Update: California Voters Pass Gay Marriage Ban

November 5, 2008

After a morning of uncertainty it has been confirmed that California has passed Prop 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

The ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

California legalized gay marriage earlier this year, but the constitutional amendment will limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Similar bans have been set in 27 states, but none of those states had previously legalized marriage. Update: Opponents have already filed suit in an attempt to stop the measure from taking effect.

Source

537 Comments

nobama2008 4 years 28 weeks

Okay a majority voted for Obama....I did not and yet he is my president. And that is how the process works right. But Prop 8 has gone through twice. And yet Gay rights groups are all up in arms. The process works. I got stuck with what the majority wanted as a president.....and I'll support hims since I have no choice............but why on earth can't liberals and Gay groups get used to the fact that the public has spoken.......twice now.

harmonyfrance 4 years 28 weeks

Thank you ghostgrrl! I've tried to make that point before, but you actually know what you are talking about so thank you for that. :)

amybdk 4 years 28 weeks

Hypno. I love you.

Roarman 4 years 28 weeks

Nobama, I think consenting adults should be able to marry each other in any form they would like. It is not my place to push my judgement onto society and dictate how others live even if I might not agree with the lifestyle. I have no problem with homesexual marriage in any way, I don't see why people are so threatened by it. "as to what the impact would be on heterosexual marriages and what the impact would be on children" Why would two adults of the same sex marrying have any impact on another marriage of any type? And where do children figure into this at all? Being gay is not evil nor is it some type of disease that can be contracted. "The gay lifestyle is inherently unequal to the heterosexual one. PC or not, the gay lifestyle doesn't lead to procreation. Without children society dies off. Elevating the gay lifestyle to an equal plane with the heterosexual lifestyle means that procreation is no longer a vital part of society." What are you talking about? First of all, there are millions of children in this country and around the world waiting to be adopted, so I don't think that there is a chance of the human race dying off. Secondly, plenty of lesbian couples have children that one of them birthed through artificial insemination. And there are lots of heterosexuals who never have children. Your argument is a very archaic view of marriage. People aren't marrying anymore for the sole purpose of procreating.

Jessiebanana 4 years 28 weeks

ghostgrrl :notworthy: The college that I go to everyone reads the bible in Hum 110. I find the biggest religion fanatics are the one who haven't actually read the bible and have only heard interpretations from extremist pastors. It is impossible to take the bible literally and if you can't take everything literally how are you going to pick which lines you want and which lines you don't. It would disgusts us in some ways and violate our laws of racial and gender equality.

reynolda 4 years 28 weeks

social security is taken out of every working person's paycheck. the only way you get it without paying in is if you're a spouse who doesn't work and your spouse dies. it's a nominal cost to the system unless you think ALL same sex couples will suddenly become one-earner families. health care-- almost all businesses & state and local gov'ts offer domestic partner benefits. the market has basically mandated this. the cost to the whole system would again, be nominal.

nobama2008 4 years 28 weeks

How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

reynolda 4 years 28 weeks

also, nobama, did you go to law school? i'm not saying one is incapable of making salient constitutional arguments without having taken a class... but in your case, you should probably stop trying.

nobama2008 4 years 28 weeks

Proponents of gay marriage say that marriage is a right. This is similar to the argument that proponents of socialized medicine make. Anytime anyone wants the government to sanction something they turn it into a "right". Whether it's minimum wage, social security, abortion (through the so called right to privacy) or universal health care, all sorts of so called "rights" have been created by people even though there is no such right in the Constitution. Creating rights out of thin air is dangerous and has all sorts of unintended consequences. This creates bloated government, new laws, and all sorts of new special interest groups and lobbies. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no "right to marry" anywhere in the constitution. Thus gay couples have more right to create a marriage out of their relationship than do swingers, polygamists, and transvestites. Marriage pre dates this nation and always has been defined as one man, one woman, and children.

reynolda 4 years 28 weeks

nobama you should really look for some statistics and law review articles that are less than 10 yrs old to support your lengthy posts- old studies on issues that have probably been re-documented recently are inherently suspect. Also, articles in law reviews aren't scientific in any way, they're just the opinions of law professors and commentators and you can find one to support ANY proposition you want to make - believe me, my law review publishes some interesting stuff :). The notion that proving the "tradition" of a norm of behavior in society is all you need to do to cement its claim to legal or moral superiority is flawed (see many US supreme court opinions or the legal commentary of Ron Dworkin for a laymen's analysis) -- a ringing example is segregation- the exact argument (well, we've done this for 200 years, so it must be right!) was used in that case and rejected over time. Finally in the CA case, gay marriage WAS legal, so the proponents of the ban in this state were the ones shouldering the burden of proof... though with ballot measures "proof" isn't exactly the same as in a court of law. Also, undave, the notion that 'democracy is at work so all is good!' is in this case a little naive-- the unstated argument of many posters is that the right to marry is fundamental or at least deserving of a higher than normal level of protection that should shield it from CA's on-again-off-again ballot proposal system. Money and lack of or wrong information plays a part in all CA ballot proposals-- it's incredibly easy to put something up for a vote here and it's unfortunate that a system designed to give populous control really just inundates us with the pet cause of any person or organization with enough cash to be heard.

nobama2008 4 years 28 weeks

If marriage is redefined to include gays, how can anyone tell me that is the end of the redefinition. If the arrangement of the sexes is no longer important, then why is the number or any other part of it important. If I have twelve girlfriends, why can't we all get married. We are all adults and in love, and thus our union should be recognized by marriage just like a gay union. My buddy, his friend, and their two female lovers also want their union defined by marriage. Why is the gay lifestyle included in marriage but the swinger lifestyle is not. The reason this argument is so vital is because once you redefine marriage there are all sorts of unintended consequences. You can't redefine it once and then guarantee that this is the last time it will be redefined. Any argument made for gay marriage can just as easily be made for polygamy, swingers, transvestites, and any other alternative lifestyle that similarly feels aggrieved. In fact, the most common legal argument made in favor of gay marriage is by invoking the 14th amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, everyone is treated equally under the law. Thus, if heterosexuals are allowed to marry so should homosexuals. Well, if homosexuals are also allowed to marry, then why shouldn't polygamists, swingers, and transvestites also receive the same "equal protection under the law". The reason that proponents can't answer this is because by their argument they all would. If the 14th amendment means that homosexuals are allowed to marry because of equal protection, then all alternative lifestyles must receive the same equal protection. In fact, the proponent's condescension and inability to answer this portion of the argument comes down to one simple fact. The gay lifestyle receives a great deal of sympathy from many quarters while all these others are nearly universally seen as freakish and wrong. Not only is that a silly and childish view, because it is the freaks that are most in need of 14th amendment protections.

hypnoticmix 4 years 28 weeks

"They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty" Nobama you need to take your blinders off honey because there is plenty of proof in practice as we speak. I also find it ironic that you have the testicles to bring up religious liberty yet you are in favor of religious oppression. If that's not twisted I don't know what is.

nobama2008 4 years 28 weeks

The gay lifestyle is inherently unequal to the heterosexual one. PC or not, the gay lifestyle doesn't lead to procreation. Without children society dies off. Elevating the gay lifestyle to an equal plane with the heterosexual lifestyle means that procreation is no longer a vital part of society. If you look at the demographic trends of Europe you will see that much of the continent is dying off because most of the continent has stopped procreating. The startling trends in lack of procreation in Europe didn't just happen to coincide with Europe's push toward secularism including legalization of gay marriage in many parts of Europe. In fact, it happened as a result of it. The last twenty years have seen an explosion of secularism in that continent and at the exact same time the continent has seen a significant drop in procreation. The stable family unit is the bedrock of a stable society. If a family unit can be defined by anyone however they want, then chaos ensues and Europe is Exhibit A of that result.

Great Sommelier 4 years 28 weeks

"why does God keep on pooping up in this post?!" :rotfl: How does one poop up? I guess gravity wouldn't be so much of a law, but more a suggestion or preference to God!

nobama2008 4 years 28 weeks

See, I think that's the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children. I would argue that the gay community has not made the argument. They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society. They have not made any argument - convincing or otherwise, that I'm aware of - as to what the impact would be on heterosexual marriages and what the impact would be on children. They have no studies. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children - nothing. They've made no case. Basically the case they've made is, "We want what you want, and therefore you should give it to us."

Roarman 4 years 28 weeks

Undave- What is a sin to you may not be a sin to others and it is not your place to push off your beliefs onto society as a whole. Live your life as you wish and allow others to do the same.

Roarman 4 years 28 weeks

"Why is it that anyone who voted Yes on 8 is automatically a bigot and hates gays? Do you seek to understand their side at all (which for some may have nothing to do with hate)?" We have asked why they are opposed to two consenting adults getting married and have only received answers on how it is wrong according to god. Denying a whole group of people rights based on their lifestyle preference that you don't agree with seems bigoted to me.

dzv2cf 4 years 28 weeks

"Jesus told us to love one another and not to judge." Hang on Ghostgrrl...just to be clear, Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged." That doesn't mean not to judge sinful behavior, but to make sure you're not sinning before you judge someone else.

UnDave35 4 years 28 weeks

I assume that most of your litany isn't necessarily directed at me, as I haven't spent time attacking anyone regarding prop 8. I do agree that there are laws (such as most in the book of Judges, 1st and 2nd Kings) that we don't follow, or need to follow. Most of those laws weren't put in place in order to follow God, but to keep people safe and healthy. We now know how to handle most of the foods in a way that doesn't make us ill, and Jesus did also show us that women have an equal place among the believers. Jesus didn't just ask his disciples, he commanded them to go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing in his name, preaching and teaching, forgiving and retaining sins. Jesus taught us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. That's all I'm doing.

subtleheights 4 years 28 weeks

okay then lets leave god out of this everyone. fair enough. how about Satan then. Satan has destroyed humankind and every sin committed is because of he and his demons floating around making us all think that our humanly ways are right and forget god and everything to do with the bible. so yes lets blame Satan then for ruining mankind, from Adam to our generation. IT IS ALL THE DEVILS FAULT and we are playing in his court and we are loving it and he is loving all of us the more. now please people be done with these posts. it is going nowhere. gays will be gays no matter what and the rest of us will either be for that or against it. tis the way of our world.save your breathes, i don't care and i doubt anyone really cares but the gays and lesbians who this all affects.

ghostgrrl 4 years 28 weeks

You can't be serious, UnDave35. I guarantee... GUARANTEE... that I could name 100 rules, laws or commandments in the Bible that you don't follow. NOBODY follows the Bible word for word. No sane person would even agree that following the Bible word for word was a good thing. You'd be stoning people to death for dozens of benign practices. You couldn't shave, eat shellfish, light fires on Sundays, eat hamburger, plant a mixed vegetable garden, or wear blended fabrics. Women would be forced to wed their rapists. Women wouldn't be allowed to use anesthesia during childbirth. Women wouldn't be allowed to speak in church. We couldn't take pictures or make likenesses of any living thing. We could sell our children into slavery. An honest Christian acknowledges that the Bible has some stuff in it that is simply not relevant to our lives today. An honest Christian then tries to discern what the real messages are about how God wants us to treat each other and sorts through all the cultural static. Jesus was not about finding ways to keep people out of Heaven, he was about getting everyone in. God isn't trying to lay traps for you to send you to Hell. How did Jesus react to the Pharisees? God made everyone special, and has a plan for everyone. Jesus told us to love one another and not to judge. Jesus wants us to be compassionate, helpful, humble and kind. Jesus *NEVER* told his followers to go out and make laws or rule nations. Quite the opposite. Jesus *NEVER* told his followers to try and force their religion on anyone. People will come to God by their own free choice or they won't come. No-one knows God's plan for any particular individual. It is arrogant and an offense against God to presume to act in his stead. What if *you're wrong* about what God wants for someone? Spending your time attacking others for what you perceive to be their "sins" takes the focus away from where it should be... on your own.

Jude C 4 years 28 weeks

Many of us have asked many a time for someone to give a clear, logical explanation of why gays shouldn't be given equal marriage rights. I don't think any of us has heard anything that isn't at least partially based either in religion or homophobia.

dzv2cf 4 years 28 weeks

Why is it that anyone who voted Yes on 8 is automatically a bigot and hates gays? Do you seek to understand their side at all (which for some may have nothing to do with hate)? This whole string of comments disturbs me more than the passing of Prop 8!

amybdk 4 years 28 weeks

Another thumbs up to ghostgrrl. Great insight!

UnDave35 4 years 28 weeks

We could go for hours on the fallacies of the ELCA, like what parts of the Bible do we choose not to follow. That is the great sin of the ELCA, and something my wife and I argue about constantly. Once you choose to stop following the Bible, you are no longer bound to, or by it, and that's when you stop following God's plan.

Link Love

537 Comments

You Might Also Like