Gay Patriot Header Image

Proposition 8 Passes

Along with voters in Arizona and Florida, Californians approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  In the Golden State, this is more significant as it overturns the state Supreme Court decision mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage.

This is not as bleak as it seems.  We will revisit this matter.  And with young voters (age 18-29) opposing the measure by a margin of 63-37 61-39*, the question of gay marriage is now only one of time.

The ballot language helped keep the margin close.  In bold face, our ballots told us the impact of the proposed constitutional amendment, “eliminates [the] right of same-sex couples to marry.”  Playing on that language, the “No” campaign could have defeated the measure had they focused the campaign on a line they used in their third ad, “Because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law.”

That line, I believe, shows respect for those who see gender difference as the defining aspect of this ancient institution.  Too often, in this campaign, opponents of the measure made it appear supporters had malign motives.  To be sure, some did.  But, for others, the great majority perhaps, same-sex marriage represents a significant social change.

I had long ago resolved to vote, “No,” on the measure, but wavered at points during the campaign, largely because of the raft of e-mails I received from friends, acquaintances and others who have my e-mail address demonizing the initiative and its supporters. I know many people, good people who voted “Yes” on 8.  They don’t hate gay people. They just see marriage as a sacred institution between individuals of different sexes.

For a brief moment, I did not want to vote the same way as did those writing those hateful missives. Had it not been for the married same-sex couples I knew, I might have been swayed.

When we look at this narrow defeat, consider the rhetoric and actions of certain advocates of gay marriage, notably the Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom. If they caused someone like me to waver, how might they have impacted straight people who lack close gay friends and know no same-sex couples?

With a better campaign, focusing on freedom rather than equality, opponents might have defeated this measure.

There are signs of hope.  Proposition 22 passed in 2000 with 61% of the vote. Eight years later, the percentage fell to 52%. And, as even the proponents of the measure made clear in their campaign, the initiative retains the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.

Gay people can still get married. The state will just no longer sanction their unions as such.

——-
*CNN has tweaked their numbers since I first penned, er pixeled, this post.

Share

107 Comments

  1. The people checked the power of the judicial oligarchy… a rare victory. One for which we should be happy.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 7:41 am - November 5, 2008

  2. Being that I am not a California voter, I never had to take a side on this. While I think I would have probably voted for Prop. 8, I was have done so with quite a lot of ambivalence. Inasmuch as I would have voted for it, it would have been more to rebuke the power of the courts than because I have some great fear of legal recognition of gay marriage. I would not want to vindicate the CSC. Had the CSC not acted and opponents of Prop 8 had instead fought to democratically push a proposition that mirrors Prop 8, I imagine, given the closeness of the Prop 8 vote, that that would have passed, given the number of voters who are ambivalent about the gay marriage itself but not ambivalent about the usurpation of power by the CSC.

    Comment by cme — November 5, 2008 @ 7:56 am - November 5, 2008

  3. “I was have” = “I would have” in my previous post

    Comment by cme — November 5, 2008 @ 7:56 am - November 5, 2008

  4. Blacks are on the top rung now citizens. Gays and women will have to wait their turn. Get BACK!

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 5, 2008 @ 7:57 am - November 5, 2008

  5. I really don’t give a damn if it was a check on Judicial power, this really hurts. Maybe it s only because I am 22, but I care more about being ability to marry than abstract boundaries of legislation and judicial power. I wanted to have at least something to look at from this election to be happy about and now with this, I really see this as nothing but a bleak picture.

    I really didn’t think this would pass but I’ve been wrong on most everything else this season, might as well go for broke.

    Comment by Darkeyedresolve — November 5, 2008 @ 8:03 am - November 5, 2008

  6. V the K, I doubt the vote was about what you said it was. I’m not disagreeing with your point about judicial oligarchy. But it seems like a slight majority of Californians still oppose same sex marriage with possibly the help of influence from outside the state.

    If the California Supreme Court, on the other hand, ordered that marriage be limited to opposite sex couples (and did so in a manner equivalent to the way they did for same sex marriage) and it went to a ballot, the voters would have sided with the Supreme Court ruling.

    Comment by Pat — November 5, 2008 @ 8:05 am - November 5, 2008

  7. Bad news that we narrowly lost at the polls, but good news that the margin was vastly improved over 2000. The religious right had better savor their narrow victory because it won’t stand.

    Now the fight shifts to the courts in the immediate aftermath. There are 2 lawsuits I expect:

    1. To retain the marriage certificates for those same-sex couples married prior to yesterday.
    2. To challenge the constitutionality of this initiative. That would be under the California Constitution and NOT the U.S. California has a peculiar provision about the invalidity of revising their constitution through referendum. Weird process I don’t fully understand but do expect to be argued vigorously now in the Golden State.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 8:24 am - November 5, 2008

  8. As pointed out at the AoSHQ blog, what the Yes on 8 crowd did effectively was tie SSM to teaching homosexuality in the schools. The heavy-handed ads by the No on 8 crowd did not help their cause.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 8:27 am - November 5, 2008

  9. DER – You still CAN marry in California. California’s Civil Union law is legally equal to marriage. Show the people you are serious about marriage, by using it.

    I really thought Prop 8 would pass by a much larger margin. I was mindful of Hawaii 1998.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 8:30 am - November 5, 2008

  10. #6. Blaming the ‘Religious Right’ for the bills passing is short sighted. To say the least, if that’s the ‘Religious Right’ It’s a pretty big plurality.

    Comment by The Livewire — November 5, 2008 @ 8:43 am - November 5, 2008

  11. “I did not want to vote the same way as did those writing those hateful missives.”

    So instead you would have voted the same way as those who so gently suggested that we are out to get their children, to destroy the institution of marriage, to attack the very foundation of civilization? Strange logic.

    Speaking of color Gene, you just let your’s shine through loud and clear. Perhaps you should join Stormfront.

    Comment by Dave — November 5, 2008 @ 8:43 am - November 5, 2008

  12. #10 Crap I didn’t understand that the political correctness starts TODAY, not Jan 20th.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 5, 2008 @ 8:56 am - November 5, 2008

  13. #9: On the contrary, they heavily funded the Yes on 8 campaign and while it appears they have won they did so barely. Pretty pathetic actually given that it won by 61% eight years ago. I’m actually surprised the margin was below 55%. That it was so narrow gives me hope for the future. The lawsuits are a different matter…

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 8:56 am - November 5, 2008

  14. Here’s my take.

    CA’s gay marriage advocates put us on the bad side of democracy (i.e., as against democracy) by repealing Prop 22 in the courts. That was wrong. Marriage is not just a commitment between the 2 parties, it’s a social construct. A State marriage license burdens third parties (as well as the contracting parties) and therefore is a privilege, not a right. Rights should never be voted on; privileges should always be voted on. We should have repealed Prop 22 / achieved gay marriage in CA democratically, by a new initiative and a campaign that builds positive support for gay marriage by *bothering to explain why it is good for all of society*. We didn’t.

    In that sense, the victory of Prop 8 was both inevitable and deserved. Because CA gay marriage advocates “cheated” by using the courts, our cause was no longer unequivocally right. We deserved a rebuke. I am, again, pleasantly shocked, and encouraged for the long haul, by how small the rebuke (the vote margin) is.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 8:58 am - November 5, 2008

  15. Interesting…

    According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 9:29 am - November 5, 2008

  16. Said it before and will say it again: Democrats are only pro-gay when it comes to taking gay dollars…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 9:37 am - November 5, 2008

  17. Playing on that language, the “No” campaign could have defeated the measure had they focused the campaign on a line they used in their third ad, “Because regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law.”

    ‘Playing’ would aptly describe the tactic because the line shows a woefully inadequate understanding of language and law.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am - November 5, 2008

  18. #14 So blacks hate gays. Will Obama change that? And how soon?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 5, 2008 @ 9:47 am - November 5, 2008

  19. #1: I’m with you, V the K. Since I’m a lawyer, I admit I have a heightened sense of alarm when judges completely disregard their job descriptions and pull something like this, but I wish the “people” would at least try not to glaze over when the boring separation of powers stuff is touched on, even for a moment. Of course the tradition/hatred/bigotry/social construct debates are sexier and more compelling, but people need to think about all of the things that could literally change overnight if their local judge or justice decides that he/she doesn’t like the way things are and decides their job is to “do some good in the world” with the stroke of a pen. Obama very clearly sent the message in the third debate that he’s interested in justices who are more concerned with “social justice” and “fairness” than things like statutes of limitation. Obama’s judges are going to approach statute of limitations cases like–”Well, if you’re really sad about what happened, we’ll give you some extra time, K? But if you’re REALLY, REALLY sad, then you get an automatic extra 5 years to sue.” Scary.

    #5: And Darkeyedresolve, grow the fu*k up and quit whining. Now I know why you call yourself Darkeyed–all that mascara everywhere. Yesterday with SSM, you had recognition by the state, community property rights, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, child custody rights, inheritance rights, etc. This morning you woke up and found out that all you have under the State’s DP program is…recognition by the state, community property rights, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, child custody rights, inheritance rights, etc. You’re acting like yesterday you were married and after the election you woke up next to a stranger, for Godsakes.

    Don’t worry. Just because it’s called Domestic Partnership instead of Marriage, doesn’t mean they won’t let you register at Crate and Barrel.

    Comment by Sean A — November 5, 2008 @ 10:02 am - November 5, 2008

  20. By the way, the California Supreme Court’s ruling reminded me of an episode of the Simpsons where Bart and Lisa were begging this female judge to reverse some ruling she had made earlier, “pleeeease, pleeeease, pleeeease…” The judge pondered their begging for a moment and then agreed saying, “Although I know this is definitely illegal and highly unconstitutional,…I just can’t say no to kids!”

    Comment by Sean A — November 5, 2008 @ 10:05 am - November 5, 2008

  21. To the black and Latino Population. Thank you for not being apathetic and exercising your right to vote.

    Comment by LDAV — November 5, 2008 @ 10:23 am - November 5, 2008

  22. One last thing…a lot of you seem to be blithely unaware that when you approve of seven-nine elitist attorneys wearing robes deciding what’s best for all of us, you’re conceding that the government entity they are assigned to has the power to do exactly the opposite a decade or so later when there’s been some turn-over in their workforce. If a Supreme Court just unilaterally “grants” SSM, the same, re-comprised Supreme Court has carte blanche to decide years later that it wasn’t a good idea and strike it down. It’s an unlikely scenario, of course, but why fu*king test it in the first place? How about we just stick with the boring, old-fashioned way of deciding what we want the laws to be ourselves, through the election of representatives and the initiative process? I realize that’s not nearly as fun, exciting and fast-paced as a circuit party or a sweet love letter directly from the Supreme Court, but maybe it’s time the gays actually become part of the society they supposedly want acceptance from SOOOOO badly.

    Comment by Sean A — November 5, 2008 @ 10:24 am - November 5, 2008

  23. Sorry guys and gals. Take heart though we thumbed our nose at the judiciary (bastards!!!). Now the best thing to do IMHO is get the civil union law working and enhanced so that there is no legal difference between the two. Marriage is just a word, it is the thought and law that counts.

    Lan astalem,

    GoingThere

    Comment by GoingThere — November 5, 2008 @ 10:25 am - November 5, 2008

  24. I think may just have to develop a man-crush on Sean A.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 10:30 am - November 5, 2008

  25. “Blacks are on the top rung now citizens. Gays and women will have to wait their turn. Get BACK!”

    Although I am sure of political correctness, but this statement is blatantly racist. An African American is voted president–with a signifcant white vote–and your fear is that blacks are in charge. Every previous presdient has been white, so I assume from your logic “whites were in charge” than and that is the way you prefer it.

    Comment by brendan — November 5, 2008 @ 10:39 am - November 5, 2008

  26. Pulling information from the above posts I am hopeful that we who were against prop 8 can draw some enlightenment from the voting statistics.

    Can we all agree that the cognitive definition of “Religious Right” is typically white folks (blue geese in the kitchen and all)? Is some form of that picture not what jumps into our minds when hearing the phrase “Religious Right”. Works for meat least…simple minds C-:p-8

    Looking at the voting statistics, white folks were apparently the only racial demographic to support, albeit by a small percentage, “No on 8″. Hmmmm? Kind of enlightening and heartening if you ask me. Legal acceptance, recognition and protection are the goals. We never will nor should ram the cultural aspects of any sort down any one’s throat. People can make a choice culturally but not legally.

    I am trying…

    Lan astalem,

    GoingThere

    Comment by GoingThere — November 5, 2008 @ 10:45 am - November 5, 2008

  27. #24: Aww, V the K. You sweet talker, you. Meet me at Crate and Barrel!

    Comment by Sean A — November 5, 2008 @ 11:01 am - November 5, 2008

  28. #25: brendan, please refer to comment # 22 under the post “Congratulations President-Elect Obama.” And don’t forget your helmet.

    Comment by Sean A — November 5, 2008 @ 11:06 am - November 5, 2008

  29. Sean A, I’m more of an Home Depot/Cabela’s kind of guy. I’ve been told I would have made a great lesbian.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 11:08 am - November 5, 2008

  30. With a better campaign, focusing on freedom rather than equality, opponents might have defeated this measure.

    You are 100% right. In terms of gay rights, the whole shebang should always be about freedom, not equality. To focus on freedom is a much more powerful argument.

    Comment by Erik — November 5, 2008 @ 11:18 am - November 5, 2008

  31. As a gay man, I cried tears of joys last night when it became certain that Prop 8 would pass. As gays and lesbians we have little to complain about in today’s liberal society with so many protections and opportunities. As a community we stepped too far in attempting to flip-flop the whole institution of marriage.

    I think we have learned a very valuable lesson: we must never try to destroy the traditional family ever again. We all came from both a mother and a father and it would be tragic for us to deny future children of that chance. I am sad that McCain lost, but as a Republican I am overjoyed that the liberal gay activists were thoroughly rebuked across this great land. God bless our straight brothers and sisters for keeping us honest.

    Comment by Adrian — November 5, 2008 @ 11:32 am - November 5, 2008

  32. brendan, this post is about the the passage of the defense of marriage amendment in CA. Blacks voted for it 70-30%. Denying gays rights, sending gays to the back of the line. Blacks have told gays to GET BACK. I still live in a free country…my rights to free speech will not be silenced. Your slanderous calling of me a racist is a sign of ignorance. Grow up.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 5, 2008 @ 11:33 am - November 5, 2008

  33. So instead you would have voted the same way as those who so gently suggested that we are out to get their children, to destroy the institution of marriage, to attack the very foundation of civilization?

    Yes, it’s amazing that they would think that, given the gays taking children dressed as sexual slaves to the Folsom Street Fair, the gay manifesto at BeyondMarriage.org, and gay organizations and people demanding that Mormons be discriminated against and Joe the Plumber be killed.

    And mark my words, if you think this was bad, the fury at having a duly voted-upon state constitutional amendment overturned by the California Supreme Court will be much, much worse. Gay liberals would do well to engage in some serious self-examination prior to their usual knee-jerk run to momma court.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 11:33 am - November 5, 2008

  34. As a non-Californian, a lawyer and a gay American (with a long term spouse and 2 great kids), I offer the following observations regarding the earlier posts:

    1. The CA Supreme Court ruling was rightly decided based upon the application of CA law. One may disagree with the concept of same-gender marriage, but it is hard to argue that the Supreme Court misconstrued or misapplied then existing CA law. An objective reading of the opinion and analysis of the applicable law shows that any talk about judicial tyranny or legislating from the bench is really misplaced. We must bear in mind that it is the role of our judiciary to protect the rights of our minorities from the possible tyranny of the majority.

    2. Earlier comments about marriage being a privilege and not a right, do not take into account the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, where the Court held that marriage, and the rights and protections inherent in same, was such a fundamental institution in our society that it could not be extended to some citizens and denied to others absent a legitimate state interest. Since the state has long held that it is in society’s best interest to foster strong family units (family members are less likely to become a burden on society, etc.), it is hard to understand how it serves a legitimate state interest to take the opposite approach in this instance and seek to weaken families headed by same-gender couples.

    3. Civil union laws do not provide the samel rights and protections as marriage laws, especially when same-gender couples have to deal with interstate issues related to custody of children and the like. To suggest that gay and lesbian citizens should content themselves with civil unions and stop trying to obtain the rights and protections of marriage, is very offensive. Separate but equal has never worked. Even if it did, what is the intent behind that – to have the state brand certain families as more worthy, more valued or more legitimate than others?

    4. We are talking about civil marriage here. The CA Supreme Court ruling and Prop 8 really have nothing to do with religious practices or beliefs. No religion would be forced to recognize same-gender couples, just like Catholic and Muslim congregations have never been forced to recognize equal treatment of women within their communities, despite laws protecting the equal rights and protections of women in civil society. The constant blurring of the distinction between state and religious recognition of certain unions in the Prop 8 debate is disingenuous and not helpful to the discourse on this issue.

    5. The argument made by some Prop 8 supporters that the state’s recognition of same-gender marriages is an infringement upon some people’s religious beliefs and practices is a topsy-turvy argument. No religion has the right to force the state to engage in discriminatory or unequal treatment of certain citizens, regardless of their beliefs. Each religion is free to enage in their own religious practices, but such right does not extend to the infringement of the rights of any citizens in the public realm. For example, the state recognizes civil divorce of unions even though some faiths prohibit such dissolutions. Few Americans would argue that our citizens should be denied the right to divorce because it violates the religious beliefs of same, and most would fight against any efforts by some religions to force the government to cease its recognition of divorce.

    6. Yesterday was a wonderful day for our country in that we have taken a great step forward in putting racial discord behind us. It was bittersweet, however, that a slim majority of voters in CA (many of whom supported President-Elect Obama) did not see fit to ensure the fair and equal treatment of their gay and lesbian fellow citizens (many of whom were instrumental in bringing about the very change we are all celebrating today). Change is good, but we cannot truly advance as a society unless we commit to treating all citizens equally and fairly.

    I have always taught my children that discrimination and bigotry comes in many forms and is always wrong. I rejoiced with them last evening as the election results poured in. It is my hope that one day soon, I will also be celebrating with them the end of discrimination against families like ours.

    Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

    Ed R.

    Comment by Ed R. — November 5, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - November 5, 2008

  35. And mark my words, if you think this was bad, the fury at having a duly voted-upon state constitutional amendment overturned by the California Supreme Court will be much, much worse.

    Good. Fuck ‘em. Perhaps I’m just exhausted from staying up so late and in a funk since we had an across-the-board loss (Jack friggin’ Murtha won?!?) to be polite about this, but I really don’t give a shit right now. Take it to the courts and too damned bad if they don’t like it because my rights are not for them to decide upon. I’m sick of the religious nutjobs in this country. I just couldn’t give a fuck right now.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 12:18 pm - November 5, 2008

  36. Not being polite, John, is what pushed this measure over the top in the first place.

    And if you want to call over 50% of Californians, over 60% of Floridians, over 55% of Arizonans, and so forth “religious nutjobs”, all you’re guaranteeing yourself is that gay and lesbian issues will be forever linked with antireligious bigotry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 12:56 pm - November 5, 2008

  37. I fail to understand how a campaign “focusing on freedom instead of equality” would have been a better tactic for opponents of Proposition 8. I agree that perhaps opponents demonized supporters, but equality is at the heart of this issue. Equality under the law is precisely what was being fought for by Prop 8 opponents. While the domestic partnership provision is a step in the right direction, any distinction between gay and straight couples is inherently prejudiced and unequal.

    I get that many people understand marriage to be a “sacred institution”, however is the state of California the entity that defines and confers “sacred institutions”? I believe most supporters of the proposition would list their church first and the state second in terms of sanctity.

    Obviously many see gay marriage as “a significant social change” – I believe everyone does. But the fact that so many people care more about the word marriage than granting their peers equality is disheartening.

    Comment by Chris — November 5, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - November 5, 2008

  38. To those of you who are taking heart on the closeness of this initiative, I would suggest one thing. Never has the deck been so stacked in an election. Jerry Brown our previous Govenor Moonbeam, in an abuse of power that is unbelievable reworded the initiative to make it seem as despicable as possible. The campaign became one of stripping people of rights rather than preserving a social construct. Nearly every newspaper, polition, star and starlet came out against it. This was an election where the people decided in spite of overwhelming odds against it. Our nation is simply not ready to call same sex unions, marriage. It’s lost every time that the people have had a chance to vote.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 1:09 pm - November 5, 2008

  39. Not to mention, the California Teachers Union spent $40 million to oppose it. We Mormon Thugs only spent $20 million.

    I can’t wait to start going around to lesbians houses and taking their stuff… I believe No on 8 partisans said we could do this after it won.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - November 5, 2008

  40. Not to mention, the California Teachers Union spent $40 million to oppose it. We M-o-r-m-o-n T-h-u-g-s only spent $20 million.

    I can’t wait to start going around to l-e-s-b-i-a-n-s houses and taking their stuff… I believe No on 8 partisans said we could do this after it won.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - November 5, 2008

  41. #25: brendan, please refer to comment # 22 under the post “Congratulations President-Elect Obama.” And don’t forget your helmet.

    I checked out the comment you sent me to. Devastatingly witty argument you made. But to satisfy you I capitalized my first name.

    Comment by Brendan — November 5, 2008 @ 1:28 pm - November 5, 2008

  42. I am saddened by many comments posted here. What people don’t seem to realize is that over 50% of hetro marriages end in divorce. This is because the religious establishment has pushed for young people to get married before they are ready. How does this religious establishment get things so wrong? Gay marriage will not affect straight marriage in any way. The argument that gay marriage cheapens straight marriage does not hold water considering over 50% of marriages end in divorce. This is just another attempt by conservatives to force government into the home and force their ancient beliefs upon others. Live and let live.

    Comment by Chris — November 5, 2008 @ 2:02 pm - November 5, 2008

  43. “Don’t worry. Just because it’s called Domestic Partnership instead of Marriage, doesn’t mean they won’t let you register at Crate and Barrel.”

    Excellent statement! But what about all the states that don’t have any civil unions or domestic partnerships, and those who have specifically outlawed them?

    ‘Yes, it’s amazing that they would think that, given the gays taking children dressed as sexual slaves to the Folsom Street Fair,”

    NDT, I suppose it makes sense they would think of us that way if the are ignorant enough to judge the majority based on the acts of a few. Newsflash, many of them look at same sex relationships that have lasted 10, 25, 40 years and call them fake, ungodly, abomination etc. In fact, your relationship would also be classified as such and voted against. Guess you’re just like the rest of us perverts and sex-fiends, a threat to all that is good and civilized.

    Comment by a different Dave — November 5, 2008 @ 2:16 pm - November 5, 2008

  44. But what about all the states that don’t have any civil unions or domestic partnerships, and those who have specifically outlawed them?

    Here’s a radical suggestion: Don’t live there.

    Comment by V the K — November 5, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - November 5, 2008

  45. And with young voters (age 18-29) opposing the measure by a margin of 63-3761-39*, the question of gay marriage is now only one of time.

    Unfortunately, as this state remains obscenely expensive, many young people who grew up here will be moving away, to be replaced by immigrants with more conservative values. There’s a small window of opportunity, but I don’t know when that will be.

    Comment by DaveO — November 5, 2008 @ 2:20 pm - November 5, 2008

  46. This is because the religious establishment has pushed for young people to get married before they are ready.

    Personally, given the lengths to which most churches go to encourage premarital counseling, provide family counseling, and discourage divorce, this sounds like merely another attempt by gay liberals to smear and blame heterosexuals and religious people.

    One of these days, gay people like Chris may realize that namecalling and insulting heterosexual people and their religion is not a good idea. But, as we see, his “live and let live” statement only applies to himself. Perhaps when he grows up and realizes that his own behavior leaves a lot to be desired, people may start treating him like a responsible adult.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 2:29 pm - November 5, 2008

  47. NDT, I suppose it makes sense they would think of us that way if the are ignorant enough to judge the majority based on the acts of a few.

    When you and your fellow gay liberals start condemning the actions of the few instead of celebrating them as expressions of community values, Dave, then that will make sense.

    People are not stupid. They’ve never seen gays like you condemn taking children to sex fairs. They’ve never seen gays like you condemn the Beyond Marriage statement. They’ve never seen gays like you condemn people for Mormon-bashing and for demanding that McCain supporters be killed.

    But they HAVE seen you attack viciously gays like myself, V the K, and others who make it clear that sexual orientation does not make you a pervert, a promiscuous anarchist, and a bigot and claim that we’re “not really gay”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 2:33 pm - November 5, 2008

  48. Some of the comments here are pretty good.

    But, I ignore any arguments that this is a “rights” issue. It’s not even a “priviledge” issue… homosexuals have the identical rights and priviledges under the law through the domestic partnership.

    I also ignore most comments that use the term “gay marriage.” This term is self-conflicting. Marriage has never been a homosexual institution. It has always been a heterosexual institution. There is no such thing as “gay marriage.”

    What has been happening is a small, policitally-active MINORITY in the homosexual community is trying to hijack a heterosexual tradition, and the heterosexual population doesn’t want to be hijacked. Heterosexuals want “bride” and “groom” on their marriage certificates, and they don’t want “Person A” and “Person B” (this has happened to recent heterosexual couples I know personally).

    For the most part, the homosexual community is accepted in the state of California on a social level. Anti-gay people are rightfully called “bigots.” Anyone who would want to take rights away from homosexuals is wrong…

    …however, as a heterosexual, stay the fuck away from my shit, understand? I’m a husband, a father, and was a groom… I am not “Person A.” Marriage is ours, not yours. Get creative if you have to and come up with a homosexual analogue, but stop attacking us and trying to change the way we want to live… and we’ll do the same for you.

    Thanks.

    Comment by BK — November 5, 2008 @ 3:10 pm - November 5, 2008

  49. #4: Amen to that. The religious wrong needs to be stopped, especially the black homophobes who helped pass this atrocity. In the words of an idol of many Prop 8 supporters, “by any means necessary.”

    Homophobia is rampant in the black community. Just ask Keith Boykin, a gay black writer, who wrote a book entitled “Beyond the Down Low.” Hip-hop lyrics drip with anti-gay venom. Black churches preach the gospel of bigotry every Sunday. And it’s not just in this country. “Murder music,” a reggae sub-genre, runs rampant in Jamaica, calling for death to the “batty boys.” And the less said on the status of gays in much of Africa, the better.

    Our nation is simply not ready to call same sex unions, marriage. It’s lost every time that the people have had a chance to vote.

    Tough. We don’t give two shits what you are “ready” for, America, considering you (by which I mean this country) just chose a Commie with terrorist buddies and a hostility to free enterprise for president. We will take our rights by whatever means are needed. Our rights are not subject to your feelings.

    Boycott California.

    Comment by Attmay — November 5, 2008 @ 4:30 pm - November 5, 2008

  50. It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.

    We are, and always will be, the United States of America. Obama

    Comment by rusty — November 5, 2008 @ 4:42 pm - November 5, 2008

  51. It doesn’t really undo “In Re:Marriage” nor, obviously, does it undo the California constitutional provisions that that decision rests on.

    What it does do is – with the full force of constitutional law – set the legal contract of “marriage” in stone as only being between opposite sex partners.

    But by the reasoning of the California Supreme Court, the Ca. Constitution protects the rights of all persons without reference to gender or gender orientation.

    Without trying to write a full legal or philosophical defense, the only logical conclusion, in order to keep one part of the state constitution from contradicting another part of the constitution, is that what Prop. 8 has done is outlaw the legal contract known as “marriage” for everyone in California.

    Someone needs to sue to stop anyone from getting married.

    Comment by MIke — November 5, 2008 @ 4:43 pm - November 5, 2008

  52. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

    It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. Obama

    Comment by rusty — November 5, 2008 @ 4:47 pm - November 5, 2008

  53. I call bullshit, BK. Let the lawsuits begin. You want the right to vote on my rights despite what the US AND California constitutions say? Okey-dokey, let’s go to court and fight it out. I feel absolutely no regret or remorse in having to take this option even though I would have preferred the legislature or referendum. Blacks won many rights through the courts and if we have to do likewise it’s a shame but I’m all for it now. Fuck it. Sue.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - November 5, 2008

  54. But by the reasoning of the California Supreme Court, the Ca. Constitution protects the rights of all persons without reference to gender or gender orientation.

    Indeed it does, and what the amendment does is make it clear that no one in California, regardless of their gender or gender orientation, has the right to marry someone of the same gender.

    Seems the judges of the California Supreme Court needed some clarification on the matter, and they got it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 5:33 pm - November 5, 2008

  55. Blacks won many rights through the courts and if we have to do likewise it’s a shame but I’m all for it now.

    There are no less than three amendments to the Constitution that establish that race is not a valid consideration for discrimination in numerous respects.

    There is nothing of the sort there for sexual attraction.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 5:35 pm - November 5, 2008

  56. To John who calls bullshit… Not sure I know where you’re going with your comment… what rights are you talking about? Your right to remove the word “groom” from my marriage certificate? Or my right to keep it there?

    Comment by BK — November 5, 2008 @ 5:40 pm - November 5, 2008

  57. African-Americans also won rights – in some cases the enforcement of their inalienable Constitutional rights; in other cases, access to privileges that they had been denied for no good public-policy reason – by explaining their cause to their fellow Americans with dignity and goodwill, thus building majority national support.

    Never forget that. Whatever great court cases you want to cite from the 50s and 60s, by way of saying “Well we should get ours in the courts too”, you will find that the court decision happened for African-Americans in a context of (a) three constitutional amendments as NDT points out, and (b) national majorities agreeing it was time to fix certain injustices. Those great court decisions did *not* happen in a vacuum.

    Until the decisions of the 70s, that is, like busing and quotas. Those decisions did happen without national majority support… and, strangely enough, they have been the least helpful decisions and remain highly controversial, having actually damaged the American social fabric. Imagine that. Funny how that works out, eh? If you want to have a court decision work out well for you: show the skeptics your good will and build national majority support for your position, first.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 5:54 pm - November 5, 2008

  58. (Or else don’t go the “courts” route at all… be patient and go the democratic route. That’s my point. That’s what we should have done in CA with gay marriage. Repeal Prop 22 at the ballot box, building majority support for us in the State.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 5:56 pm - November 5, 2008

  59. Congratulations MUST go to the gay-left! The victory of proposition 8, as well as the 30 other states that have now prohibited gay marriage is entirely due to their dictatorial tactics!

    WAY TO GO LEFTIES!!!!! WOO HOOO!!!! By the time you’re done the whole country will have banned gay marriage permanently! You must be so proud!

    Comment by American Elephant — November 5, 2008 @ 6:11 pm - November 5, 2008

  60. There is nothing of the sort there for sexual attraction.

    On the contrary, there is the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution. We’ve argued that before and did not agree. So be it. I’m not wasting my time and debating that point again. I will say that once more that you have the benefit of this not being the prevailing view at the moment but I am confident that such will not survive in the long term. Besides, as far as California goes this is about the state constitution not the Federal. The lawsuits have begun and the argument about this being an unconstitutional revision isn’t too shabby. The weird system you folks have is useful for all sides at times I guess.

    Your right to remove the word “groom” from my marriage certificate? Or my right to keep it there?

    Who said that you have a “right” to the word “groom” on your marriage license? Recall that your side’s whole premise is that marriage isn’t a “right” in the first place, contrary to Loving v. Virginia, so the procedural matters are just as immaterial here. I will say though that the move by some idiots to change it to “Party A” was stupid and one I do not support. If that is what bothered you, why wasn’t this put on the ballot instead? NDT brings up such things as Folsom Street Fair. Why wasn’t this on the ballot? Or rather, banning nudity at events which take place on public streets. I’d vote in favor of both such proposals myself, though in Virginia neither would be even thought of even by most liberals here.

    If you want to have a court decision work out well for you: show the skeptics your good will and build national majority support for your position, first.

    I have none to give to folks who use religion to impose their views on others. This was largely a move by religious nutjobs including Evangelicals and Mormons. Not all to be sure, but quite a number. No, I’m done with appealing to them for now. If we lose in the courts, fine I’ll reconsider. For now, the fight is in court. I’m not begging for my rights from bigots anymore. I’ll be happy to work with them on other matters where we agree but not on these matters. That’s it. I’ve had it with the Religious Right.

    Or else don’t go the “courts” route at all… be patient and go the democratic route. That’s my point. That’s what we should have done in CA with gay marriage. Repeal Prop 22 at the ballot box, building majority support for us in the State.

    No. I’m done appealing to them for now. They do not have the right to deny my rights through the ballot box. I’m 100% behind this court fight. If that fails than I’ll reconsider. For now the fight is on and frankly I’m mad enough now that I hope this gets knocked down in court instead of going back thru the ballot. I’ve had enough of their self-righteous, condescending and bullshit remarks against gays. Enough of them have flat-out said over and over again to me that they want to deny gays everything they can because we are sinners and perverts in their eyes. Fine. Enough. I want them to pay now. They wanted revenge and now so do I.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 6:41 pm - November 5, 2008

  61. “Gay people can still get married. The state will just no longer sanction their unions as such”

    And by that fact, they are officially second class citizens, unable to enjoy the benefits that the government bestows on male/female couples who are able to do.

    Maybe, one day, equal protection under the law, as guaranteed in the 14th amendment will someday prevail.

    Comment by Kevin — November 5, 2008 @ 6:49 pm - November 5, 2008

  62. NDT brings up such things as Folsom Street Fair. Why wasn’t this on the ballot? Or rather, banning nudity at events which take place on public streets.

    Because there is already a law against it — which isn’t enforced.

    Californians do not resort to the proposition system just for the sheer hell of it. They go there because they’re sick and tired of a useless government that panders to the whims of a freak-show minority that lives to spit in the face of others and promotes antireligious bigotry and hate by that minority over everyone else.

    You have come down squarely on the side of that freak-show minority, and with that attitude, you deserve every “self-righteous, condescending, and bullshit” remark you receive. Until you grow up and tell that freak show to go to hell, you’re going to continue to lose, no matter how many times you go screaming to the courts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 6:49 pm - November 5, 2008

  63. And by that fact, they are officially second class citizens, unable to enjoy the benefits that the government bestows on male/female couples who are able to do.

    However, since not all male/female couples are allowed to marry, your argument is quite pointless.

    Furthermore, Kevin, you don’t want “equality”; you want society to approve your marriages in which both you and your partner slut around with other people and claim it’s OK because “men are pigs” and you have to be “practical”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 6:57 pm - November 5, 2008

  64. 58. Um, yes they do. It’s called part of the constitution. Where you want to make up stuff whole cloth from its penumbras, the referrendum and ammendment processes are actually in the document.

    59. As has been pointed out, you have access to the same marital rights that I have, find yourself a nice woman and settle down. In addition, in California you have the complete Domestic Partner package. You want to change society, you have the uphill battle to prove it.

    As to the court decisions, it’s nice to know you wholeheartedly support the Internment camps decision, the Dred Scott Decision, and Seperate but Equal for schools.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 5, 2008 @ 7:01 pm - November 5, 2008

  65. As already stated, gays have all the same rights as a traditional married couple. The only motive they have to getting married is to eliminate people who believe and have the Right to believe that this is an abomination against God. He is the Supreme Power, over the courts over the nation over the universe. You don’t have to agree with me, but you can not force a state measure over my constitutional rights of church. Separation of Church and State go both ways.

    I can never force my values on you and you can not force yours on mine. Read all the lawsuits that gays have initiated against people who believe and live that belief here in America and Canada.

    Catholic Charities had to close down because they would not disobey God’s Law and let a gay couple adopt a child. The couple sued and the Charity closed it doors rather than disobey the Supreme Authority over us creatures. The couple could have adopted at many other agencies, but that was not what they were seeking. The gay community has members, many not all, that hate anyone who lives and believes in God.

    We have no right to our faith according to these sue happy people. Don’t think anyone, with ears to hear, eyes to see, and the Intrinsic Moral Law God planted on your heart, can deny that this is the same battle going on between heaven and hell for 6000 years. The creature trying to play god, thinking he knows better than the Creator.

    I live to serve God, not man. You may feel that it’s your right to serve man and not God. In American we both have a right to our opinion and it must be preserved.

    We can work together on small things, like maybe taking the topic of marriage completely out of the classroom. There will be no taking children on gay field trips for a wedding ceremony or a heterosexual marriage. We can have an adoption agency run by the state for gay couples and have private adoption agencies that are founded on their faith values and not made to conform to the state mandate. Churches allowed to decide for themselves whether they will allow all marriages or excersize their right to a disallow certain marriages from being performed. Allow differences to be discussed and resolved as our society has done over the past years and not laws forcing us to bow down.

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? Rom 1:24-32

    Comment by Jan — November 5, 2008 @ 7:15 pm - November 5, 2008

  66. “Who said that you have a “right” to the word “groom” on your marriage license?”

    It may seem silly but it’s all semantics. It’s all just about the word you use, nothing more. It’s not about equality or rights and you know it as well as I do, which is why you so aptly drew the parallel between the rights surrounding the word “groom” and one of the fundamental arguments about the right to use the word “marriage.”

    If you can figure out a way to avoid fucking up what a lot of heterosexuals hold dear, while at the same time arriving at some satisfactory level of equality (which you deserve), then I’ll be all for it. Until then, I feel like this effort at “equality” is a meaningless sham… it already has caused stupid, pointless erosion of traditional marriage, even if it’s only a change of words on a certificate… and homosexuals gain absolutely nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling. And I’m sorry if I sound a bit spiteful, but I hear plenty of spite from your side… I can’t help but think that warm, fuzzy feeling is partially due to a base instinct to “get back” at those who have caused them harm in the past, and “stick it” to the religious right, no matter who might get hurt along the way.

    I’ve never been anti-gay. I’ve always supported equality for all, and I tend to have a libertarian philosophy. I’m far from a religious nutcase. I was actually quite torn on this issue, and made up my mind at the very last minute. But more than anything, it’s that supporters of “No on 8″ by and large seem to have a total disregard for the ramifications of homosexual marriage on traditional marriage. Why can’t people treat the institution with the respect it deserves, rather than simply demanding to be a part of something like a bunch of crybabies screaming “unfair!” and crapping all over it with “Person A” and a multitude of other senseless things.

    If you want to get the support of the people, you better solve those problems first. JMHO.

    Comment by BK — November 5, 2008 @ 7:17 pm - November 5, 2008

  67. John, this is a semantic issue… just like groom on a certificate or marriage vs. domestic partnerships.

    The problem is that homosexuals gain nothing from legal marriage. No extra rights, just the word. But those who value and respect traditional marriage stand to lose a lot. This might sound spiteful, but I hear plenty of spite from your side as well… I voted yes because I think those in support of gay marriage are like crybabies screaming “unfair!” when they have the equal treatment everyone deserves already, and they have no regard for those who might be offended if it says “Person A” instead of “groom” on their certificate. No regard whatsoever for what consequences may unfold to harm and erode marriage from a traditional standpoint.

    The “Person A” thing may seem small, but it’s just one example of a multitude of things that need to be worked out before you’ll get the people’s support for gay marriage. You will continue to get shut down as long as you continue to disrespect the tradition of marriage, and simply demand it like a baby wants a rattle without regard to the consequences for the majority of people.

    I’ve never been anti-gay. I hold a libertarian political outlook. I’m far from a religious nutjob. I want equal rights for everyone, and really made this decision at the last minute with a lot of thought. You need to solve these problems before you gain the support of the people. It’s an image problem, it’s a respect problem, and it’s a lack of forethought.

    Comment by BK — November 5, 2008 @ 7:29 pm - November 5, 2008

  68. You have come down squarely on the side of that freak-show minority, and with that attitude, you deserve every “self-righteous, condescending, and bullshit” remark you receive.,/i>

    Oh fuck off, NDT. You are just as bad as they are, if not worse because you are gay and ape their bullshit. I can respect a legit and civil disagreement but that has never been your style so I really couldn’t give a shit what you say to me. If your complaint is that existing law isn’t being enforced, fine. Fight to have it enforced. Quit acting like you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 7:31 pm - November 5, 2008

  69. You want to change society, you have the uphill battle to prove it.

    See you in court.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 7:32 pm - November 5, 2008

  70. Separation of Church and State go both ways.

    Indeed. This had nothing to do with religious marriage and everything to do with civil. You seem to believe that your faith in God gives you the right to impose your views on those who do not share your religious tradition. That’s hardly in keeping with the Gospel or the Constitution. Now the battle goes to court. See you there.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 7:34 pm - November 5, 2008

  71. If you want to get the support of the people, you better solve those problems first. JMHO.

    No. I dob’t believe you and I’ve heard enough excuses from folks like you. There will ALWAYS be a reason why gays can’t get married to you folks but your too chicken-shit to admit it. At least have the balls to come out and say it instead of feeding me this bull. See you in court.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2008 @ 7:36 pm - November 5, 2008

  72. Wow. Some of the… energy here is decidedly negative. BK, in particular, seems personally outraged and offended at the idea that gays and lesbians would want to be “married” and, despite criticizing gays and lesbians for being so obsessed over a word, professes outrage at the idea that gays and lesbians want to take away “his right” to the word “groom”. V the K and a couple others also, while talking about activist judges, seem to forget the legislature approved legislation allowing gay marriage and the governor… the GOVERNOR… vetoed it because even though he supported gay marriage he felt it should be decided by the courts. It happened democratically, and a democratically elected official said it was an issue for the courts. Now, I don’t know that I agree with that, but when it comes to California people on this board who are just plain opposed to gay marriage, period, are trying to blame it on judges instead of just accepting the fact they don’t like the idea of gays getting to use that “word”. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the No on 8 campaign, I agree with gaypatriot.net on that. Those are principled criticisms. Some of the stuff I’ve read here, however, is not. Sad.

    Comment by CR — November 5, 2008 @ 7:45 pm - November 5, 2008

  73. You are just as bad as they are, if not worse because you are gay and ape their bullshit.

    Ah yes, I was thinking it had been a while since someone called me a race traitor or Uncle Tom. Stockholm syndrome, though, that’s a new variant. Kind of like how you’re not really black if you don’t support Barack Obama and how you’ve given into the oppression of whitey and become a “house n—–r”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2008 @ 7:54 pm - November 5, 2008

  74. “There will ALWAYS be a reason why gays can’t get married to you folks but your too chicken-shit to admit it. At least have the balls to come out and say it instead of feeding me this bull.”

    Hey man, I’m not making any assumptions about you as a person, so take it down a notch. Pretty uncool, and totally wrong.

    I really do think that if you can change the minds of people like me, by looking in the mirror and understanding exactly what kind of insensitive crybabies your side appears to be, and taking the steps necessary to fix what’s wrong instead of assuming that the virtues of your cause should stand on their own regardless of any consequences, then you’ll make progress. It really is probably the difference between winning and losing on these propositions. It’s your battle to win, so you can be intelligent about it or you can continue to kick and scream and whine to Daddy Judge.

    Comment by BK — November 5, 2008 @ 8:13 pm - November 5, 2008

  75. #63: Accusing John of wanting an “open marriage”, without links to back it up, is really crossing the line. That was the two guys in the New York Times.

    And the idea that allowing gay marriage will infringe on any religious rights (even though banning them would infringe on the religious rights of churches that wished to perform it) is absurd. No unwilling religious institution is forced by law to perform interfaith marriages.

    No Special Rights For Heterosexuals

    Comment by Attmay — November 5, 2008 @ 8:31 pm - November 5, 2008

  76. 63: Ummm….exactly where/how are any male/female couples who are of legal age unable to marry? Of course the remainder of your comment is even more telling.

    65: In most states gays are unable to obtain that simple piece of paper that gives couples a slew of rights given by government entities. Your first sentence is simply nonsense in the face of real facts. you have every right to your faith, but maybe you should realize this country is based on a non-denominational democracy, not a theocracy.

    Comment by Kevin — November 5, 2008 @ 8:45 pm - November 5, 2008

  77. And by that fact, they are officially second class citizens, unable to enjoy the benefits that the government bestows on male/female couples who are able to do.

    Maybe, one day, equal protection under the law, as guaranteed in the 14th amendment will someday prevail.

    And here comes Kevin to prove that lefty homos still havent learned a damn thing. You enjoy equal protection of the law.

    Your argument, that because the state doesnt recognize your love relationship means you dont have equal protection simply goes to prove the slippery slope argument of the opponents of gay marriage. if equal protection under the law is defined as recognizing all love relationships between consenting adults as the same, then ALL love relationships between consenting adults must be recognized as the same.

    For the one-billionth time, the states interest in marriage has nothing to do with love. Which is why you have no equal protection argument.

    And you are not a second class citizen. There is no such thing as group rights. There are only individual rights. You have the same right to avail yourself of the marriage institution as anyone else. You just dont because you are more concerned about everyone patting you on the back for being in love than you are about providing to society that which it is trying to encourage.

    As usual with liberals, the attitude is always ask not what they can do for their country, but ask first what the country can do for them.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 5, 2008 @ 9:01 pm - November 5, 2008

  78. I have none to give to folks who use religion to impose their views on others. This was largely a move by religious nutjobs including Evangelicals and Mormons. Not all to be sure, but quite a number. No, I’m done with appealing to them for now. If we lose in the courts, fine I’ll reconsider. For now, the fight is in court. I’m not begging for my rights from bigots anymore. I’ll be happy to work with them on other matters where we agree but not on these matters. That’s it. I’ve had it with the Religious Right.

    So many things wrong with that, in one paragraph. And such an emotional, unreasoning attitude on the part of the author, that they’re not worth enumerating.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 9:11 pm - November 5, 2008

  79. Eh, what the hell.

    - Those who seek to use the courts to impose their views are the ones, well, imposing their views. Religious or not. Those who turn to democracy are the good guys. Religious or not. We made ourselves the anti-democratic bad guys, the ones “imposing” our pro-gay-marriage views, when we tried to do an end-run around Prop 22 with the courts.
    - Five million voters (and counting) aren’t “religious nutjobs”. They’re religious, semi-religious, and/or secular ***people***.
    - I don’t believe in begging for rights either. But a State license for marriage, hunting, driving, therapy practice or anything is, for the millionth time, a privilege not a right. (In fact. I realize that a lot of language about this point, including the court system’s, is very confused.)

    What I quoted of John’s is a near-perfect expression of the kind of self-righteous, reflexive hostility to gay marriage skeptics that brought us to the present situation. Welcome to the Gay Left, John, and good luck with it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 5, 2008 @ 9:22 pm - November 5, 2008

  80. For good reason, we do NOT have a democracy in this country. We have a republic. And the whole intent of the system is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Like our Founding Fathers, I’m anti-democratic and proud of it. Democracy is mob rule.

    The voters took a right away from a minority. This is a travesty. If it needs to be overthrown by the courts, so be it.

    Comment by Attmay — November 5, 2008 @ 10:23 pm - November 5, 2008

  81. Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church], Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family[and the National Organization for Marriage Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California’s largest, has also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state.”

    This is your real enemy. Blacks only make up 6.7% of the state I don’t believe enough of them voted to effect this kind of legislation. They did not raise the millions to fight this.

    Don’t trust exit polls taken when many of these same groups taking them were angry with African-Americans about Obama beating their Christian Right coalition ie Sarah Palin. I think they are pitting one group against the other. Don’t fall for it.

    Rather than be upset and allowing people to divert you towards a phantom Black menace, put forth a gay candidate for office and fight like hell. No one gave Obama anything and they will not give gays anything either. Obama stands on the shoulders of a lot of brave people who gave their lives for himto stand on that podium last night.

    Comment by Thelea Draganic — November 5, 2008 @ 11:44 pm - November 5, 2008

  82. Ummm….exactly where/how are any male/female couples who are of legal age unable to marry?

    When they’re related to each other by blood, when they’re already married to someone else, or when one is not of sound mind.

    So you see, Kevin, there are already plenty of restrictions on marriage, which proves that the state has the right to do so. You simply are too lazy to explain why the state should support your liberal gay “men are pigs, so we can screw around whenever we want” relationships.

    Speaking of which, Attmay, you should probably read comment 63 before you accuse me of saying that John has open relationships.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2008 @ 1:48 am - November 6, 2008

  83. Quit acting like you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

    I suppose John should at least get credit for coming up with something more inventive than the usual “Jewish Nazi”, “kapo”, “Uncle Tom”, or “race traitor”.

    But, since it all boils down to, “you’re not really gay unless you believe exactly as I do”, he shouldn’t get very much. To echo ILC, welcome to the Gay Left, John, and good luck with it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2008 @ 1:59 am - November 6, 2008

  84. #60: “For now the fight is on and frankly I’m mad enough now that I hope this gets knocked down in court instead of going back thru the ballot. I’ve had enough of their self-righteous, condescending and bullshit remarks against gays. Enough of them have flat-out said over and over again to me that they want to deny gays everything they can because we are sinners and perverts in their eyes. Fine. Enough. I want them to pay now. They wanted revenge and now so do I.”

    John, now I completely understand why you are demanding gay marriage THIS MINUTE and why you won’t take no for an answer. You obviously have suitors lined up around the block desperate to be your husband because you sound ENCHANTING. Seriously, who wouldn’t want to live under the same roof in legal matrimony with an angry, irrational, revenge-obsessed, left-wing attack dog like yourself? I personally can’t decide which I find more intoxicating: your Texas-chainsaw commitment to an agenda of rage, or your bitter threats to mow down as many Christians as possible in your one-man cultural vendetta. Well, whatever it is, I’m sure every man on this blog finds it as irresistible as I do and wants to make a life-long, state-sanctioned commitment to it. In fact, I just can’t help myself….John? Will you marry me?

    Comment by Sean A — November 6, 2008 @ 2:38 am - November 6, 2008

  85. For good reason, we do NOT have a democracy in this country. We have a republic. And the whole intent of the system is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. Like our Founding Fathers, I’m anti-democratic and proud of it. Democracy is mob rule.

    I agree with that 100%.

    For the millionth time:
    - Rights should never be voted on.
    - Privileges should always be voted on.
    - A State license for marriage, hunting, driving, therapy practice or anything, is a privilege, not a right.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 3:45 am - November 6, 2008

  86. Now, what is the essential difference between a right and a privilege? Rights are innate. They reside entirely in your own freedom of conscience and/or action. Privileges are not innate. They impact other people, using law to force others to change their behavior.

    When 2 people look each other in the eye and make a personal, enduring commitment *to each other*, that is their right. It can be an entirely private matter, if they want. It doesn’t need to concern others (unless it violates some other contract that one of them has entered into).

    When 2 people go to the State and say, “Give us a license letting us compel third parties to treat us differently, recognize us, subsidize us, etc.” they are asking for a privilege. It is a public matter. It necessarily concerns others – in fact, that is the whole point. It therefore requires others’ consent, as expressed through law-making and democracy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 3:52 am - November 6, 2008

  87. (since it would be impractical to obtain, and unreasonable to expect, every last citizen’s literal consent in every instance)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 3:55 am - November 6, 2008

  88. Now, why should we have State marriage licenses for gay couples? Because it is good policy. Because it is good for the public if people get a bit more stable and settle down into these little 2-person units, that the State calls “marriages” or “new families”, where they serve as each other’s first help, so the State/public doesn’t have to.

    In short, because marriage is so good for an ordered society that even the society’s gay members ought to enter into it. With each other, that is; NOT creating unhappiness and instability by entering into heterosexual marriages that they would be profoundly unsuited for.

    Notice my argument structure: I’m talking about why gay marriage is good for society. Marriage is usually also good for the individuals involved and that is what induces them to enter into it.

    Long story short, denying State marriage licenses to gay couples is dumb/bad policy. But, if that’s how the people vote, they have a right to do it.

    All gays had to do was wait 10 more years or even as little as five, patiently building public support, and it would have been possible to reverse Prop 22 at the ballot box. It may yet be possible to reverse Prop 8 at the ballot box, and that’s what we should be thinking about accomplishing. Not also this dictate-through-the-courts bullshit. Remember, once more, that with State marriage licenses, we are not talking about rights, but about privileges.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 4:13 am - November 6, 2008

  89. Now how does Loving v. Virginia fit into this?

    First of all: even under slavery, heterosexual black couples were mostly granted the privilege of marriage. I don’t know how formal it was (how much State legislation was involved). My point here is that Loving was not a decision that let African-American heterosexual couples marry: they already could.

    Loving said, in effect, that in deciding which couples to give marriage licenses to and which to withhold them from (see NDT’s #78), the State of Virginia could not look at the couple’s alleged racial difference. If a couple had mixed racial status, the mixed status could not be used to deny it a marriage license, or to refuse recognition of another State’s grant.

    The Loving decision used the language of marriage as a “basic civil right” and “fundamental freedom”. As I noted earlier, that is confused language, and thus unfortunate. In a proper political system, forcing third parties to give you (or some association you’ve made) special deference, even forms of financial support like tax breaks, can never be a fundamental right. If it were, then we’d have to marry the incestuous, the underaged, and so forth.

    It is worth noting, however, that when SCOTUS used its imprecise and misguided language in Loving, it was talking about heterosexual marriage with the traditional exclusions of the incestuous, the underaged, the insane – and gays. So, no, we are not included in the Loving decision. Not until the U.S. Supreme Court says it has found it in the U.S. Constitution.

    Loving said: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” The issue is clearly race and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    And as I said at #57, the Loving decision somehow managed not to happen in a vacuum. It somehow, coincidentally(?) managed to happen *after* a national majority had painstakingly built in support of the Civil Rights movement. If you want a court decision to work out well for you and everyone: show some patience and mind your public support.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 5:00 am - November 6, 2008

  90. Well put ILC,

    And California’s DP laws (and CT’s until their court went nuts) are exactly the way do to it.

    Comment by The Livewire — November 6, 2008 @ 7:11 am - November 6, 2008

  91. The thing is, law or no law, same sex marriage is always going to be a joke, and married same-sex couples are always going to be the objects of ridicule. Ironically, most of this ridicule will be behind their backs and come from their “liberal” supporters.

    Comment by V the K — November 6, 2008 @ 7:31 am - November 6, 2008

  92. V the K, the same people who ridicule married same sex couple ridicule all same sex couples. And some of them will be liberals, as you say. Having a piece of paper, doesn’t make a difference, right?

    Comment by Pat — November 6, 2008 @ 7:37 am - November 6, 2008

  93. ILC, I agree pretty much with what you said regarding the distinction of rights and privileges. And as a fellow supporter of same sex marriage, I agree with your approach to attaining same sex marriage as well. But I think we have to put some things in perspective.

    I understand John’s anger regarding this issue. We just witnessed a state voting to strip privileges away from a significant population in California. And in the process, we saw a group OUTSIDE the state who poured millions of dollars to help in that regard. If you think John is being unreasonable, imagine the following scenario.

    Suppose a vote was held in which Mormons (or any religious, ethnic group, etc.) were stripped of the privilege in the following manner: No person is allowed to marry someone of the Mormon faith. Persons of the Mormon faith will still have “equality” and no rights taken away from them because

    - Everyone, even Mormons, are allowed to marry someone who is not Mormon. Kind of like saying that gays are allowed to marry someone of opposite sex.

    - Anyone can have a monogamous relationship with a Mormon. Just get whatever scraps you can from a few states and/or pay thousands of dollars trying to attain those scraps.

    - If a Mormon couple wants to adopt children, they can move to a state that allows Mormons to adopt children.

    - Obviously a Mormon who wants to marry would have to convert (just like a gay person would have to “convert” to straight in order to marry someone of the opposite sex). So a Mormon has to decide if marriage is more important and convert. Perhaps they can try to hide from their spouse that they are still secretly Mormon.

    - Or just remain a Mormon. You can still choose to have relationships. Heck, it’s only a piece of paper.

    - They can try to have voters of their state “allow” them to have civil unions that give some of the benefits of marriage (although none of the federal benefits). And don’t call it marriage. Because Mormons have only been around for 200 years, they shouldn’t “steal” marriage from people of other faiths. They can come up with a new term.

    The above may sound ridiculous, but this is EXACTLY what has been said about homosexuals.

    Now some Mormons, after this defeat, will try to reason with the population and seek to have this overturned through the legislative process. In the meantime, they will try to educate others, explain why it is beneficial to society to have their marriage privileges restored, and try to understand those who just stripped their privileges, and all that. For the most part, you are going to see actions and behavior that will make John’s look extremely tame by comparison. And the first place they will head to is the courts. They might even spend more than $20 million worrying about their own privileges than making sure they can take away others.

    Obviously, this issue is important to John. And the defeat is still fresh. I don’t think this makes John a gay leftie, when since, as far as I know, none of his views have changed.

    Comment by Pat — November 6, 2008 @ 8:00 am - November 6, 2008

  94. “you approve of seven-nine elitist attorneys wearing robes deciding what’s best for all of us”

    Unless those judges were forcing heterosexual Californians to marry persons of the same sex, I don’t really see how were the former deciding what was best for the latter. The law had no impact on heterosexuals’ personal lives, period. It shouldn’t be up to them to decide on such law or to feel self-righteously indignant by its existence in the first place.

    BTW, I would love to see how Western Christians would react if India, China and Saudi Arabia were suddely to put the rights of their own Christian small minorities into question with the respective Hindu, Atheist-Buddhist, and Islamic majorities deciding by vote which rights the Christians shall hold.

    Comment by Deus é uma merda — November 6, 2008 @ 10:00 am - November 6, 2008

  95. The thing is, law or no law, same sex marriage is always going to be a joke, and married same-sex couples are always going to be the objects of ridicule.

    I disagree. I mean, not in California. Not if gay marriage is passed a reasonable way (i.e., democratically).

    Pat, reasonable points as always. Well constructed example, I might have to start using it!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 6, 2008 @ 10:26 am - November 6, 2008

  96. #91: Sorry, Pat. Your hypothetical is just another apples/oranges, inapplicable analogy to the exclusion of gay couples from state-sanctioned marriage. It’s hopelessly flawed because in it, the reason Mormon heterosexual couples are stripped of their marital rights is due to their shared religious beliefs (ideological). But the reason for the exclusion of same-sex couples from state-sanctioned marriage isn’t ideological. It’s BIOLOGICAL.

    Comment by Sean A — November 6, 2008 @ 11:09 am - November 6, 2008

  97. Perhaps if the Homosexual community was not so racist (commonly refering to the hetero as “those breeders”)against the Heterosexual community they might have had more understanding from the.

    Comment by Thomas — November 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am - November 6, 2008

  98. Except, Pat, what you don’t get is that religion is EXPLICITLY outlined as being an invalid basis for discrimination in both the California and United States Constitutions, both of which also say that freedom of religion is an absolute right that cannot be denied to any citizen.

    Now, can you point out where the right to marry anyone to whom you are sexually attracted is EXPLICITLY outlined in the California and United States Constitutions? And remember, if you try to invoke “equal protection” as grounds for granting marriage, it must be granted to EVERYONE, since the Equal Protection Clause does not contain any exceptions saying it doesn’t apply based on age, blood relation, consent, number of spouses, or even species.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - November 6, 2008

  99. #34 I have always taught my children that discrimination and bigotry comes in many forms and is always wrong.

    Wow. Just wow. I hope your children eventually learn otherwise.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 6, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - November 6, 2008

  100. Obviously, this issue is important to John. And the defeat is still fresh. I don’t think this makes John a gay leftie, when since, as far as I know, none of his views have changed.

    I fail to see how voting against a travesty of justice and supporting legal means to undo it makes one a leftist. If we must force gay marriage down the throats of the American public by force, I won’t protest. If we can get it through winning the support of “straight” people and/or the legislature, that would be better. But right now I don’t see any other solution.

    And before you accuse me of leftism, keep in mind I voted for McCain.

    And I will support a gay tax revolt. There’s nothing more conservative than protesting unfair taxes.

    Comment by Attmay — November 6, 2008 @ 5:47 pm - November 6, 2008

  101. This was left on a friend’s MySpace page as his comment…..

    “(Name withheld) welcomes everyone to a NEW America! (Except for a certain 52% of Californians. You’re a #$%&ing bunch of intolerant self-righteous shit heads.)”

    I have no patience for intolerance from either side and if tolerance is expected it must be practiced. This is a difficult issue for alot of people and some will never agree but if any strides are to be made this type of vitriol has got to stop. Protest peacefully, march peacefully, and definitely vote, these are positive ways to make change. But to name call with impunity has got to stop. It’s just embarrassing,sad and wrong and needs to be called out as such.

    I didn’t know what to say but shook my head and deleted him as a “friend”

    Comment by Mark — November 6, 2008 @ 10:12 pm - November 6, 2008

  102. Sean A, so what if the differences are ideological vs. biological? Actually, the reason that gay persons were stripped of privileges, and Mormons (in my example) were stripped of privileges, is because the majority voted to do so.

    NDT, my example was not to be construed that Mormon’s should be denied their freedom of religion. And as you would argue, Mormons are NOT being discriminated against. They would be free to marry nonMormons like everyone else.

    Comment by Pat — November 6, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - November 6, 2008

  103. I noticed this statement on a friends MySpace page:

    (“Name withheld)….welcomes everyone to a NEW America! (Except for a certain 52% of Californians. You’re a #$%&ing bunch of intolerant self-righteous shit heads.)”

    What a shame to read this. Intolerance is not acceptable on either side and if tolerance is expected, tolerance must be practiced. This is a difficult issue for a-lot of people in and out of the Gay community and some people may never agree.

    Protest peacefully, March peacefully discuss in a civil matter and by all means vote, but to resort to this vitriol is beneath common decency and does a gross disservice to the Gay community.

    After shaking my head in sadness, I removed this person as a “friend”

    Comment by Mark — November 6, 2008 @ 11:21 pm - November 6, 2008

  104. EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH THIS!!! PASS IT ALONG!!!

    AMAZING NO ON 8 VIDEO FROM PROTESTS IN WEST HOLLYWOOD

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrVgkGej4Ck

    Comment by Mitch — November 7, 2008 @ 3:10 am - November 7, 2008

  105. The gay community in California is upset about the black community’s vote regarding Proposition 8 and have largely blamed that community’s vote for its failure. What I find so disingenuous about the (predominantly) white gay community, is that the moment where they “need” the black community, there’s this effusion of emotion and discussion of “unity”, “healing”, and other words you rarely hear.

    I think this has identified the rarely spoken, but ugly secret within the gay community – it’s probably just as notoriously racist, if not more in some areas, than in the greater white community at-large. I’m sorry, but as much as I disagree with Prop 8, I feel no urgency to support it with the same zeal as others in the white gay community state they need us. It’s an honest statement to say that the road to the greater black community is to start talking to the smaller, but critical gay black community.

    Did you know there are two gay prides in the community? Did you know that communities are very much aligned by ethnicity so when there’s this “call for unity” when it comes to politics, the white majority gay community simply isn’t going to garner the same response from other minority communities until a clear and inclusive dialogue can happen with gay communities of color and gay community at large. Until the greater white community can face it’s racist tendencies, often classified as “inherent preferences” , you’ll never achieve the foot soldiers needed from other communities of color, particularly the black gay community, to talk effectively to the greater black communities regarding issues like Prop 8.

    I’ve continually read that white gay leaders are “shocked” by the black communities response to Prop 8. Well I’m not at all. As with any other political issue, although it might seem there’s a natural proclivity for political alliance. However, those needed to evangelize the political message are still searching for fences to be mended.

    Comment by down2earth210 — November 7, 2008 @ 12:52 pm - November 7, 2008

  106. [...] 52% of the state of California voted for proposition 8. There was even support for Proposition 8 among homosexual people. The people spoke loud and clear and the response to this vote is to protest, block traffic, target [...]

    Pingback by One man’s voice » Blog Archive » Proposition 8 protests in Southern California — November 10, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - November 10, 2008

  107. They didnt eliminate the rights of people, they chose to protect the rights of people.

    Here it is in a nutshell. Marriage was created as a religous insitution. Government entities began taxing marriage centuries ago and therefore offered marriage certificates. To this day, if you have a religous ceremony, it is by custom that the priest, rabbi, etc. sign the religous document which you then take to the state to get your certificate.

    You can may convince some state authorities to hand out certificates for homosexuals, or polygamists, which was the case in the past, as well as first cousins and girls at the age of twelve. (see Hawaii), but this does not mean you are married.

    In other words, you cannot change the history of the origin of religion, try as you may. Whether it be communion, marriage, baptism, etc.

    You can make up your own, just like a clubhouse or treehouse and create your own officiation. But you cannot change history or the will of God.

    Comment by JoeG — November 16, 2008 @ 4:13 pm - November 16, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.