amidst all the delight regarding the outcome of the Presidential election it is easy to overlook the fact that the anti-gay Proposition 8 appears to be heading for victory in California .

How ironic that while the outcome of the Presidential campaign is seen by many as final proof of the victory of the civil rights battle in the US , at the same time the electorate in what is normally regarded as one of the more liberal parts of the US seems to be voting to take rights away from another minority , and what is even worse is that many of those voting in favour of this discriminatory proposition are those who have been on the receiving end of discrimination themselves who should presumably know what it is like to be treated unfairly .

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Thread starter): How ironic that while the outcome of the Presidential campaign is seen by many as final proof of the victory of the civil rights battle in the US , at the same time the electorate in what is normally regarded as one of the more liberal parts of the US seems to be voting to take rights away from another minority , and what is even worse is that many of those voting in favour of this discriminatory proposition are those who have been on the receiving end of discrimination themselves who should presumably know what it is like to be treated unfairly .

Very well said   

I'm not really that surprised that Florida voted to ban gay marriage with such an overwhelming majority, but that California is close to banning as well?!   

Don't make the mistake of thinking California is liberal statewide....the Central Valley in particular and Southern California outside of Los Angeles can be freakishly conservative.

The Mormons are gonna have a lot to answer for with this one.

This isn't just a California issue. Every similar ballot measure in other states had the same result.

Arizona Proposition 102: Ban on Gay Marriage

This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2006 but failed.

Yes: 1,039,606 56%
No: 801,279 44%


Arkansas Initiative 1: Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children

This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples.

Yes: 573,774 57%
No: 434,344 43%


California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage

This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state. If passed, the measure would trump a May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.

Yes: 5,019,930 52%
No: 4,656,291 48%


Florida Amendment 2: Ban on Gay Marriage

This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In order to amend the Florida constitution, 60 percent of voters must vote in favor of the amendment.

Yes: 4,662,558 62%
No: 2,851,598 38%



In addition to these ballot measures, all others regarding abortion and affirmative action had similar, very conservative results. The only surprise was Michigan's vote in favor of stem cell research.

I am not afraid to admit, hearing the news over these measures literally brought me to tears last night. I wrote and submitted a short letter to the editor to USA Today this morning:

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
On November 4th, our nation took a giant step forward by electing Barack Obama our next President. I am proud to see the progress we’ve made as a nation. However, this night was a bittersweet one for me as well as for millions of other Americans when several ballot measures passed banning gay marriage and adoption. It literally brought me to tears to think so many people would be willing to deny happiness to so many of their fellow citizens. While it is nearly impossible for me to imagine what married gay couples in California must now be going through as their relationships are once more relegated to the status of “separate but equal”, I will stand beside them and fight until these discriminatory measures which are now state law are repealed, and the pursuit of happiness is once again attainable by all Americans: gay, straight, black, white, and everything in between.

Quoting IflyKPDX (Reply 4): I am not afraid to admit, hearing the news over these measures literally brought me to tears last night. I wrote and submitted a short letter to the editor to USA Today this morning: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back On November 4th, our nation took a giant step forward by electing Barack Obama our next President. I am proud to see the progress we’ve made as a nation. However, this night was a bittersweet one for me as well as for millions of other Americans when several ballot measures passed banning gay marriage and adoption. It literally brought me to tears to think so many people would be willing to deny happiness to so many of their fellow citizens. While it is nearly impossible for me to imagine what married gay couples in California must now be going through as their relationships are once more relegated to the status of “separate but equal”, I will stand beside them and fight until these discriminatory measures which are now state law are repealed, and the pursuit of happiness is once again attainable by all Americans: gay, straight, black, white, and everything in between.

Anybody with dear gay friends, relatives, or close acquaintances feels exactly that and more. I was watching the Prop 8 returns very closely, having gone to the trouble to submit my California absentee ballot from abroad at considerable expense (US consulates charge ridiculous rates for notarization) and having donated money to Equality California no less than five times as the costs for this campaign escalated to unheard of levels over the summer.

I'm so angry about this I don't even have the words...much less anything nice to say about the selfish people who voted YES for this. Gay marriage doesn't change any straight Californian's marital status, nor does it threaten them in any way, shape, or form. Whatever the rationalization, there is no excuse for this kind of discrimination in this day and age. Now for the THIRD time in seven years, my aunt and her partner will have the status of their union once again called into question. They first married in Hawaii, then joined the fight in their home state, which is now stabbing them in the back, once again.

WE WILL NOT STOP UNTIL SEPERATE BUT EQUAL MARRIAGE IS GONE FOREVER

This is very sad indeed, but not surprising. I can't believe that the nation that I so proudly served in uniform, that my father and grandfather fought for still harbors these feelings of oppression and discrimination. The election of Obama is a great step forward but much is left to do in this country until we are all truly seen as equal under the law.

This is the main reason why I always feel awkward when I hear our current leaders talk about bringing democracy, freedom, and justice to other parts of the world. How can we when we still discriminate against our own at home?

One day these religious types will have to answer to a higher power though.

I suppose in the language of fashion magazines: GAY IS THE NEW BLACK.

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 2): The Mormons are gonna have a lot to answer for with this one.

LOL! Yes, blame a really tiny minority in an overwhelmingly liberal state. There aren’t enough Mormons in CA to fill up Candlestick Park in SFO, surrounded by one of the most activist and left leaning populaces ever found.

Maybe, just maybe, even normal center, center-left/right people just don’t feel gay ‘marriage’ in the form proposed is something they want. Legal contracts suffice.

Quoting IflyKPDX (Reply 4): “separate but equal”,

Don’t even dare to compare being gay to black. You cannot even compare the persecution and travails of black Americans to the challenges of being gay, especially since homeosexuality has, in many regards, been mainstreamed into culture and society and is largely accepted over the course of a few decades. Whereas blacks were, oh yeah—SLAVES. And were hung from trees, lynched, persecuted, couldn’t vote, couldn’t do anything on par with their fellow citizens. Homosexuals can. So please, cut the histrionics.

No question though that the fight will continue. It always does until the minority gets what it wants, no matter who or where. And Obama will give you the change you seek, so don’t sweat it.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8): It's interesting that it's not the homophobia that bothers me but rather the sheer stupidity behind measures like this.

Yup. The whole thing is an embarrassment. I live in the heart of the Jello belt, in Gilbert, AZ, and in my neighborhood, most of my neighbors are Mormon, and all of them had that jolly looking "Yes on 102" sign in the yard. It amazes me that such an unChristian thing is pushed so hard by the churches.
Anyway, I can't really say I'm surprised at it's passing, if for no other reason but that to "No" side was just about invisible, and what ads and posters they had were horrible. They just took the "Vote No, again" approach, where I think they should have taken the approach that Constitutions are meant to guarantee rights, not take them away, and that the measure is mean, pointless, and like I said, not very Christian. WWJD? Not this!

Is there any recourse to the decision of Prop 8 for gay people? I doubt that the result can be appealed to the California Supreme Court, but can the amendment be challenged to the US Supreme Court? I am just wondering if this is the 'end of the road.' What will happen to those already married gay couples? Will their marriage licenses become null and void?

A very unfortunate result; entrenching inequality in the application of a law into the constitution.

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): Maybe, just maybe, even normal center, center-left/right people just don’t feel gay ‘marriage’ in the form proposed is something they want.

What they want is tyranny of the majority. In any case, what they want is irrelevant since they are already able to marry without impediment. The fact that you put quotes around marriage is only indicative of your fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): There aren’t enough Mormons in CA to fill up Candlestick Park in SFO, surrounded by one of the most activist and left leaning populaces ever found.

That's where you're misinformed. The LDS were among the largest out of state organizations that donated money to the YES on 8 campaign. I don't know why a religious organization 1000 miles to the east has any stake in what goes on in California to begin with, but they got involved and that's why they took heat from Californians who opposed this discrimination nonsense.

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): It always does until the minority gets what it wants

What's so bad about people wanting to get married?

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): So please, cut the histrionics.

It's unfortunate that people use that comparison, because it's wrong. A better one is that interracial marriage was once illegal, and the very notion is now considered cockamamie.

I have to wonder how many of the people who voted for Prop 8 to 'protect the sanctity of marriage' have been divorced twice and are on their third marriage .

I wonder how many of the African-Americans who voted yes because "marriage should only be between a man and a woman" remember that there was a time not all that long ago when in some US states marriage could only be between a man and a woman.... so long as they were both of the same skin colour.

I wonder how many of the people who voted yes 'to protect the children' have ever given their own kids a thrashing because the bible says 'spare the rod and spoil the child' .

I wonder how many of the people who voted yes 'because the old testament says that sort of thing is wrong ' have ever eaten pork , or shellfish ( both banned in Leviticus) or consumed a cheeseburger ( breaking the old testament prohibition on mixing dairy and meat ) or worn a polycotton shirt ( wrong in so many ways aside from just the OT prohibition on mixing different types of fabric )

Quoting Diamond (Reply 3): This isn't just a California issue. Every similar ballot measure in other states had the same result.

I know , but I really expected better in California whereas I really had no hope of common sense or fairness prevailing in those other states - there is also the difference that in California it was a vote to deprive people of an existing right recognised in law - whereas in the other states as far as I am aware it was to keep people from ever gaining the right - I know that both situations are deplorable but somehow the California situation seems all the more depressing because of that difference

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): It always does until the minority gets what it wants, no matter who or where.

What exactly do you mean by this? What the "minority wants"? What about Justice, equality, fair treatment. There are states in the union where you are not protected if your employer fires you for being gay. In most states of the union a gay partner can't see his/her lover in a hospital bed, not having as much as a right to say goodbye. Worse, an openly gay person can't serve the country in the military, regardless of the pride he/she feels for the country.

Sometimes it makes me feel ashamed of my own country, but then I'm reminded that not all Americans think this way:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 5): I'm so angry about this I don't even have the words...

Thank you Aaron, words like these mean a lot to me. I hope that one day I'll be able to look at my partner and say "I do" as any other American has the freedom to do.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 14): Quoting Diamond (Reply 3): This isn't just a California issue. Every similar ballot measure in other states had the same result. I know , but I really expected better in California

Agreed. I've heard people from California on this board who spout off all the time about how "backwards" other parts of the nation are (i.e., the South) compared to California, which is supposed to be so enlightened.

It illustrates the danger and stupidity (not to mention hypocrisy) of stereotyping.

I'm sorry Prop 8 worked out this way...I truly expected that it wouldn't pass.

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 2): freakishly conservative

I find it funny how you expect people to respect your point of you view yet you can't respect others.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 5): I'm so angry about this I don't even have the words...much less anything nice to say about the selfish people who voted YES for this

Why don't you just call up Bill Ayers and plant some bombs?   

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): Maybe, just maybe, even normal center, center-left/right people just don’t feel gay ‘marriage’ in the form proposed is something they want. Legal contracts suffice.

Nahh, other people's views mean nothing. Remember? I guess the vote is only respected if you voted for Obama. Remember how you all say the right to vote is sacred? Well you need to respect it even when it doesn't agree with your views.

I was proud of California last night when we sent Obama over the edge in electoral votes needed, but I am ashamed that Prob 8 had any supporters! I thought there would be some, but not to the point where it is on the verge of passing! I'm very disappointed in you, Californians! I'm in Indiana for college, so I had to make effort to vote no! I have gay friends back home in LA, and I feel so angry and no words can express my sorrow for my friends, who don't have the same rights as my straight friends. California, grow up!

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13): That's where you're misinformed. The LDS were among the largest out of state organizations that donated money to the YES on 8 campaign. I don't know why a religious organization 1000 miles to the east has any stake in what goes on in California to begin with, but they got involved and that's why they took heat from Californians who opposed this discrimination nonsense.

Thank you for breaking it down into simple terms for him.  

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17): Well you need to respect it even when it doesn't agree with your views.

Marriage is not a 'view'.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17): I find it funny how you expect people to respect your point of you view yet you can't respect others.

I don't respect any organization that brings a ballot measure intended to shit all over the rights of others, nor do I respect the person who votes for it and thinks nothing of it. It's America goddamn it, not Russia or China!

This entire issue should never even had come on the ballot, as voter in California already had previously approved another measure preventing California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Only as a result of the questionable actions San Francisco based State Court tossing out that law in June of this year did a state constitutional amendment ever become a consideration for Californians.

This time voters instead if creating another softer basic law which could be open for tinkering by the courts and legislature they went for a legally stronger State constitutional amendment which would be free from state court or legislature actions. Basically 4 judges hijacked the wishes of millions of voters, and the voters retaliated with an even stronger ballot measure.

At the end of the day, I am a firm believer the GLBT community is hurting their own stance in society by making marriage such a major issue. The California vote, and actions in other states shows when pushed society is not ready too see the perversion of a very common accepted law and religious belief.

The more the issue comes up, the more in my opinion GLBT will have negative light drawn to them likely setting back any reforms they ever wish to see.

Seriously, I just do not understand what people have against gay marriage. What the hell is the difference between straight marriage and gay marriage besides the sex of the couples? It is truly sad that people really think that allowing gay marriage will f things up for straight couples.. or whatever the hell they think.

What really gets me though is this ban on gay couples adopting children or serving as foster parents. Seriously, I am a very rational and calm man but am angry about this. Why would you want people who want to love an abandon child to be denied that right?! What makes a straight couple any more capable of raising a child? I have plenty of friends who had deadbeat, straight parents that did not contribute a darn thing to their life. Yet my cousin, who is an extremely intelligent, successful woman, had twins with her partner and she is one of the best mothers ever! I am sorry for the rant, but I had to say it.

Quoting 4holer (Reply 10): I live in the heart of the Jello belt, in Gilbert, AZ, and in my neighborhood, most of my neighbors are Mormon,

I used to live on San Remo right off Guadalupe.. I have never seen more mormon churches on one street in my life!

Not over yet... still need to count the millions of absentee ballots. But it doesn't look good. How can people be so cruel?

NIKV69: Denying equal rights is NOT something that CAN be respected, no matter how you spin it.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21): Only as a result of the questionable actions San Francisco based State Court tossing out that law in June of this year did a state constitutional amendment ever become a consideration for Californians.

Nice attempt at misdirection as if the Supreme Court's location has any bearing on its decision-making. It bears pointing out that while the decision to overturn Prop 22 was 4-3, six of the seven sitting judges on the Court were Republican appointees. They threw it out because it was a bad law, period.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21): Basically 4 judges hijacked the wishes of millions of voters

As judges have done throughout history when tyranny of the majority has been an issue. Why should 'wishes' for discriminatory actions be permitted to become law? Was it so long ago that San Francisco voters "wished" for Chinese to be excluded from the city for 17 years? Was it so long ago that Californians of Mexican ancestry couldn't own property, by virtue of what the voters "wished"? This is no different, no matter how you want to spin and "pervert" the issue.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21): The more the issue comes up, the more in my opinion GLBT will have negative light drawn to them likely setting back any reforms they ever wish to see.

NO way. The more GLBT are beat down by laws that are without merit, the more their nephews, nieces, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, educators, protectors, employers, and friends will come to their aid, as we've been doing for years now. F*ck that.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): can't believe that the nation that I so proudly served in uniform, that my father and grandfather fought for still harbors these feelings of oppression and discrimination.

I can and I am in the same boat. I don't see it as oppression or discrimination either. Whom you choose to live and sleep with is your business, whom you choose to marry is the States business via the people.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): One day these religious types will have to answer to a higher power though.

I have a feeling that if just religious people were voting for these measures they would not have passed by the margins they did.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13): What they want is tyranny of the majority.

I'm sorry, but what elects the President of the United States? A majority of electoral votes. Is that not tryanny of the majority? I voted for John McCain, am I not now politically as oppressed as gays are sexually in the States where these measures passed?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20): Marriage is not a 'view'

No but the law governing it is. It went to a vote and just because it didn't go your way you don't respect the vote. Now that is what sounds like Russia pal.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 23): Denying equal rights is NOT something that CAN be respected, no matter how you spin it.

It is you that is spinning it buddy, marriage between a man and woman is governed by state law, so it does come under vote. Just because civil unions are fine is some peoples' opinion doesn't mean any civil rights are being violated.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): I can and I am in the same boat. I don't see it as oppression or discrimination either. Whom you choose to live and sleep with is your business, whom you choose to marry is the States business via the people

Spot on.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13): The fact that you put quotes around marriage is only indicative of your fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.

Actually, the reason I put quotes around it is because I happen to believe, as the majority of Americans, that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, and is a gift from our God. Anything else is a civil union and a secular legal contract. But just as the liberals like to do in this country, changing the nomenclature is a way to start winning the battle. I have no problem fundamentally with homosexuality as far as people’s free choice and what they choose to do (I’m a Libertarian after all) even if my own personal faith, as a Christian, may not agree with it. But I too do not believe ‘marriage’ in the correct term nor construct for what could be legitimate civil rights accommodation for homosexuals. Again, I’ll repeat: this isn’t about hate or homophobia or anything like that.

But as far as lack of understanding, it has been the rational folks in this country that do legitimately struggle with reconciling freedom of association and ‘live and let live’ with what they see as a major attack on what is not merely a lifestyle, but a sacrament. For non-Christians, this is where there is a lack of understanding on the other side and it results in the hate and rage and haughtiness, as evidenced by some in this very thread.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13): That's where you're misinformed. The LDS were among the largest out of state organizations that donated money to the YES on 8 campaign. I don't know why a religious organization 1000 miles to the east has any stake in what goes on in California to begin with, but they got involved and that's why they took heat from Californians who opposed this discrimination nonsense.

And yet according to Kathryn Lopez in NRO, we hear a different story: “Part of the reason I can’t get swept up in this surface-deep historic moment of tolerance has to do with an ad that ran this week in California, in opposition to Proposition 8, which would protect traditional marriage against overreaching judges. The ad featured two women, married in San Francisco. Two Mormon missionaries invade their home — announcing “we’re here to take away your rights” — tear up their marriage license, and walk away asking “what should we ban next?” The bigoted ad ends, “Say no to a Church taking over your government.”

The Left has a lot to learn about tolerance.” Indeed.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17): I find it funny how you expect people to respect your point of you view yet you can't respect others.

That’s the liberal way, you know.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): m I not now politically as oppressed as gays are sexually

Don't make me laugh. When your partner is on their deathbed and you cannot carry out their last wishes because state law recognises their parents as a higher authority and renders you powerless, get back to me.

This is a sad occasion, America is now denying people a fundamental freedom and it will probably take a good few years for there to be any sense of sexual and gender equality.

By the way, just as a side note, after 3-4 years or so or civil partnerships, divorce rates among LGBT couples are around 20% lower than for straight couples who married in the same period. Something to think about when bleating on the scanctity of marriage.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): I voted for John McCain, am I not now politically as oppressed as gays are sexually in the States where these measures passed?

No. What civil right was taken away from you last night?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): Whom you choose to live and sleep with is your business, whom you choose to marry is the States business via the people

Why does the state get to say who one can marry? Oh thats right the church!    Thats it, im calling my state rep and telling him we need to ban straight marriage, 50% of them fail anyways, we suck at it. Let gay's try if for a few years and while we're at it lets surpress straight couples every time they want to wed now. See how they like it. Bunch of hypocrites, the lot of you. Who gives a rat's ass who someone wants to marry? Are they trying to marry you? NO, leave them the hell alone.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 17): Nahh, other people's views mean nothing.

What do other people's viewpoints matter when they are the one's trying to constrain someone completely separate from themselves from going about their own FREE WILL? Not to mention that letting gays marry doesn't affect you, me or anyone else but the people making THEIR OWN DECISION?

Your argument is baseless and hypocritical, just like the 52 percent of California who voted for this arrogant, ignorant proposition.

I would back a proposition to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let "marriage" be something for the church, and grant anyone with a civil union the rights and privileges of what used to be "marriage" as defined in government.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): Whom you choose to live and sleep with is your business, whom you choose to marry is the States business via the people.

So long as the state is conferring rights to married people that others with identical living situations don't have, then 'via the people' is entirely the issue. Marriage serves both a symbolic and administrative function, and as long as the latter is the case, it cannot be meted out on a discriminatory basis with such a narrow definition. Ironically, Governor Schwarzenegger said it best in his opposition to Prop 8: He said he personally defines marriage as between a man and a woman but that he does not "want to force that opinion on anyone."

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): I'm sorry, but what elects the President of the United States? A majority of electoral votes. Is that not tryanny of the majority? I voted for John McCain, am I not now politically as oppressed as gays are sexually in the States where these measures passed?

Not remotely comparable, you're smarter than that RJ. This isn't about sexual oppression or political oppression. You don't get tax benefits, 401K divestiture, hospital visitation and custodial rights after death of a loved one for voting in a national election.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): Actually, the reason I put quotes around it is because I happen to believe, as the majority of Americans, that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, and is a gift from our God. Anything else is a civil union and a secular legal contract. But just as the liberals like to do in this country, changing the nomenclature is a way to start winning the battle.

Maybe there's a larger battle out there - I don't know. The only battle I care about is that my aunt be able to legitimize her 19-year relationship before the law and call it what it is - marriage.

Do you still call it marriage when a man and a woman marry expressly for the purpose of expediting a visa for cash or satisfying conditions of a small business tax sheltering arrangement? People marry for those reasons too - I don't see the LDS donating money have ballot initiatives brought against that.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): I have no problem fundamentally with homosexuality as far as people’s free choice and what they choose to do (I’m a Libertarian after all) even if my own personal faith, as a Christian, may not agree with it.

I'm a Libertarian as well, but for me, this means the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever meaning of anything has no bearing on laws that confer basic rights. If two consenting adults want to fill out an application for a marriage license, as far as the government is concerned, there's no legitimate reason for their genders to matter.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): Again, I’ll repeat: this isn’t about hate or homophobia or anything like that.

I believe that to be genuinely true - I've not used the word hate, have I?

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): And yet according to Kathryn Lopez in NRO, we hear a different story: “Part of the reason I can’t get swept up in this surface-deep historic moment of tolerance has to do with an ad that ran this week in California, in opposition to Proposition 8, which would protect traditional marriage against overreaching judges. The ad featured two women, married in San Francisco. Two Mormon missionaries invade their home — announcing “we’re here to take away your rights” — tear up their marriage license, and walk away asking “what should we ban next?” The bigoted ad ends, “Say no to a Church taking over your government.”

I haven't been back in California for a visit since September of '07 so I didn't see which ads were appearing, but that's obviously a stupid ad that should never be aired.

I donated money in the drive to get this one on-air:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 26): It went to a vote and just because it didn't go your way you don't respect the vote.

See above video. Again, I don't respect any vote that denies people of basic rights. Ronald Reagan was the first to oppose this kind of nonsense in California and I'm pretty sure he wasn't personally crazy about the idea of gay teachers at the time, but he still opposed denying people of the right to choose their occupation on principle.

Terrible.

To add insult to injury, marriage is a religious concept, thus you have to wonder why the state has anything to do with it. Oh wait. It's probably just for these ends, on top of the old laws against inter-racial marriage.

Well the bigots may have won this battle but they have certainly not won the war. Equality will always come out on top even if it has to climb several Everests (god this sounds a bit cheesy but this has put me in a very fighty mood)

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 30): Why does the state get to say who one can marry?

Cause it is the state that has to pick up the pieces and get people alimony and kids child support.

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 31): I would back a proposition to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let "marriage" be something for the church

Oh Jeez, now since it suits you want religion? What happened to separation between church and state? Now who is being baseless and hypocritical? Again things can't be changed around to suit your personal opinions. That is why we have the state vote.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): That’s the liberal way, you know.

Sorry, I forgot.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 33): To add insult to injury, marriage is a religious concept, thus you have to wonder why the state has anything to do with it. Oh wait. It's probably just for these ends

No because to protect the rights of husband and spouses and kids state laws have to be in place.

That really sucks.

A bunch of bigots who have nothing better to do but spend time actively trying to ruin other peoples' lives.

And yes, the central valley of California is one of the most backward parts of the country, which is easy to forget. Don't forget Prussian Blue (the Olsen twins of white supremacist rock) are from Bakersfield...

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 28): By the way, just as a side note, after 3-4 years or so or civil partnerships, divorce rates among LGBT couples are around 20% lower than for straight couples who married in the same period. Something to think about when bleating on the scanctity of marriage.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 14): I wonder how many of the people who voted yes 'because the old testament says that sort of thing is wrong ' have ever eaten pork , or shellfish ( both banned in Leviticus) or consumed a cheeseburger ( breaking the old testament prohibition on mixing dairy and meat ) or worn a polycotton shirt ( wrong in so many ways aside from just the OT prohibition on mixing different types of fabric )

It is too bad that logic doesn't work when people are driven by fear...

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 36): Cause it is the state that has to pick up the pieces and get people alimony and kids child support.

Are you calling for a ban on divorce too?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 36): Cause it is the state that has to pick up the pieces and get people alimony and kids child support.

Oh, but straight couples getting alimony and fighting custody battles is ok? Why? Because they are straight?

really disgusting that the same night America said "anything is possible" California said "except for YOU"

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13): That's where you're misinformed. The LDS were among the largest out of state organizations that donated money to the YES on 8 campaign. I don't know why a religious organization 1000 miles to the east has any stake in what goes on in California to begin with, but they got involved and that's why they took heat from Californians who opposed this discrimination nonsense.

Because when it comes to gays, the LDS church is one of the most biggoted, hypocritical organizations I have ever come across. Utah has among the highest rates of divorce, child abuse, sexual abuse, etc., etc. in the country yet the only thing that LDS church leaders seem to want to focus on is us gays and our "lifestyle". I seriously cannot remember the last time I came across anything from a higher up in the LDS church that stated that one of those issues should be attacked but the issues of gays/gay marriage seem to be important enough to bring up at every turn. Apparently the rest of it is OK so long as the gays aren't fornicatin' and a marryin'.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): whom you choose to marry is the States business via the people

For someone who claims to want less government involvement in people's lives, that's a curious statement. Did the government choose your spouse for you?

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): Actually, the reason I put quotes around it is because I happen to believe, as the majority of Americans, that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, and is a gift from our God.

That may be true of marriage in a Church or otherwise performed by clergy, but legal marriage is, strictly speaking, a civil contract and nothing more. That's why, in many countries, two separate ceremonies have to be performed for the couple to have marriage by your definition. Denying gay couples the same civil rights as straight couples is therefore discrimination, and should not be sanctioned by law. As many of us have stated previously, civil rights should not be subject to the whim of popular vote, or slavery would likely still be legal, women would not have the vote, and Barack Obama would certainly not be President-elect.

Can someone explain to me when marriage became a "right"? I don't see it anywhere in the constitution....maybe I'm missing something. I can understand how people might feel entitled to the rights and privileges afforded to those who are married, and I believe that all people, regardless of sexual preference, are entitled to those rights, but when did marriage, rather than civil unions or domestic partnerships, become a right?

To say the results were simply the result of the California Central Valley, or other conservative clusters is wrong.

Go to the LA Times election map, and you can see the state painted Green supporting Prop-8 except for the counties surrounding San Francisco, lone Santa Barbara County in the Southern half of the state and the sparcely populated Sierra counties of Mono and Alpine.

The measure really had support across the state except really in the Bay Area.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...3859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0

Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 43): Can someone explain to me when marriage became a "right"?

Not sure about rulings predating it, but the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia held that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 1): The Mormons are gonna have a lot to answer for with this one

I don't see how you can realistically lay the blame for the passage of prop 8 on the Mormons.
They number just over 13M worldwide. They are ridiculously outnumbered in the state of california by homosexuals. Yes they back up their beliefs with money and the use of power. Do you really expect that the quest for the right for homosexuals to marry would just go unchallenged? Seems to me if you want something, you'd better be prepared to fight for it. Gays/lesbians had every opportunity to counter with their own money and influence. Lay blame on the supporters of prop 8 all you want, but in the end it really comes down to the fact that those that opposed prop 8 didn't campaign enough for the outcome they sought.

Unbelievable that 52% of a vote is enough to edit a state constitution and change the individual rights of a large minority. Also very unfortunate that there was so much out-of-state meddling.

Also very bittersweet week for us, my wife is being a gestational surrogate for a gay couple and Monday we did the embryo transfer. We were all there and are all very happy and excited, and hoping the proposition would end up trashed so they could stay married. Now, I don't know what's going to happen.

Too many people saw threats when none existed. I personally have long thought that matters of individual rights should not be decided by popular vote, especially when the group in question has been prejudiced against both religiously and personally for such a long time. Also sad that we gave up any sales tax revenues, a chance to boost to the wedding and tourism industry, and the chance to make a large group of people happy, and equal in the eyes of the law.

My wife has long suggested that government recognize civil unions only - not marriage - and that churches can decide for themselves what they recognize marriage to be. Maybe that's the answer, I don't know.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 36): A bunch of bigots who have nothing better to do but spend time actively trying to ruin other peoples' lives.

oh brother.

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 37): Are you calling for a ban on divorce too?

Uhhhh, no. Just trying to clarify with facts why states have votes and laws on somethng that people here don't want to accept cause they want something other than using democracy.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 38): Oh, but straight couples getting alimony and fighting custody battles is ok? Why? Because they are straight?

Did I say that?

Quoting VSLover (Reply 39): really disgusting that the same night America said "anything is possible" California said "except for YOU"

Firstly, America didn't say anything is possible, they said they want a handout and second the people of california said they wanted civil unions instead of marriage. Big difference. Then again when your blinded by rage I guess you only see things one way.

Quoting Slider (Reply 9): There aren’t enough Mormons in CA to fill up Candlestick Park in SFO, surrounded by one of the most activist and left leaning populaces ever found.

Actually, the San Diego area is either #1 or #2 in the number of Mormons outside of Utah. For evidence of that just look at their temple on I-5 near La Jolla.

Quoting 4holer (Reply 10): I live in the heart of the Jello belt, in Gilbert, AZ, and in my neighborhood, most of my neighbors are Mormon, and all of them had that jolly looking "Yes on 102" sign in the yard.

Same here, what is worse is that the signs were passed out at the ward, after services..

Quoting OA412 (Reply 40): sexual abuse, etc.

Sexual abuse runs rampant through the LDS church here in Arizona, nearly 30% of all registered sex offenders in the Grand Canyon State are Mormons and the number of offenders are even higher since the "church" tries to take care of it "in house".