Proposition 8 in California

[SchoolGirlHeart]

I think trying to say that marriage is solely a religious institution is like trying to lock the barn door long after the horse has left. For a very long time now "marriage" has also had a legal connotation, totally separate from religion.

As far as gays and lesbians "forcing" their views on everyone else, does it follow that whites and blacks who wanted to marry each other in the 60's when it was still illegal in many states "forced" their views of mixed-race marriages on others? That seems silly to most people now but it was literally a violent argument back then. Will U.S. citizens look back 40 years from now and wonder why people are so up in arms about gay marriage?

Things I think about......

[UAHparrothead]

It comes down to the use of a word with thousands of years of tradition behind it. Words mean things, and changing definitions to meet the demands of a contemporary shift in attitudes can make the word meaningless. The goal of the activist gay movement is to FORCE acceptance upon the general population. I support the right of same sex couples to enter into legal contracts with all the trappings related to marriage, but they just need to call it something else. I worked on the YES side of the NH civil unions legislation passed in 2007, with the idea that it was an acceptable alternative. If you can enter into a legal contract, which is what a marriage is, that affords you all the same protections and resposibilities, how can you argue that your rights have been violated?

I think one reason is that it still makes gays and lesbians second class citizens. I have struggled with the religious aspects of this issue, I continue to do so. But there is a separation of church and state for a reason, one person's religious beliefs cannot deny the rights of others. You're argument is the same as "Well let the blacks ride in the back, they're on the same bus, so why complain?" What is acceptance but the right to do as everyone else does? You don't have to like it. I don't like a lot of things that people do as they have the right to do, but I accept it as the rights set forth for all Americans.

[TropicalTroubador]

It comes down to the use of a word with thousands of years of tradition behind it. Words mean things, and changing definitions to meet the demands of a contemporary shift in attitudes can make the word meaningless. The goal of the activist gay movement is to FORCE acceptance upon the general population. I support the right of same sex couples to enter into legal contracts with all the trappings related to marriage, but they just need to call it something else. I worked on the YES side of the NH civil unions legislation passed in 2007, with the idea that it was an acceptable alternative. If you can enter into a legal contract, which is what a marriage is, that affords you all the same protections and resposibilities, how can you argue that your rights have been violated?

Five minutes on Wikipedia shows just how many times the definition of "marriage" has changed in those thousands of years. Why is your current definition any more "right" than anything else that's happened in all that time?

[flipflopgirl]

Just an observation: The largest "new" voting block in California is the Hispanic community. While they vote overwhelmingly Democratic, they are also Catholic and very traditional. I have had many conversations with my Hispanic friends and neighbors and have been told that they voted heavily in favor of Prop 8.

That's exactly right, Corey. I saw a voting map for prop 8 yesterday or the day before in the Times...the cities in SoCal that are predominantly hispanic voted for 8, those that are predominantly non-hispanic voted against it. Between the lies and the pressure from the Mormon and Catholic churches, defeating prop 8 never had a chance.

Interestingly, my gay friends have been together longer than most of my married friends. I need a scorecard to keep track of the divorces.

same here Kat!

[SuperTrooper]

One of the purposes of the law is to provide definitions to our interactions in society. It defines things like what makes up a corporation, what constitutes a crime, and things like taxable income. The people of the state of California have chosen to define marriage in a specific sense. Anything not meeting the definition, therefore, cannot be called a marriage. Since California has domestic partnerships with all the legal bearing and responsibility of a marriage, that avenue is open to those that don't fit the definition for marriage.

My wife and I spent 2 years working to get the NH civil unions bill passed. We worked fundraisers and stood in the rain on the steps of the statehouse to try and make our friends' lives easier. We've made dozens of great friends as part of our involvement, many of whom happen to be GLT. Indeed, the majority of our close friends are GLT. Since civil unions became law on Jan. 1 we've been to at least 10 ceremonies celebrating our friends' unions. We've also been to 2 gay marriages of friends in Massachusetts. In knowing all the people involved in these ceremonies I am unable to come up with any real difference in the way they go about their lives, or in how they are seen in the community. The married Mass couples are in no way superior to the NH union couples. They have the same access to legal redress in the courts of their home states as straight married couples. The same judges will decide on divorces and custody. The state supports them equally even though a different word is used to describe their legal contract.

This isn't about the law. It's about feelings.

Those 2 years exposed me to a wide range of the GLT community. The vast majority are regular folks just trying to be happy and make their life work. Those are the people I worked so hard for. Unfortunately, a lot of the "squeaky wheels" are the GLT radicals who become the media face of the GLT community. I haven't met one that doesn't have a huge chip on their shoulder about the straight community, and are determined to force their lifestyle to the forefront and demand acceptance. They don't want tolerance, they DEMAND acceptance, which cannot be forced upon people. They publicize their extreme lifestyles, and if you don't applaud and lavish praise on them for their brazenness, you are denounced as a bigot or a homophobe. These people are easy targets for anti-gay rights groups because they are easily painted as unreasonable wackos looking to recruit your children.

Fortunately, the NH effort was able to marginalize the radicals and show the people in the legislature the more common face of the people seeking redress of legal issues common to the state of marriage not yet afforded them. In the halls of the statehouse we were able to paint civil unions as a practical legal matter standardizing GLT couples' relationship to the state and society. Forcing the gay marriage issue here would have empowered our opponents and probably given them the impetus to amend the state constitution with the man/woman definition of marriage, which would have put civil unions and the legal protections afforded there out of reach.

You only have to look at the 30+ states who either have laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage in the traditional sense to see that gay marriage is a big loser when presented to the general population. Yet, when presented with civil unions containing identical legal rights and responsibilities, they are more amenable to a co-existing legal status. Forcing the gay marriage issue gets you nowhere. Without the San Francisco grandstanding by Gavin Newsom and other radicals Prop 8 was a big loser, but they challenged their opponents to organize and they did. Talk about unintended consequences.

[CrznDnUS1]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

The reason the "losing side" is crying foul is because of the methods used by the pro side. They were funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches to spread lies and manipulate their followers into voting the way the church decreed. Churches are not allowed to fund propositions...how come there aren't any consequences for them doing so?

It truly boggles my mind that two religious organizations that have a number of skeletons in their own closets have the nerve to sit in judgement of someone else.

[flyboy55]

. . . The reason the "losing side" is crying foul is because of the methods used by the pro side. They were funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches to spread lies and manipulate their followers into voting the way the church decreed. Churches are not allowed to fund propositions...how come there aren't any consequences for them doing so?

It truly boggles my mind that two religious organizations that have a number of skeletons in their own closets have the nerve to sit in judgement of someone else.

The irony truly IS mind boggling.

Let's see. The Catholic church has a huge problem with priests molesting children (usually boys) and then makes it worse by covering it up.

The fundamentalist wing of the Mormon Church has been pimping out female children to adult men for decades under the guise of polygamy.

And these people are upset that some gay folks want to call their union a marriage?

[ragtopW]

. . . The reason the "losing side" is crying foul is because of the methods used by the pro side. They were funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches to spread lies and manipulate their followers into voting the way the church decreed. Churches are not allowed to fund propositions...how come there aren't any consequences for them doing so?

It truly boggles my mind that two religious organizations that have a number of skeletons in their own closets have the nerve to sit in judgement of someone else.

The irony truly IS mind boggling.

Let's see. The Catholic church has a huge problem with priests molesting children (usually boys) and then makes it worse by covering it up.

The fundamentalist wing of the Mormon Church has been pimping out female children to adult men for decades under the guise of polygamy.

And these people are upset that some gay folks want to call their union a marriage?

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..
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??
Most of the Mormons I know.. ( I do live in Boise)
Would hold the rope to hang the person that
Wanted to “marry “ a teenage girl to a thirty something
(or older) man let alone force her into marriage.
The rest would forgive him.. (but all would do whatever it took to stop the “Marriage”)

Now I am possibly the last person I know of that
Would stand up for any religion let alone
One I know so well.. And have no use for..
But that is for another day..
Yes.. Religion needs to stop trying to make sure that
Their views are made into law..
“let’s see.. For the people by the people comes to mind”
But these two churches are hardly the only
Institutions that are trying to make their people
A little more “Equal” than the rest of America. so let’s leave the
Half truths and guesses out.. OK..

[jonesbeach10]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

I think this was my original question: if something is voted into the Constitution by the people (legally of course, which I assume Prop 8 was), how can a state court rule the amendment unconstitutional (per the state constitution). I could see if this was taken to a federal court and the question came down to whether it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I just don't see how a court bound to follow a constitution can declare part of that constitution to be unconstitutional?

[mjeischen]

Just for levity's sake . . .

Did Katy Perry come out on Prop 8 . . .

[Lightning Bolt]

Just for levity's sake . . .

Did Katy Perry come out on Prop 8 . . .

She kissed a girl... she liked it.

She read Prop. 8 .... she didn't like it.

[CrznDnUS1]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

The reason the "losing side" is crying foul is because of the methods used by the pro side. They were funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches to spread lies and manipulate their followers into voting the way the church decreed. Churches are not allowed to fund propositions...how come there aren't any consequences for them doing so?

It truly boggles my mind that two religious organizations that have a number of skeletons in their own closets have the nerve to sit in judgement of someone else.

So where wad the outcry before the vote when all of these injustices were obviously going on? They can curl up in a ball and then when the vote is not your way cry injustice.

[Moonie]

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..
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??
Most of the Mormons I know.. ( I do live in Boise)
Would hold the rope to hang the person that
Wanted to “marry “ a teenage girl to a thirty something
(or older) man let alone force her into marriage.
The rest would forgive him.. (but all would do whatever it took to stop the “Marriage”)

Now I am possibly the last person I know of that
Would stand up for any religion let alone
One I know so well.. And have no use for..
But that is for another day..
Yes.. Religion needs to stop trying to make sure that
Their views are made into law..
“let’s see.. For the people by the people comes to mind”
But these two churches are hardly the only
Institutions that are trying to make their people
A little more “Equal” than the rest of America. so let’s leave the
Half truths and guesses out.. OK..

WoW! ..Wayne...that is very, very well thought out/condensed. Makes a lot of sense.
More than I've seen anywhere, regarding the subject ....and religion. Kudos !

[pbans]

. . . The reason the "losing side" is crying foul is because of the methods used by the pro side. They were funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches to spread lies and manipulate their followers into voting the way the church decreed. Churches are not allowed to fund propositions...how come there aren't any consequences for them doing so?

It truly boggles my mind that two religious organizations that have a number of skeletons in their own closets have the nerve to sit in judgement of someone else.

The irony truly IS mind boggling.

Let's see. The Catholic church has a huge problem with priests molesting children (usually boys) and then makes it worse by covering it up.

The fundamentalist wing of the Mormon Church has been pimping out female children to adult men for decades under the guise of polygamy.

And these people are upset that some gay folks want to call their union a marriage?

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..
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??
Most of the Mormons I know.. ( I do live in Boise)
Would hold the rope to hang the person that
Wanted to “marry “ a teenage girl to a thirty something
(or older) man let alone force her into marriage.
The rest would forgive him.. (but all would do whatever it took to stop the “Marriage”)

Now I am possibly the last person I know of that
Would stand up for any religion let alone
One I know so well.. And have no use for..
But that is for another day..
Yes.. Religion needs to stop trying to make sure that
Their views are made into law..
“let’s see.. For the people by the people comes to mind”
But these two churches are hardly the only
Institutions that are trying to make their people
A little more “Equal” than the rest of America. so let’s leave the
Half truths and guesses out.. OK..

There's never a good reason to cover up child abuse.....ever.
There are laws REQUIRING child abuse to be report, even by clergy...in many states.
If the sinner repented, he can be forgiven by the church, that is their perogative......but is required by law to face the secular world.

I agree that child abuse takes place in many places, but when it takes place in an area of "special trust"....it puts it in to a different light......


......and now back to your regularly scheduled debate......

[SuperTrooper]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

I think this was my original question: if something is voted into the Constitution by the people (legally of course, which I assume Prop 8 was), how can a state court rule the amendment unconstitutional (per the state constitution). I could see if this was taken to a federal court and the question came down to whether it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I just don't see how a court bound to follow a constitution can declare part of that constitution to be unconstitutional?

The basis of the lawsuit will be that Prop 8 is not an "amendment", but a "revision" of the constitution. Revisions require a 2/3 passage by the California legislature, an entirely unlikely event. On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved. The only guarantee we have is that the losing side at every stage will pursue their case to higher levels.

[jonesbeach10]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

I think this was my original question: if something is voted into the Constitution by the people (legally of course, which I assume Prop 8 was), how can a state court rule the amendment unconstitutional (per the state constitution). I could see if this was taken to a federal court and the question came down to whether it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I just don't see how a court bound to follow a constitution can declare part of that constitution to be unconstitutional?

The basis of the lawsuit will be that Prop 8 is not an "amendment", but a "revision" of the constitution. Revisions require a 2/3 passage by the California legislature, an entirely unlikely event. On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved. The only guarantee we have is that the losing side at every stage will pursue their case to higher levels.

Ok that answers my question. Thanks!

[TropicalTroubador]

I am a supporter of initiative and referendum which I wish New Jersey had. I am just confused how California has it and the majority voted a specific way and now the losing side is crying foul and wants the Government to step in and change it. Right or wrong the people spoke, and this commentator needs to say the people spoke and not cry about it. You can't put something up for vote and when it doesn't go your way ask the Supreme Court to change it! Also the losing side needs to stop any illegal activity who ever it is, gay rights or anti-abortion activists. No one has the right to hurt another no matter what over their views. Just my two cents.

So if an initiative was put on the ballot to take away the right of, say, Jews to marry, and it passed, would you support that? If not, why would that be different to you than taking away the rights of gays?

To myself and many other people, this is what it's about.

[ragtopW]

. . . The reason the "losing side" is crying foul is because of the methods used by the pro side. They were funded by the Mormon and Catholic churches to spread lies and manipulate their followers into voting the way the church decreed. Churches are not allowed to fund propositions...how come there aren't any consequences for them doing so?

It truly boggles my mind that two religious organizations that have a number of skeletons in their own closets have the nerve to sit in judgement of someone else.

The irony truly IS mind boggling.

Let's see. The Catholic church has a huge problem with priests molesting children (usually boys) and then makes it worse by covering it up.

The fundamentalist wing of the Mormon Church has been pimping out female children to adult men for decades under the guise of polygamy.

And these people are upset that some gay folks want to call their union a marriage?

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..
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??
Most of the Mormons I know.. ( I do live in Boise)
Would hold the rope to hang the person that
Wanted to “marry “ a teenage girl to a thirty something
(or older) man let alone force her into marriage.
The rest would forgive him.. (but all would do whatever it took to stop the “Marriage”)

Now I am possibly the last person I know of that
Would stand up for any religion let alone
One I know so well.. And have no use for..
But that is for another day..
Yes.. Religion needs to stop trying to make sure that
Their views are made into law..
“let’s see.. For the people by the people comes to mind”
But these two churches are hardly the only
Institutions that are trying to make their people
A little more “Equal” than the rest of America. so let’s leave the
Half truths and guesses out.. OK..

There's never a good reason to cover up child abuse.....ever.
There are laws REQUIRING child abuse to be report, even by clergy...in many states.
If the sinner repented, he can be forgiven by the church, that is their perogative......but is required by law to face the secular world.

I agree that child abuse takes place in many places, but when it takes place in an area of "special trust"....it puts it in to a different light......


......and now back to your regularly scheduled debate......

you are right.. no child abuse should be covered up..
but to single the Catholic church out..
was my issue..


you know I would have no problem pulling the trigger on a
short eyes.. none.. I would sleep well ..

[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.