Proposition 8 in California

[SuperTrooper]

if the voters in California were duped into voting yes, or no, on the ballot, because of the manipulation of the wording,...

the voters of California need to take that up with their elected representatives. The representatives that wrote it and put it on the ballot.


I find some of the things people put on blogs....very disturbing. They've stepped over the line of just being trolls.

I see no manipulation of the wording of the proposition. Indeed, the title given to it by attorney general Jerry Brown, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." spells it out more clearly than the original title "The California Marriage Protection Act." The enitire wording of the amendment fits in one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative brought forth by signed petition, not by the legislature.

[Moonie]

if the voters in California were duped into voting yes, or no, on the ballot, because of the manipulation of the wording,...

the voters of California need to take that up with their elected representatives. The representatives that wrote it and put it on the ballot.


I find some of the things people put on blogs....very disturbing. They've stepped over the line of just being trolls.

I see no manipulation of the wording of the proposition. Indeed, the title given to it by attorney general Jerry Brown, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." spells it out more clearly than the original title "The California Marriage Protection Act." The enitire wording of the amendment fits in one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative brought forth by signed petition, not by the legislature.

I'm sure the measure was drawn up by atty's and had to pass some degree of approval by a governing body.


NOT so according to some reports, in printed form, aka newspapers. not blogs, I only sift through blogs, topix, where I have a vested interest in the particular area.

reports are that some voting yes thought that they were voting against allowing the act of marriage, same for some voting no, only that they were voting for allowing the act of marriage.

[SuperTrooper]

if the voters in California were duped into voting yes, or no, on the ballot, because of the manipulation of the wording,...

the voters of California need to take that up with their elected representatives. The representatives that wrote it and put it on the ballot.


I find some of the things people put on blogs....very disturbing. They've stepped over the line of just being trolls.

I see no manipulation of the wording of the proposition. Indeed, the title given to it by attorney general Jerry Brown, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." spells it out more clearly than the original title "The California Marriage Protection Act." The enitire wording of the amendment fits in one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative brought forth by signed petition, not by the legislature.

I'm sure the measure was drawn up by atty's and had to pass some degree of approval by a governing body.


NOT so according to some reports, in printed form, aka newspapers. not blogs, I only sift through blogs, topix, where I have a vested interest in the particular area.

reports are that some voting yes thought that they were voting against allowing the act of marriage, same for some voting no, only that they were voting for allowing the act of marriage.

The only official oversight is when a ballot initiative passes through the state Attorney General's Office. The AG gives the initiative a title and writes a summary included on the ballot. AG Jerry Brown considered several different title for the Prop before deciding on the final version. Here is how it appeared on the ballot:

PROPOSITION 8

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


That seems pretty clear to me. The losing side of complex prpositions often say voters were misled by difficult to understand wording. I think it insults the intelligence of the voters. In this case the voters knew EXACTLY what they were voting for.

Supporters of of Prop 8 went to court when the final title was announced to try and get it changed to something less "inflammatory" and were rejected. Most opponents of Prop 8 saw the title as a victory for what the saw as a true representation of Prop 8's aim.

[Moonie]

if the voters in California were duped into voting yes, or no, on the ballot, because of the manipulation of the wording,...

the voters of California need to take that up with their elected representatives. The representatives that wrote it and put it on the ballot.


I find some of the things people put on blogs....very disturbing. They've stepped over the line of just being trolls.

I see no manipulation of the wording of the proposition. Indeed, the title given to it by attorney general Jerry Brown, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." spells it out more clearly than the original title "The California Marriage Protection Act." The enitire wording of the amendment fits in one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative brought forth by signed petition, not by the legislature.

I'm sure the measure was drawn up by atty's and had to pass some degree of approval by a governing body.


NOT so according to some reports, in printed form, aka newspapers. not blogs, I only sift through blogs, topix, where I have a vested interest in the particular area.

reports are that some voting yes thought that they were voting against allowing the act of marriage, same for some voting no, only that they were voting for allowing the act of marriage.

The only official oversight is when a ballot initiative passes through the state Attorney General's Office. The AG gives the initiative a title and writes a summary included on the ballot. AG Jerry Brown considered several different title for the Prop before deciding on the final version. Here is how it appeared on the ballot:

PROPOSITION 8

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


That seems pretty clear to me. The losing side of complex prpositions often say voters were misled by difficult to understand wording. I think it insults the intelligence of the voters. In this case the voters knew EXACTLY what they were voting for.

Supporters of of Prop 8 went to court when the final title was announced to try and get it changed to something less "inflammatory" and were rejected. Most opponents of Prop 8 saw the title as a victory for what the saw as a true representation of Prop 8's aim.

HEY, I'm not from Ca...have no opinion one way or the other, don't particularly give a d*m n ...whether it's made into law or not...

I'm just telling you what I've read in a couple of newspapers, one here in So. Georgia, and local paper in OK....heard on the local news.

Just because it's clear to you obviously doesn't mean it was clear to the voters.

and no I don't have a link to what I've read, I'm not really that concerned with it, as I said. however, sometimes the language is not all that clear to some voters...I was a percinct worker for several years and have had voters voice their opinions at the wording of some propositions.

I'm very pleased that they passed Prop. No. 2

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Suzie is correct regarding what she read. One of the news stations did a sort of "Jaywalking" type interview where they asked people on the street what the propositions were and what a yes or no vote meant. I think one person got one right. But I agree with Clayton...the wording shouldn't make a difference. As a citizen and a voter, it is your responsibility to read and research and understand what your vote means, and make an informed decision on your own, not based on what a church or other organization tells you to do or what you assume your vote means. Heck, I know my newspaper spells out what a yes and no vote means for each proposition, so all you have to do is read that if you're not willing to look it up yourself.

I didn't single out the Catholic and Mormon churches, they did that themselves when they chose to financially back Prop 8, and they should pay the price. Prop 8 opponents could not compete with the money behind the supporters; you could liken it to how Obama outspent McCain. Had Prop 8 passed without the financial backing of the two churches I am sure there would still be protests and people crying foul (as they are on every other proposition), but I don't think we'd be seeing such an uproar as we are now.

I don't know why the government chose to look the other way when they KNEW the churches were providing the money, but I hope they do their job and revoke their tax exempt status. Otherwise, where will it stop? Today, gays and lesbians. Tomorrow...Jews, Muslims, single parents...?

[ragtopW]

Suzie is correct regarding what she read. One of the news stations did a sort of "Jaywalking" type interview where they asked people on the street what the propositions were and what a yes or no vote meant. I think one person got one right. But I agree with Clayton...the wording shouldn't make a difference. As a citizen and a voter, it is your responsibility to read and research and understand what your vote means, and make an informed decision on your own, not based on what a church or other organization tells you to do or what you assume your vote means. Heck, I know my newspaper spells out what a yes and no vote means for each proposition, so all you have to do is read that if you're not willing to look it up yourself.

I didn't single out the Catholic and Mormon churches, they did that themselves when they chose to financially back Prop 8, and they should pay the price. Prop 8 opponents could not compete with the money behind the supporters; you could liken it to how Obama outspent McCain. Had Prop 8 passed without the financial backing of the two churches I am sure there would still be protests and people crying foul (as they are on every other proposition), but I don't think we'd be seeing such an uproar as we are now.

I don't know why the government chose to look the other way when they KNEW the churches were providing the money, but I hope they do their job and revoke their tax exempt status. Otherwise, where will it stop? Today, gays and lesbians. Tomorrow...Jews, Muslims, single parents...?

Single mothers should not Marry....

if they do their husbands make them quit dancing..

[ragtopW]

Suzie is correct regarding what she read. One of the news stations did a sort of "Jaywalking" type interview where they asked people on the street what the propositions were and what a yes or no vote meant. I think one person got one right. But I agree with Clayton...the wording shouldn't make a difference. As a citizen and a voter, it is your responsibility to read and research and understand what your vote means, and make an informed decision on your own, not based on what a church or other organization tells you to do or what you assume your vote means. Heck, I know my newspaper spells out what a yes and no vote means for each proposition, so all you have to do is read that if you're not willing to look it up yourself.

I didn't single out the Catholic and Mormon churches, they did that themselves when they chose to financially back Prop 8, and they should pay the price. Prop 8 opponents could not compete with the money behind the supporters; you could liken it to how Obama outspent McCain. Had Prop 8 passed without the financial backing of the two churches I am sure there would still be protests and people crying foul (as they are on every other proposition), but I don't think we'd be seeing such an uproar as we are now.

I don't know why the government chose to look the other way when they KNEW the churches were providing the money, but I hope they do their job and revoke their tax exempt status. Otherwise, where will it stop? Today, gays and lesbians. Tomorrow...Jews, Muslims, single parents...?

Right. and I think they should be called out.. but
I was offended by the statements that
were included about the two churches,
in a prior post..

[flyboy55]

. . .
Wow.. I do not always agree with you but I always thought you did your homework… let’s go to school..
A. so many organizations have people who abuse
Children.. Schools, Cops.. Airlines, Governments, ETC …
How in the world can you even use that as a springboard
To spew hate?? Yes.. Some priests have molested
But so have a lot of others..
Has “the Church” covered it up? Yep..
But do you know how much of the reason for the
cover-ups was to “help the sinner?” and how much of
It was to “save the church”?? neither do I…
How much of it was because that “sinner” repented??
Neither do I.. So .. Lets not jump to conclusions..

Are you trying to say that the Catholic church might have had good reasons to cover up decades of widespread sexual abuse? Call me cynical, but I think the cover up had everything to do with protecting the church.

B.. the Mormon church.. Not affiliated, not in league with, Does not even recognize the FLDS as a sect, cult or religion.. The fact that the Mormons gave up polygamy
Over ONE hundred years ago… never entered into your
Mind did it?? . . .

To my mind, the relationship of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to the main stream Mormon church is the same as the relationship of various Protestant denominations to the Catholic church.

But you are right - the main stream Mormon church disavowed polygamy long ago. I'm sorry if my previous post upset you. Are you a Mormon?

[ragtopW]

. . .
Wow.. I do not always agree with you but I always thought you did your homework… let’s go to school..
A. so many organizations have people who abuse
Children.. Schools, Cops.. Airlines, Governments, ETC …
How in the world can you even use that as a springboard
To spew hate?? Yes.. Some priests have molested
But so have a lot of others..
Has “the Church” covered it up? Yep..
But do you know how much of the reason for the
cover-ups was to “help the sinner?” and how much of
It was to “save the church”?? neither do I…
How much of it was because that “sinner” repented??
Neither do I.. So .. Lets not jump to conclusions..

Are you trying to say that the Catholic church might have had good reasons to cover up decades of widespread sexual abuse? Call me cynical, but I think the cover up had everything to do with protecting the church.

B.. the Mormon church.. Not affiliated, not in league with, Does not even recognize the FLDS as a sect, cult or religion.. The fact that the Mormons gave up polygamy
Over ONE hundred years ago… never entered into your
Mind did it?? . . .

To my mind, the relationship of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to the main stream Mormon church is the same as the relationship of various Protestant denominations to the Catholic church.

But you are right - the main stream Mormon church disavowed polygamy long ago. I'm sorry if my previous post upset you. Are you a Mormon?

A.. no not good reasons.. to me.. or I hope to you..
but. maybe not the reasons that should draw the Ire of hate.
IMHO there is no reason. but I feel. (well I know)
that some priests have not suffered the wrath of the law
because their Bishops (or higher ups than that) are true believers..
in that if the man repents.. that is good enough, if the man
claims to change there is no need to further the punishment process..
again not right.. but it's hard to be judgemental if
the priest is not turned in to the cops.. IF the reason was purely
spiritual.



B. not anymore.. My parents are. I no longer walk that path..
I just get tired of the untruths/ Mistruths/ Half truths.. I hear..
and although there are many Mormons here, I still hear some
pretty wild stuff.

[chippewa]

Countdown showed "Prop 8 - The Musical" tonight....the entire 3 minute video.

starring Jack Black as JESUS CHRIST!

looooong url

[ejr]

Countdown showed "Prop 8 - The Musical" tonight....the entire 3 minute video.

starring Jack Black as JESUS CHRIST!

looooong url

I caught it tonight too and emailed the link to a couple of friends-thought it was pretty funny!

[Salukulady]

A friend just sent it to me also....so brilliant and funny!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf50 ... hida-jones