Prop 8 to pass?

[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?

[Strike For The South]

Can anyone find me An actual California Constitution? I really can't give an opinion until I read how the define marriage and if it should be there in the first place.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

No, they're changing the constitution.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Things going through the courts really isn't going to help the situation, look what roe vs wade did for abortion then compare it to the abortion situation in europe, i don't think gay marriage will be so decisive in the years to come as its obviously not as easy to get emotional over but it could create some negative feelings for a long time....

[Devastatin Dave]

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

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

[KarlXII]

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

[CrossLOPER]

No, its preventing the attempt to make perversion a norm.

YOU DOWNLOAD A GIG OF PORN EVERY FRIDAY.

[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