State Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

Ms. Haiku

That's not nice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06ballot.html

I looked through new threads, and I didn't see this, which surprises me.

Rhinocerous Surprise

I was looking for a thread on this too. Very backwards. :(

norm

absolutely sickens me :mad:

melodious

I was gonna post this and I see yours...

The motto: End all hate, vote no on Eight



* SF Church Weds Gay Couples Ahead Of Prop. 8 Vote Play Video Video: SF Church Weds Gay Couples Ahead Of Prop. 8 Vote CBS 5 San Francisco
* Voters weigh in on amendment to ban gay marriage Play Video Video: Voters weigh in on amendment to ban gay marriage AP
* Full Obama Victory Speech Play Video Video: Full Obama Victory Speech ABC News

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom crosses his fingers as he speaks at a rally AP – San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom crosses his fingers as he speaks at a rally against California Proposition …

LOS ANGELES – In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections, but none were in California's situation — with about 18,000 gay couples married since a state Supreme Court ruling in May. The state attorney general, Jerry Brown, has said those marriages will remain valid, although legal challenges are possible.

Spending for and against the amendment reached $74 million, making it the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House.

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado and South Dakota rejected measures that could have led to sweeping bans of abortion, and Washington became only the second state — after Oregon — to offer terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide.

A first-of-its-kind measure in Colorado, which was defeated soundly, would have defined life as beginning at conception. Its opponents said the proposal could lead to the outlawing of some types of birth control as well as abortion.

The South Dakota measure would have banned abortions except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother. A tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, lost in 2006. Anti-abortion activists thought the modifications would win approval, but the margin of defeat was similar, about 55 percent to 45 percent of the vote.

"The lesson here is that Americans, in states across the country, clearly support women's ability to access abortion care without government interference," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

In Washington, voters gave solid approval to an initiative modeled after Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law, which allows a terminally ill person to be prescribed lethal medication they can administer to themselves. Since Oregon's law took effect in 1997, more than 340 people — mostly ailing with cancer — have used it to end their lives.

The marijuana reform movement won two prized victories, with Massachusetts voters decriminalizing possession of small amounts of the drug and Michigan joining 12 other states in allowing use of pot for medical purposes.

Henceforth, people caught in Massachusetts with an ounce or less of pot will no longer face criminal penalties. Instead, they'll forfeit the marijuana and pay a $100 civil fine.

The Michigan measure will allow severely ill patients to register with the state and legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea, appetite loss and other symptoms.

Nebraska voters, meanwhile, approved a ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action, similar to measures previously approved in California, Michigan and Washington. Returns in Colorado on a similar measure were too close to call.

Ward Connerly, the California activist-businessman who has led the crusade against affirmative action, said Obama's victory proved his point. "We have overcome the scourge of race," Connerly said.

Energy measures met a mixed fate. In Missouri, voters approved a measure requiring the state's three investor-owned electric utilities to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021. But California voters defeated an even more ambitious measure that would have required the state's utilities to generate half their electricity from windmills, solar systems, geothermal reserves and other renewable sources by 2025.

Two animal-welfare measures passed — a ban on dog racing in Massachusetts, and a proposition in California that outlaws cramped cages for egg-laying chickens.

Amid deep economic uncertainty, proposals to cut state income taxes were defeated decisively in North Dakota and Massachusetts.

In San Francisco, an eye-catching local measure — to bar arrests for prostitution — was soundly rejected. Police and political leaders said it would hamper the fight against sex trafficking. And in San Diego, voters decided to make permanent a ban on alcohol consumption on city beaches.

____

Jeremy1012

Oh fuck. how is it that America manages to make a huge leap forward and then run a few steps back the same day? :mad:

melodious

cutback wrote:

absolutely sickens me :mad:

I was torn because I am hetero sexual adult female and many of the tapes I have been taught reel through my mind. But a school teacher pointed out to me that freedom of choice has been salvaged by the blood of our fallen peoples and even though sometimes we might not agree, we should always try to promote that freedom.

In nature, I try to abide.

krzzzymary

Wait ..... so did it pass or still too close to call?

jimed14

A sad mark on an amzingly happy night.

I'm sure when the votes are broken down, the same throngs of Latino voters that supported Barack Obama will also have voted yes to banning gay marraige.

My girlfriend's brother is gay, he was devistated this morning. They are a Latino family, and even though her son is gay, her mom voted Yes to ban gay marraige ... it was a polarizing debate.

People have a tough time believing me when I say if you get away from the coast, California is one amazingly conservative state.

It was a heated battle, almost as much as the presidential race.

Just as with the presidential race, the people have spoken.

decides2dream

wow.
truly amazes me, and especially in a state such as california. then again, it is a HUGE state...so bound to be many disparate pov.


however, since it was already overturned once....i wonder what will happen now?



sad, sad, sad....
why so many feel the need to involve dthemselves in others personal lives is beyond me. marriage is a LEGAL right, religion is something else entirely...and entirely seperate. i thin hetero or homosexual, all should be afforded the legal rights of marriage.


however, on a positive.....

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado and South Dakota rejected measures that could have led to sweeping bans of abortion, and Washington became only the second state — after Oregon — to offer terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide.




this is awesome!

fugawzi

I'm happy about Obama getting elected, but I am disappointed that bans on gay marriage passed in many states. Especially in California where it was just allowed. Taking away a right they were just granted.

meistereder

1. A very tough setback, and it makes me sad. I am in CA and I honestly don't know where all these yes-on-8 people came from. I only know one or two people who would have voted yes on 8.

2. The only way to challenge a state constitutional amendment is a federal lawsuit. We may see this go to the US Supreme Court, but the problem is it will be very difficult to get there and would probably take a long, long time because in order for the US Supreme Court to call that unconstitutional on a federal level, it would be signalling all 50 states to allow gay marriage. We're not there yet, unfortunately. It's amazing to me that the majority of voters in CA did this.

Enkidu

I'm hoping it will be tangled in the courts for a while and gay marriages won't be undone somehow. I hope. The Yes on 8 ads were so disgusting. I just think about my gay friends who are fabulous parents and my creepy Mormon neighbor with the giant Yes on 8 sign in his front yard, a bad parent, a man who cheated on his wife and divorced her, just a pig of a guy.

I'm rambling, I'm really angry and sad about this.

meistereder

decides2dream wrote:

however, since it was already overturned once....i wonder what will happen now?

The CA Supreme Court cannot overturn this one. The CA Supreme Court's duty is to rule whether a law is constitutional (state constitution). Since that has now been amended, or will be soon, the court will be bound to abide by this constitutional amendment, as wrong as it is.

Only the federal courts can save the day now, and they may not want to because most of the country is even more backwards.

jimed14

meistereder wrote:

1. A very tough setback, and it makes me sad. I am in CA and I honestly don't know where all these yes-on-8 people came from. I only know one or two people who would have voted yes on 8.

where do you live?

I took my girlfriend to Tahoe last week for her birthday ... and it only took me about 30 minutes to get out of the city and see TONS of "Yes on 8" banners ... again, outside of L.A. and S.F., this state DOES have a lot of conservative folks.

decides2dream

meistereder wrote:

The CA Supreme Court cannot overturn this one. The CA Supreme Court's duty is to rule whether a law is constitutional (state constitution). Since that has now been amended, or will be soon, the court will be bound to abide by this constitutional amendment, as wrong as it is.

Only the federal courts can save the day now, and they may not want to because most of the country is even more backwards.

thanks for the info.




to be blunt and none too eloquent.....that's just fucked. :(

jimed14 wrote:

where do you live?

I took my girlfriend to Tahoe last week for her birthday ... and it only took me about 30 minutes to get out of the city and see TONS of "Yes on 8" banners ... again, outside of L.A. and S.F., this state DOES have a lot of conservative folks.

i am continually amazed at the vast divide of beliefs within our country. sure, it really isn't THAT unrealistic given we are such a HUGE country, so many different cultures, beliefs, etc......but none the less, at times, it's amazing we're united at all sometimes.

meistereder

jimed14 wrote:

where do you live?

I took my girlfriend to Tahoe last week for her birthday ... and it only took me about 30 minutes to get out of the city and see TONS of "Yes on 8" banners ... again, outside of L.A. and S.F., this state DOES have a lot of conservative folks.

I live in LA. Most of my friends are pretty liberal, although I have a couple conservative friends too, who have strong religious views on marriage.

decides2dream

meistereder wrote:

I live in LA. Most of my friends are pretty liberal, although I have a couple conservative friends too, who have strong religious views on marriage.

when oh when oh when oh when....will people see their personally held religious beliefs as SEPERATE from the beliefs and rights of others....and NOT to be a part of government?



that is my fervent wish.


and one of my favorite quotes...


some may call me a dreamer
but i'm not the only one






someday, someday, someday.........i AM an optimist too!

meistereder

decides2dream wrote:

thanks for the info.




to be blunt and none too eloquent.....that's just fucked. :(

Yeah, I agree. They spent more money on this proposition apparently than in the history of elections on social issues. The biggest lie they were putting out was that if gay marriage was upheld, it would require teachers to "teach gay marriage" whatever that means. The superintendent of schools point blank said that is a lie, and the school districts were adamant that they were against the amendment, since it promotes discrimination.

In the end, the money bought the ads that led the ignorant to believe the lie.

nothinghead

It's a bummer. In Southern California, especially around San Diego, I noticed a surprisingly large number of Yes on 8 signs. LA seemed to be more No on 8, but not overwhelmingly by any means.

I lived in New York my whole life before attending school in San Francisco. Been down south now for a couple of months and I hate it. I really should move back.

decides2dream

meistereder wrote:

Yeah, I agree. They spent more money on this proposition apparently than in the history of elections on social issues. The biggest lie they were putting out was that if gay marriage was upheld, it would require teachers to "teach gay marriage" whatever that means. The superintendent of schools point blank said that is a lie, and the school districts were adamant that they were against the amendment, since it promotes discrimination.

In the end, the money bought the ads that led the ignorant to believe the lie.

it's so sad the time, energy, money and emotional investment some may make to fight against the rights of others...to enjoy the freedoms and rights that they do, all within the borders of the same country.....and why? LEGAL rights have NOTHING to do with religion, and vice versa. we are more alike than different....love is love......2 consenting adults, etc, etc...yada, yada.......wtf? it truly saddens me. :(


and people wonder why change takes so damn long? two steps forward, one step back...and so it goes. the lager the group, the more resistance to change...even positive change.

jimed14

meistereder wrote:

Yeah, I agree. They spent more money on this proposition apparently than in the history of elections on social issues. The biggest lie they were putting out was that if gay marriage was upheld, it would require teachers to "teach gay marriage" whatever that means. The superintendent of schools point blank said that is a lie, and the school districts were adamant that they were against the amendment, since it promotes discrimination.

In the end, the money bought the ads that led the ignorant to believe the lie.

funny thing, the money was funneled in from OTHER states ... Nevada and Utah notably, The Mormons flooded money in.

But, the no on 8 folks had a lot of heavy hitters on board too .... many celebs were doing everything they could ... ads, money, etc ...

I don't honestly know who raised more.

norm

jimed14 wrote:

funny thing, the money was funneled in from OTHER states ... Nevada and Utah notably, The Mormons flooded money in.

But, the no on 8 folks had a lot of heavy hitters on board too .... many celebs were doing everything they could ... ads, money, etc ...

I don't honestly know who raised more.

$73 million

$35 million yes
$37 million no

jimed14

cutback wrote:

$73 million

$35 million yes
$37 million no

well, there you go, as I thought, it was essentially even.

bootlegger10

So, is this thread appropriate for "The People Have the Power" song quotes, or only in threads where you all agree with the Peoples' decisions?

This was not a corporation, this was not a legislature, this was not a court, this was the people voting.

meistereder

jimed14 wrote:

funny thing, the money was funneled in from OTHER states ... Nevada and Utah notably, The Mormons flooded money in.

But, the no on 8 folks had a lot of heavy hitters on board too .... many celebs were doing everything they could ... ads, money, etc ...

I don't honestly know who raised more.

That actually makes sense because even though the politicians will say it is up to the states to decide, having gay marriage legal in a state -- any state -- has national implications. Other states have to recognize marriages that were entered into in another state. So other states had a huge interest in making sure no one in CA could enjoy the freedom. If gay marriage had been allowed to sink in here, it would have definitely had to have been enforced in other states.

Now... interesting issue that I do not know how it will play out. I think there are some 12,000 or so gay marriages that were legally and constitutionally entered into in CA. As far as I understand, the amendment is not retroactive, so those are still valid. If I were the pro-gay marriage people, I would take some test cases and test the waters in court. You could, for example, try to enforce a legal CA gay marriage in another state like Massachusetts who may uphold it. Ultimately, if you had support, you could get into federal court and challenge it. The issue is not dead.

decides2dream

bootlegger10 wrote:

So, is this thread appropriate for "The People Have the Power" song quotes, or only in threads where you all agree with the Peoples' decisions?

This was not a corporation, this was not a legislature, this was not a court, this was the people voting.

and one can still express disappointment and sadness that their fellow citizens made this choice. that is all. it may be the will of the people of california, but i don't have to be happy about it.

meistereder

jimed14 wrote:

well, there you go, as I thought, it was essentially even.

Lots of money.

meistereder

bootlegger10 wrote:

So, is this thread appropriate for "The People Have the Power" song quotes, or only in threads where you all agree with the Peoples' decisions?

This was not a corporation, this was not a legislature, this was not a court, this was the people voting.

I think people are expressing sadness that the people took a step backwards yesterday. It's also sad that the major theme of the yes on 8 ads was a lie.

meistereder

decides2dream wrote:

and one can still express disappointment and sadness that their fellow citizens made this choice. that is all. it may be the will of the people of california, but i don't have to be happy about it.

Keep in mind that throughout history, we have had countless unjust laws that were supported by the majority. Majority rule only means you have more people on your side. It says nothing about whether it's a just law.

decides2dream

meistereder wrote:

Keep in mind that throughout history, we have had countless unjust laws that were supported by the majority. Majority rule only means you have more people on your side. It says nothing about whether it's a just law.

exactly.


thus why it oftentimes is so unbelievably frustrating.


i also realize that many who were not at all for obama, for example, feel that very same frustration, so i know full well it's all dependent on our own pov...but truly, equal rights should be equal rights! there is personal pov, and there is 'right'...and sometimes, it really does come down to that. and this is spoken/written by someone who very much resides in the grey areas of thinking for much in this world.

jimed14

I think in time ... hopefully in our lifetime ... this will change.

It's a generational thing .... it took a long time for the idea of a African American candidate for president to be come a reality, and indeed, it was the youth that helped this come true ...

I'm sure, in time ... the tollerant will eventually outnumber the intollerant.