviction and nothing to do with the fact that this gets Americans of a certain political stripe energized to get their butts to the polls.