The people of California made their choice on Proposition 8, and the California Supreme Court has chosen to uphold that choice. Democracy has spoken.
Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban included on the November election ballot, was voted in by a 52% majority despite efforts from gay lobbyists. Since the ban, the effort has turned from lobbying to outright violence, with Mormon temples and Catholic churches being attacked and vandalized. Mormons are also being ridiculed in televised ads from gay lobby groups.
While it is true that the LDS contributed a good deal of money to support Prop 8, they alone did not have the voting strength to make it pass. Black and Hispanic voters, lured by the hope of an Obama presidency, hit the polls in record numbers. Many were voting for the first time in their lives, so eager were they to see an African-American president in their lifetimes. And while blacks and Hispanics may be liberal in some areas, when it comes to homosexuality they are decidedly conservative in their views. Hispanics, for example, are overwhelmingly Catholic, and the Catholic Church has very definite views on homosexuality and the place of marriage in society.
However, the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered) community knew that the optics of attacking blacks and their churches would prove very bad, indeed. Much safer to attack the predominantly white, middle-class, smiling, conservative Mormons.
It has only been a few weeks since Carrie Prejean, Miss California and runner-up in the Miss USA pageant, was vilified by outspoken gay columnist Perez Hilton when asked for her opinion on gay marriage. She was insulted, called "bitch" and "c*nt" by Hilton, and had obscenities drawn on her image on his popular website.
And today, in light of the California Supreme Court 6-1 decision to uphold the ban, protesters in San Francisco have blocked traffic on Highway 101 through the middle of San Francisco. They are not budging, despite the presence of police in riot gear.
The State Supreme Court's 136-page ruling has allowed for some 18,000 marriages that took place before the ban came into effect to remain legally binding.
Comments
Somebody give me a BIG HELL YEAH!!
Marriage is a religious institution at it's roots. The state is prohibited from making laws respecting any particular religion or preventing the free exercise of any particular religion. So what justification does it have for regulating or defining marriage? None, it's unconstitutional.
Lets deregulate marriage; let people who wish to get married do so within their church. If a particular church wants to marry gay couples that's their business.
Democracy has spoken, however this country is
While discouraging, it is only a small step back in a process that will eventually give equal rights to all Americans...
Clinton, if this "right" is so real and vital, why was it only magically discovered about five years ago?
And why have only 1% of gay Canadians taken advantage of this allegedly essential "right"?
Because it was never a "right" at all, just the latest irrational demand by petulant cry babies who insist on undermining tradition and family at every opportunity, while demanding acceptance of their unhealthy lifestyle.
This policy was spurred by the Bush Administration as a wedge issue, don't act so ridiculous. "Tradition"? "Families"? Give me a break, the only family you care about is your own, don't act so pompous. As for the "unhealthy" statement, this isn't the 50's anymore. Describing homosexuality as a disease is about as "passe" as beehive hairdos, "commie huntin'", and drivin' the jalopy down to the malt shop for the sock-hop.
I can't believe you put your full name on that post Kathy, now the "G
Clinton is right! This is a total bummer.
Peace
Wendy,
Just a point of clarification. In your last sentence,
"The State Supreme Court's 136-page ruling has allowed for some 18,000 marriages that took place before the ban came into effect to remain legally binding."
Does that mean that only some of the 18,000 marriages...were allowed to remain legal, or does that meant that there were approximately 18,000 that were allowed to remain legal?
As for Matt, Clinton, and their ilk...Marriage is a rite reserved for one man and one woman and has been for millenia. Go ahead and legalize civil unions for man/man, woman/woman (call these unions whatever one likes). Do not trivialize and suborn marriage and all that it represents. The legality for insurance/inheritance is what is being sought. While you're at it, let's legalize civil unions for two men and a woman or three men or three women, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. I was taken aba
to continue...
I was taken aback by the CA Supreme Court decision. CA is still considered a democracy (though this contention is debatable) and for once, the majority has prevailed.
The "has been for millenia" argument is bunk...we had slavery "for millenia" by that line of "thinking"...
Anyway, I do agree, let's give everyone equal protection and recognition under the law. The state will call these "civil unions", and your church will or will not call them marriages. The point being, "marriage" will become the same thing as other religious institutions, "inconsequential".
"Trivialize marriage"? Hehe, it's doing a fine job by itself...
Lovin' every minute of it!! The will of the people rings loud&clear, so let's move on to something that actually matters to more than 5% of the population.
I agree, "The Dude", let's stop imposing our will onto 5% of the population as a means of subjugating and marginalizing them. As believers in FREEDOM, there is no cause greater than allowing love to blossom between two people.
The wisest thing you ever said, "the dude", "let's move onto what actually matters"...providing equality to all Americans.
People voting on civil rights is not democracy. It's tyranny of the majority.
Right on "Dude"!!
Patrick Smith, I'm not for gay marriage, I believe it is wrong, however, the point of FREEDOM is being free to make the wrong choices. I'm arguing for deregulation of marriage not legalization of fubar marriages.
Since marriage is religious let religion govern marriage.
I'm tired of hearing people cry about there civil rights, when I'm asked to leave because the color of my skin, that's a civil rights violation (and it has been done). When people want to have sex w/ the same sex and get all the rights it incurs, and when it they don't get what they want they cry civil rights discrimination. It goes beyond a religious institution. Also what makes you think it stops at marriage, there is always one more step to push the envelope, then another and another. How far
Why stop at gay marriage. What about necrophiliacs, pedophiles et al. The majority must stop oppressing these poor souls as well.
Interesting article and discussion here, Wendy! I'd be interested in your take on some of my recent reporting from the other side on the topic and would encourage any of your readers looking for a different perspective to check out my related Examiner archives at tinyurl.com/marryequal Thanks! Love, Sarah
I have YET to hear from the homosexuals if they support marriage between 3 or 4 or even 5 people. I have asked, none answered except with hetero phobic comments.
Any one want to answer?
easy to speak as the unaffected by the consequences. This result is only more horifying by pointing out that historically, blatantly discriminated against groups of Americans have lost appreciation of the rights granted them through pain, suffering, abuse, etc. Our forefathers so vociferously fought against religious intolerance, yet here we are again. I am a gay man, was married, have kids - spent my life making my and my ex's life a far less than desirable existence, and everyone suffered.
Brian hit the nail on the head.
Rick A, your comment makes no sense. The outlaw of pedophellia and necrophillia applies to all. This banning of marriage applies to only gays. So I'm free to marry while others are not. Perfect example state over individual rights.
Cut off my point. He'll yes I want to marry my man, my kids get it, my ex understands. It is important to me and I am a huge tax paying America. The minorities whose prior generations overcame injustice should remind themselves of how they were discounted at one point in history before depriving other minorities of the same equal rights. Embarrassing!
I must sadly say that I agree with Clinton on this issue. As a Libertarian I err on the side of freedom and if gay people want to get married let them. Its not like all of us straight people have this figured out with a 50% divorce rate. This is a petty issue that gets us all side tracked when there are more serious issues that need to be addressed.
I don't get it. If a gay person can now do everything with his/her partner that a strait person does (in essence, live as if s/he and s/he were married, without discrimination or even the traditional social consequences), and if the "civic union" designation gives him/her all the legal recognition given to a heterosexual married couple (whatever that entails...ability to visit a terminally ill loved one, to invoke power of attorney, etc.), what's left to gain by legalizing so-called “gay marria
I wish to apologize to all of you whose comments are being cut short. It's a technical difficulty. Bear with us, and please keep commenting. I love the discussion!
Power comes from the people.
If the gays want gay marriage, they must win a proposition.
Any faction that seeks to subvert the sovereign right of the people is counter-revolutionary.
Go campaign. And to win the campaign is to win over the social conservative black vote. Attacking the Mormons and the Catholics? Not the real target. Waste your resources and political capital on that front, if you wish.
Seek to subvert the people, through activist judges, duplicitous legislation
These "votes" that take away gays rights to marry have nothing to do with what is actually correct. If you would have had a vote in the 50's, stopping white women/black men from marrying, it would have passed soundly. That doesn't make it right. Take your 51% of homophobic voters, and go to a corner somewhere and think about what you've done. Nothing to be proud of for sure...
Clinton quit your whining, you and your ilk LOST to the teabaggers, get over it.
"Lost to the tea baggers" - "the dude"
You took rights away from honest Americans, and you are claiming that you "won"? What did you win? The marginalization of a minority group? You must be proud. Pretty sad...True American values were the only things that were lost. Congratulations...
Hey Clinton there is a new dance craze sweeping the nation it's called teabaggin', so either climb on board, or get out of the way, fo' you get ran over son.
Keep at it teabaggers! Whatever it is that you're "doing"...
I do have a question...When you guys get done with a long night of teabaggin', does your jaw hurt? Bruised forehead? A severe case of "bag-mouth"?
Clinton are you making homophobic jokes about teabaggin'????? Sounds kind of hypocritical to be pro-gay marriage, and then start making disparaging remarks concerning teabaggin'. Are you a closet homophobe?
Keep it clean, kids. This isn't Anderson Cooper, and none of us has a trust fund to fall back on if we say something stupid!
Not sure what was homophobic about my last post Jethro, I didn't say anything disparaging about homosexuals...
Anyway, just wondering exactly what you teabaggers do. You guys seems so excited to be teabaggin' just wondering what's got you guys all worked up!
"Cradling the bag of justice"?
"Sucking out the wrinkles of socialism"?
"Gobbling the sword of Freedom"?
What exactly are you teabaggers doin?!
I'm not gay but I'm also not religious. Can I still get married?
Wow Nathan. That puts you at a serious disadvantage. It means you have no discernible grievance (I'll even bet you're white) and therefore no highly paid lobbyists in Washington.
Let me get this straight Wendy, are you saying that there are no straight, white lobbyists in Washington? Are you really saying that?
Any gay who claims discrimination and will not answer this question is either a coward or more than ready to discriminate against others and will not answer honestly.
I have YET to hear from the homosexuals if they support marriage between 3 or 4 or even 5 people. I have asked, none answered except with hetero phobic comments.
Any one want to answer?
"Happy Indep", if all the people in the relationship were of legal age, of sound mind, and body, why not allow polygamy? (outside of the fact that it often ends up in child abuse.) Why does having more than one spouse irk you so? While I understand in these situations the husbands can become abusive, I don't have to look far and wide in "traditional marriages" to find abusive relationships.
What do you stand for "Happy Indep", "traditional marriage"? What is that? Who came up with that? Who's "tradition"? When you tie yourself to this vague idea of "tradition", you willfully ignore all new insights and essentially shut your mind to growth and understanding. "Appeal to tradition" is a weak argument to make. When America voted for change, (which won out at a much higher percentage than voted for Prop 8), the "tradition" argument that Bush and cronies ran into the ground became obsolete.
It's time for a new America, says America.
And no, animals and humans should no
Clinton says "It's time for a new America, says America."
So why did a small majority vote AGAINST gay marriage? Why do the vast majority of states not allow it?
I am for the one man one woman deal myself. But as we know the gay argument FOR gay marriage is one of discrimination and civile rights. If they are correct, how can you discriminate and deny against those who DO want 2 wives or husbands?
It throws the "discrimination" argument on its ear to then discriminate against those who want 2 wives does it not?
I have been married and do not understand why anyone would want more than 1 spouse.
Dammit, "Happy Indep", I already asked you, (given that they are all adults, and competent), why not allow polygamy? What is your argument against it? And no, just saying "I am for the one man one woman deal myself" isn't an argument. It's an opinion. And so far it's an opinion you are unable to justify...
Clinton, if gays can marry then all can form the types of unions they deem fit.
ALL. Marriage has been and continues to be the vehicle where children are born and raised with the very different roles the man and woman take in raising a child.
Gays by definition, without medical science, would not allow the continuing of the species due to their genetic defect. Not what either theory of life would allow. It is unnatural.
Giving gays the opportunity to own homes together and the legal aspects of inheritance can all be done legislatively and should be done.
BUT Clinton, I still have not heard one homosexual SUPPORT multiple married partners.
They DO NOT WANT IT and are willing to discriminate themselves. Pretty clear about that.
Hey Clinton. Get with the program. President Obama has stated that Marriage is between a man and woman. Stop blaming Bush.Go rag on your "change meister". The people of CA have spoken. In California more so than in ANY other state, Gay couples are provided with MORE rights than hetero couples who live together but do not marry. Every gay couple is entitled to and receives all rights afforded a married hetero couple. However, when I, as a hetero woman, lived with her hetero man, for many years I was NOT entitled to ANY of the same considerations & protections gay couples were entitled to.
Well, of course no one actually answered my questions, but jabbered on about "Marriage has been and continues to be the vehicle where children are born and raised"...that is B.S. "happy indep". When I ask for a coherent argument, I'm answered with vague notions of "tradition". The issue we are having is that you guys can't justify your opinion, you can't state solid premises, and you continually refer to a, (very close),vote as evidence you are right. Sorry, this doesn't cut it. I need a rational, cogent argument out of somebody here...
"Happy indep", I've heard nothing but drivel out of you, please refrain from another attempt of explaining your opinion, by simply stating your opinion, it doesn't work...I mean it doesn't work with intellectually honest people.
Clinton are you gay by chance? This issue sure seems to mean a lot to you? I just can't see a straight man worrying himself about something like this, I mean it would seem kind of strange.
Nope, not gay, but it does make me sad that bigotry and ignorance wins out over understanding and compassion.
Oh well, it's not a matter of "if" gays can get equal rights, but "when"...
Clinton, it is admirable for a man such as yourself, to stand against bigotry and injustice even when it doesn't directly affect you. So allow me to take a few liberties in assuming you are totally for the 5 white New Haven, Ct. firefighters case of reverse-discrimination, and that you vehemently oppose the selection of Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS.
Yes, "Dirty Harry", I'm going to oppose the first Puerto-Rican Woman supreme court justice as a show of anti-bigotry, this makes perfect sense. Where do you get these great ideas?
As to your firefighters situation, this sounds like a cheap Bill O'reilly story.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!