Volunteer Antonio Prieto installed a 'Yes on 8' proposition yard sign at a home in East Los Angeles, California on Oct. 31. A majority of Californian people voted for the gay marriage ban on election day. (Fred Prouser/Reuters)
California votes down same-sex marriage
Voters in Florida and Arizona also approved similar bans in a setback for the gay rights movement.
By Ben Arnoldy | November 5, 2008 edition
Oakland, Calif.
California voters spoke Tuesday: Same-sex couples will no longer be permitted to legally marry in the Golden State.
With 95 percent of the vote counted Wednesday morning, a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage headed for a narrow victory. It’s a public repudiation of a landmark state court ruling in May that found same-sex couples have a right to marry.
Voters in Florida and Arizona also approved constitutional bans on gay marriage on Tuesday. Just two years earlier, Arizona was the first state to defeat a gay marriage ban at the ballot box.
In the short-term, the ballot results this year represent a setback in the momentum that had been building for same-sex marriage. Opponents can now argue more vigorously that courts are trying to force a social change that’s too radical in the eyes of the public.
“In general, whenever a gay rights issue gets hot and gets a lot of political attention, support for gay rights drops,” says Gregory Lewis, a Georgia State University professor who has studied voter attitudes on gay marriage. “It’s not surprising that once Prop 8 started generating some real buzz, apparently, there was a drop in support for same-sex marriage.”
Buzz is an understatement. Proposition 8 became an all-out blitzkrieg in the culture war. Some $74 million poured into the campaigns, a national record for a social policy referendum.
The fight drew in Catholic bishops and Utah-based Mormons, Hollywood celebrities and high-tech titans like Google founder Sergey Brin. Even San Francisco 49er legend Steve Young fielded questions when his wife put up a “No on 8” yard sign.
An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples have already married in California. Legal scholars suggest these marriages would continue to be recognized despite Tuesday’s vote.
“It’s a matter of some dispute. My own judgment would be that they are perfectly valid,” says Doug Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and opponent of gay marriage.
Mr. Kmiec says it’s too early to tell what finally persuaded voters, but he suspects concerns that same-sex marriage would be “taught as commonplace in school materials” was influential for some.
Campaign advertising first raised the concern, which was then illustrated further when public school first-graders were bused on a field trip to their lesbian teacher’s wedding at San Francisco’s city hall last month.
“If gay marriage is just about what Adam and Steve do in their private life, that’s one thing,” says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, an advocacy group for traditional marriage. “But it’s also about what we are going to have to teach and affirm to our children.”
The “No on Prop. 8” campaign argued vehemently against the notion that the measure would have any impact either way on schools. They pointed to state Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell, who said, “our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.”
Supporters of same-sex marriage may have been hurt by the enthusiastic turnout among African-Americans for president-elect Barack Obama. CNN exit polls found black voters affirming Proposition 8 by a 70-to-30 margin. Whites and Latinos, however, were nearly evenly split.
“African-Americans are less supportive of same-sex marriage and more uncomfortable with the whole idea of gay rights than are whites,” says Patrick Egan, a New York University professor of politics who has studied the issue. However, in previous years, exit polling found blacks no more likely than whites to vote for same-sex marriage bans, suggesting a reticence to take away rights.
In the long-run, young voters may prove to be the most important, says Dr. Egan, a supporter of same-sex marriage. Young voters are currently far more supportive of gay marriage. Those under 30 voted 66 to 34 against Proposition 8 in CNN’s exit polls.
“By all appearances, generational shifts in public opinion are going to mean that in 20 to 30 years from now, majorities will feel completely comfortable with same-sex marriage,” says Egan.
For the time being, the battle over Proposition 8 will leave some scars. That’s certainly true for those in the gay community who will no longer be able to marry, and who speak passionately about their sense of injustice at having their rights put to popular vote.
But one prominent organization that had entered the fray in support of Proposition 8 hasn’t escaped unscathed either. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) agreed to join a coalition that included other religious groups to advocate for the ban. Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City sent a letter in June asking church members in California to work for its passage.
While the Church was just one of many organizations, the enthusiasm of its members elevated the prominence of its support.
“They … became the focus of the opposition’s ire because of their effectiveness and prominence on this issue,” says Kirk Jowers, head of the Hinckley Institute for Politics at the University of Utah.
Reports surfaced in Utah newspapers that LDS members were growing uncomfortable with the church’s role in the California fight. Among them is Nadine Hansen whose website, mormonsfor8.com, tracks Mormon donations in support of Proposition 8. The site has identified more than $14 million given by individual Mormons.
“I think that it’s been divisive and I think it’s brought them a lot of bad publicity. And I don’t think it’s a very good idea to be on the side of taking away somebody’s rights,” says Ms. Hansen.
The church ultimately withdrew its support from having members outside California make campaign phone calls into the state. Subsequently, it also decried a “No on Prop. 8” TV advertisement that depicted two Mormon missionaries ransacking the home of a lesbian couple and ripping up their marriage license.
“The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy,” read a church statement.
The founder of the group behind the ad defended it.
“If the Mormon church had not given instructions literally to fight this and put up money, we wouldn’t have a close election,” says Rick Jacobs, the chair of Courage Campaign, which aired the ad Tuesday in San Francisco and Los Angeles. “I think they need to explain why they want to impose their theology on the voters here.”
Comments
2. sjhonda | 11.05.08
Society has an interest in promoting children having a mother and a father. Marriage is the way a Mother and Father are bound together legally with their child. All insitutions have their standards that allow them to perform their function. One of the main purposes of marriage is to give children an opportunity to have a loving mother and father.
All institutions have their standards. Football teams, educational insitutions, the Military. These standards help the institution meet their objectives. Just saying I want in - is no reason to change the standard. Marriage is about providing children with a mother and a father. When a child loses a mother or father through abandonment, or death, we rightly call it a tragedy. Likewise a child never having a Mother or a Father because society decided that 2 men were as good at raising a child as a mother and a father is a tradgedy. Which in the raising of a child is not needed, the mother or the father?
Those who are single and raise good children do an “exceptional” job. Unfortunately too often it is an exception. But on a whole a child missing a mother or a father is more likely to engage in drug addictions, crime, and be poor.
Thank goodness Californian’s had enough sense to think of the good of their children.
Of course traditional families are imperfect- people are imperfect. But just because the traditional families garden has a few weeds doesn’t mean we abandon it’s definition and say one of the geneders of teh parents is irrelevant.
A child who had a mother and father who loved each and them have a great gift. Making sure that the definition of Marriage is between a man and a woman will make sure that society promotes this standard and encourages more optimum child rearing homes to be available to children.
And yes it is optimal. A man cannot be a mother. A woman cannot be a father. Two men can’t even create the child so vital to society’s future. One man one woman - Marriage — Best for children.
Thank Goodness for the Mormons
3. taylor | 11.05.08
I’m impressed with the Mormon Church. They proved they had a backbone by standing for what they believed in; and charity by not personally attacking the other side when personal attacks were being launched at them.
4. M Pratschner | 11.05.08
What a misleading headline -”California votes down same-sex marriage”. Voters didn’t “vote down” anything, they decided to clarify the definition of marriage as one man, one woman. It’s easier to demonize someone when they are percieved to be against something, and wanting to “take away rights” which is how the No on 8 people tried to paint this initiatives backers. This wasn’t about being “atni-gay” or “anti” anything, for that matter. It was about people taking a stand to protect and not allow the redefinition of one word - marriage. Same sex couples do, and should, have all the same rights that they had under civil unions. not one right that they had under the current civil union laws was taken away. It’s just about protecting a word, and a concept, and not letting judges legislate from the bench and cram their liberal views on everyone.
5. Dave | 11.05.08
I’m curious as to how it was written on the ballots in other states. In Florida it was written something like “…Allow the state to prohibit…”. So those who didn’t read closely, and wanted to allow same-sex marriages could have inadvertently voted “Yes”. Thus allowing the state to ban same-sex marriages. There were other Amendments on the Florida ballot written the same way. The Amendments should be written in “plain English” or have an explanation next to it (IE: “Allow same-sex marriage, YES or NO?”). I voted what I felt, but admit the Amendments could be rather confusing if the voter doesn’t plan ahead or read them carefully.
6. a.s.d.f. | 11.05.08
Not only does the gay community want to redefine marriage, but redefine “homophobia” and “discrimination” to include those:
1) who do not desire a large social experiment
2)who believe that God might possibly be bigger than even homosexuality (as demonstrated by those in http://www.exodus-international.org/)
3) who believe they were born flawed and with struggles like the rest of the world
4)who have any disagreement is principle, or difference in perspective.
7. Robbie | 11.05.08
Sadly I have found it again that those of the religious belief can be moved more by the cry of Lear on the page than the howls of real people in the streets.
They have spent millions on stopping some gay people from marrying, while the homeless still starve, U.S. children lack health care because they are too cheap to give more taxes, and allow their nation to participate in wars that were neither legal or required.
But watch out, here comes two gay men/women…now it’s time to get off the couch, flip out the wallets…and act! It’s fine if people die, just don’t offend me or my version of what is god. 
That is the highest form of real evil. Do you really think an omnipotent being that has existed for eons or forever is offended by this..puleeeze!
8. Sam | 11.05.08
Marriage in an evolved democracy is an individual subject, not a state subject. It is a civil union of two individuals who have committed to being partners for life.
Sure, a lot of folks cannot accept two men or two women being partners, as it forces them to accept something that may not agree with their upbringing. However, if two individuals wish to be partners, love each other and want to be together for life, is it really fair for others to judge and stop them from attaining happiness?
I can understand the objection of Christians to abortion, where the debate is against the termination of life, or the onset of life, but two individuals getting married is not harming anyone.
60 years back, people of color were considered abominations, unworthy to share the same societal privileges as whites. We changed that, we also allowed women to vote. We allowed colored people to integrate into society as equal members. Isn’t it time to allow individuals who prefer same-sex partners to feel included, to lead happy lives, as good citizens of this great nation?
Think about it, before you react, reach out and respond.
Sam
9. Bill Head | 11.05.08
I find it ironic that a church forced by the government to stop polygamy was at the vanguard of the movement to take away the right of gays to marry. I have yet to hear an explanation of how outlawing gay marriage will “protect” traditional marriage or what it’s to be protected from? How would my marriage affect your own?
10. ForSameSexUnions | 11.05.08
I’m all for same sex unions. No one deserves to be without the benefits of a civil union (i.e., spousal health insurance, etc.) As straight as I may be, I’m not disagreeable. I respect their rights! Equality!
Yet, what I oppose is their complete disrespect for my rights- my beliefs. I am against condoning “marriage” via the usual recourse. Marriage is a spiritual union reliant upon a Godly belief system - exclusive of gays nad lesbians. One will never get me to ‘be okay’ by accepting the usage of my spiritual belief system to cover alternative life styles. Let the courts devise alternate programs (keep it civil) and legislation which provides equal benefits/rights for those with alternative life-styles (they deserve it). But keep religion out of the issue and have respect for me!
Let them have their civil unions to preserve equality but let them have their weddings in private. No one really cares what you do in bed as long as it is not thrust in our faces (and is not harmful). Thus, I don’t care that you want equal rights (I agree), as long as I am not required to commit blasphemy by changing my views on my religion for you to have these benefits. If the courts would address this issue, the offensive problems might be eliminated and the progression of equal rights for gays and lesbians more possible.
11. ajarizona | 11.05.08
Sustaining a 5,000 year old tradition is not a “Mormon theology”. It quite simply has been the norm for societies for over 5,000 years to encourage hetero-sexual marriage, it’s good for society. The Antagonists here, are not the Mormons or Catholics or Baptists or African Americans or anyone else supporting the passage of Prop 8. That title belongs to those who are trying to create a “new paradyme” and are trying to change the World’s 5000 year old “status quo”. Perhaps you, Rick Jacobs, should explain to the world why you want to upset the normalcy of traditonal marriage? No society in our worlds history has ever embraced gay marriage. Yet, over the milleniums, even polygamy has indeed, been accepted and practiced. Moses, Abraham etc. We think your group is the one which needs to explain their actions. Every right you now demand is already available to you through civil unions, contract/partnership law etc. What you’re really after is an “Illusion of Normalcy and Acceptance” by society, which you hope to attain by invading organizations and traditions which have long established honor and stature. Whether it be taking a lovely word gay, or a sacred symbol like a rainbow, or asking courts to demand and order your admission into private organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Churches, Fraternal organizations etc. You remind us all of the hoods who used to show up at peacful decent teenage parties with their booze and brawn, univited, while attempting to “crash” the party. One which your agenda is not invited to.
Society has long ago left the Gay community alone, live and let live, however, the Gay agenda won’t leave Society alone. You get as good as you give, and a little pushback through the democratic process is appropriate, fair, and legal.
You lost this round Rick, regroup and we’ll be waitng for you in the next round.
good day
ajarizona
12. Matt from CA | 11.05.08
Thanks for the equal rights setback Yes on 8 people….ignorance and prejudice are thriving in your community.
13. JRobnson | 11.05.08
Who is imposing a theology here? Gay Marriage has never been a right. The people have rejected it twice. All major mainline religions reject homosexual marriage. Four judges decided to make it legal in the State of California. The state doesn’t condone polygamous or incestuous marriages. Marriage is not a right it is an institution with a purpose to support families with children.
14. ForSameSexUnions | 11.05.08
I’m all for same sex unions. No one deserves to be without the benefits of a civil union (i.e., spousal health insurance, etc.) As straight as I may be, I’m not disagreeable. I respect their rights! Equality!
Yet, what I oppose is their complete disrespect for my rights- my beliefs. I am against condoning “marriage” via the usual recourse. Marriage is a spiritual union reliant upon a Godly belief system - exclusive of gays nad lesbians. One will never get me to ‘be okay’ by accepting the usage of my spiritual belief system to cover alternative life styles. Let the courts devise alternate programs (keep it civil) and legislation which provides equal benefits/rights for those with alternative life-styles (they deserve it). But keep religion out of the issue and have respect for me!
Let them have their civil unions to preserve equality but let them have their weddings in private. No one really cares what you do in bed as long as it is not thrust in our faces (and is not harmful). Thus, I don’t care that you want equal rights (I agree), as long as I am not required to commit blasphemy by changing my views on my religion for you to have these benefits. If the courts would address this issue, the offensive problems might be eliminated and the progression of equal rights for gays and lesbians more possible.
15. Alex | 11.05.08
I am only obscurely familiar with mormons, but they do seem to have had a reputation for cupidity and aggression. Zane Gray depicts them as machiavellian land rustlers in some of his work. So much for rumor. The traditional civil and spiritual definitions of marriage are not always confluent. The formal sanctification of relationships, and the legal acknowledgement they are accorded, whether of marriage or something that has yet to be named, is a process that will not yield to casual handling.
16. surprised | 11.05.08
sad to know that it got banned. I thought America was a freedom country..where does the gay people have to go now?
I am not gay but I believe it is a person choice.
18. Elizabeth Lowry | 11.05.08
I think it is a terrible tragedy that, in a country where people who fifty years ago were often denied the right to vote based on the color of their skin are going to watch this January while a man with the same skin color is sworn in to the highest political office in the country, there are still hundreds of thousands of Americans who believe that I do not deserve the same basic rights and priviledges they do.
Proposition 8 is not about protectign marriage or defending families. It’s about *destroying* the marriages and families of thousands of Californians. It’s about bigotry, discrimination, and hatred. And in the case of the LDS community (and the Evangelical community), it’s about religiously based hatred, about basing civil law on theological arguments, something profoundly *un*-American.
What’s next, denying non-Christians the right to hold public office? Denying Spanish-speaking Californians the right to vote? I’m exercising hyperbole here for rhetorical effect, but the point remains that removing constitutionally granted rights (even those granted by state constitutions) via popular vote is a slippery slope, and the entire state of California (as well as Arizona & Florida) should be deeply ashamed that a state population who voted for “change” in the form of Barrack Obama also voted for such a profound step backwards.
Guess they didn’t really want “change,” after all.
19. mike schultz california | 11.05.08
I once again am show religion as a place where Tolerance is NOT allowed. How can I teach my daughter to be tolerant about people and NOT about religion. If I am not part of a church or religion am I a bad person. I teach my 10 year old to think about each person as a person not a person of color, religion, or race. I teach her to take each person one at a time and NEVER say all of them are bad. I teach what GOD taught me to be understanding, loving and help my fellow man. I am NOT gay but I did vote NO on 8. I believe in tolerating religion in my country but for how much longer when they teach and campaign against other people who are not part of there church. Tolerance is something GOD should of taught you a long time ago. How many little boys were raped by Priests? How much longer is religion going to teach hate against the gay and everyone who is NOT one of them. God love America and help us teach religion how to be tolerant we are of you, why are you not?
21. Todd | 11.05.08
Why is it always Christian groups, or wannabe Christians like the Mormons that always want to take away liberties and the rights of others. What is it about Christians that make them hate so much?
22. Dan | 11.05.08
Could someone please explain to me the reasoning behind using a simple majority in a constitutional referendum? If a measure like this passes by 54%, then that means 46% still opposed it. That’s a lot of people. Wouldn’t it make more sense to require a two-thirds super-majority? Or is my reasoning off, and if so, how?
23. Willard S. Norton | 11.05.08
I have firends who are sexually disfuncional and they treat it as God given relative to their lives, and they draw no attention to their situation. For instance, if a person has an affinity for molesting small children, and they desire the good will of fellow human beings, they whold keep it under control and seek counceling. This is what I recommend for homosexuals. In reality, their predilictons, generally through no fault of their own, makes them a potential problem ready to happen at any time, and for their own good they should realize this and be in constant counceling instead of trying convert the public into believing that their behavior with one another and anyone else that may come along is a normal life style, which of course through the thousand of years of mankind it has not been. We all should show sypathey for a homosexuals problem because there but for the grace of God goes anyone of us. I wlll continue to show compassion to these folks if they are trying to help themselves. Especially so if they refrane from being profigate in their behavior because they generally contract HIV, the cost of which is a burden to society and destroys their health. W.S. Norton
24. Brent Johnson | 11.05.08
…and how are gays gonna vote on man and young boy marriages? They are forced to be for marriages with anything and anything otherwise they are depriving others of their rights –right gay folks? So a vote for gay marriage today gives legal grounds for any kind of marriage tomorrow. In 50 years, perverts will be marrying pigs and kids if gays have their way today. Gays will say this is not what they believe but they are smart enough to do one step at a time –kinda lubricate us before the man/boy thing in a few years. It might **** them off and they might “pretend” outrage but without a moral compass it is a lie for the rest of us to swallow, or gobble, or whatever they do. If everyone has lost their minds on this subject. To regain perspective, just visualize man on man sex to sober yourself up and then remember that a high percentage gay men have dozens to hundreds of liaisons a year. Sounds brutal, sounds unfair but the truth sometimes is. If you think that is unfair just ask any gay man what a glory hole is. Let’s not forget what the REAL gay experience is. It’s not apple pie and a different set of family values. Sounds prejudice but it’s just the unvarnished truth.
25. georgia | 11.05.08
I wouldn’t get too excited yet. We’re a patient bunch us ‘religious abominations’ otherwise known as the GLBTI community. It will happen sooner or later. I think as a nation America has a lot bigger fish to fry right now than alienating someone you know and love because I can guarantee, every person on this planet whether they know it or not, have a gay colleague, family member, friend and sometimes even partner. .
26. hello | 11.05.08
Didn’t like the LDS ads? You shoulda seen the dishonest, manipulative ads from the homosexual activists, which backfired on them!
27. Daniel | 11.05.08
The Mormon’s should not have to explain why they did what they did. The reasons are clear enough, as are why the no side spent millions of dolalrs as well. Their imposition of their “theology” is no more troubling than the imposition of certain individuals and groups liberalistic ideals on a populace that isn’t necessarily sold on what you simply assert to be “rights” without the proper arguments.
28. Impose? | 11.05.08
Mormons are imposing their theology? How about exercising their constitutional rights? Give me a break…
29. Curt Jessop | 11.05.08
On March 7, 2000, greater than 60% of Californians voted for Prop 22 which simply stated: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
On March 16, 2008 the California supreme court overturned Prop 22.
On November 4, 2008 the citizens of California passed an amendment to the state constitution known as Proposition 8, which used the exact same one sentence wording as Prop 22: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
What a clear lesson in high-school civics: Pass a law, supreme court rules it unconstitutional, pass a constitutional amendment!
30. Kathleen | 11.05.08
After being in a relationship for 34 years with another woman in California, I didn’t think it necessary to marry, but she wanted to, so I did.
I was surprised at how different it made me feel. I felt part of something bigger than myself. Today, I wish I hadn’t married. Instead of feeling like an outsider as I used to feel before I married, now, I feel like an outlaw.
Waiting 20-30 years isn’t going to cut it for me, I’ll be dead.
31. Chuck | 11.05.08
Wow,
I can see an anti-mormon sentiment building here much like the anti-semetic movement in pre-war Germany. All we need now is another National Socialistic party and we’re in business. The circle of acceptance to tyranny is nearly complete.
The majority voted, the majority got what they wanted. It seems that someone is eating sour grapes now. This is the way a democracy is intended to work. Don’t like it? I don’t have to tell you what to do, you’re smart people.
The way I read it is that the gays don’t like Mormons. That’s no surprise, but I don’t see the Mormons gay bashing in the media in response to the gays Mormon bashing. When a clearly offensive and obviously inflammatory Anti-Mormon ad was published, singling out a minority, the Mormons obviously called the gays on it and, frankly should have been ashamed of themselves. That they weren’t just shows how flagrantly gays want to push their agenda on this issue. My mind was made up about where this was headed by this report.
From a group that preaches acceptance and understanding, gays seemingly have a lot to learn from Mormons… as I read it.
Chuck
32. Evan | 11.05.08
I find it sad that those who are the victims of prejudice and social injustices would support discrimination against any group. I was watching the coverage of election results last night and saw many times throughout California that various minority groups who had voted for Obama and even called his triumph “justice served to our history and people” would choose to vote yes on 8 and propagate a historical oppression. California is often described a trend setter in terms of social policy and legislation, but on this issue we’re behind much of the rest of the global community. It’s not a coincidence that societies which most vehemently oppose a gay lifestyle are the ones we critique - maybe we’re more like them then we think.
33. Robin | 11.05.08
I find it sad that the media doesnt believe we have the right to free speech…I suppose as long as we agree with the liberal left wing then would we have a voice?
We stand up for what is good and right and we get slammed as bigots. I am not against gays…I am for traditional marriage being between a man and a woman. I didnt make up the laws of God He did. Pick up the Bible and see what God has to say about homosexuality. If I have to choose between God’s laws or Man’s Laws, I will always choose God. Because in the end I dont have to face Man, I have to face God.
34. Willieinkansas | 11.05.08
Well as proud NRA member I don’t want no Nazi-bible or Book of Mormon people knocking on my door. May be the next step for the Catholic and Mormon Churches is too approve pedophelia, and train trips to the gas chamber for people who don’t follow their selfish quest for self-validation. Such indifference to the humanity of gays will be met with the same hatred in my family. Mormons in California are acting no different than the mob that killed Joseph Smith. So, when another kid blows his head off in the fields of California because he feels your hate, his/her blood is in your hand. You’re not going to heaven, you just think you are.
35. America Stands for freedom of choice? | 11.06.08
I am a women who is married to a man and I have 3 kids. My children are tought,every person in the united states has freedom of choice, they are also tought that discrimination of any kind is immoral and ilegal in the USA. So how is it that this subject ended up being voted for. America gives every body the same rights, Which includes same sex marriage. I seariously hope that the peolpe who voted for this ban were not married or a female who proudly took her place in line to vote for a ban on somebody elses rights. I can only say how arogantly ignorant and above all shovinistic of you! in order to make this fair Shouldnt male and female couples prove they are fertile before they are married and if even one is not then then they should also be banned from wedlock. If a couple chooses not to have kids also be restricted. Shouldnt their be a ban on birthcontrol? Why is breaking a law of discrimination voted on at all. I want to vote for any time a male and female couple wants to get married same sex couples should get to vote on weather they get permission or not to do that
36. Scott O’Brien | 11.06.08
Excuse me! The LDS Church wants me to be courteous to them while they campaign to take away my equal and legal rights? This hurtful, audacious, self-righteous bigotry has no place in a democracy!
37. Theodore Brandley | 11.06.08
The Mormon Church is obviously an ally to the rest of Christianity, not an enemy.
38. mightymighty | 11.06.08
The people have spoken and this is not to be reframed as a civil rights issue. To try an bamboozle the electorate to believe that rights are being taken away from a persecuted minority is shameful. White homosexuals can blend into society with no problem, not the same for the African American. To try and manipulate and take advantage of the African American struggle is dispicable. This is a moral issue. Those who believe in the Bible will follow the teachings included in the Bible which looks upon homosexual activities as sinful. Children should be protected from this deviant behavior. Halloween in the Castro includes nudity and sexual activities openly displayed for all to see. Yes keep your lives private and leave those who have a Christian faith alone.
39. Jay McGuire | 11.06.08
What happened to separation of church and state? The country has gone mad, letting churches dictate public policy and maintain their tax exempt status at the same time. Take away their 501(c)3 status and tax them!
40. Terry Foster | 11.06.08
I made calls, sent money and was active in my support of Prop.8. The signs in my yard were stolen twice, school teachers in a local high school had students protesting against it. I have read the articles about the lawsuit brought in Mass. where the plaintiff was disallowed his proceeding due to the new law there. Meaning noone has the right to say gay marriage CANNOT be discussed in 2nd grade.
That was the primary reason that 8 passed, in my view. It seems that anything God based or Christian supported is under attack by the left.
I am sympathetic to gay couples wanting equal rights of married couples. Simply don’t call it marriage and it would have passed in a different form.
The second thing that was forced in Mass. is that the Catholic Adoption organization was forced to not discriminate against legally married couples for adoption. They withdrew from Mass. because that was morally wrong in their view. I tend to agree. How unfortunate for the straight couples who desparately wanted to adopt, but happen to live there.
If you’re supportive of gay rights, as I am, don’t call it marriage. Simply ask for identical rights, under a different name. If you present a Proposition with that premise, I’ll support you.
41. Loving Wife | 11.06.08
I don’t believe God cares what I look like. I don’t believe God cares what anyone looks like. I do not think any quality that is not a spiritual quality matters for one second to God. Who I am, who we all are, to God is not determined by anything physical. My value as a person is no more affected by my brown eyes than it is by my easily tannable skin. My status as “child of God” and my right to all the love and protection afforded by that is not diminished by bitten fingernails nor is it improved by freckles. God does not love me differently because of or care what parts I have, what my gender is. And if God doesn’t care what my physical characteristics are, why would the physical characteristics of my family matter? They wouldn’t. They don’t.
42. Elizabeth | 11.06.08
I could argue that a civil contract officiated by a justice of the peace is not a religious sacrament and therefore does not mean that people are married according to any given religious belief (religious groups are free to refuse to recognize such marriages, just as the Catholic Church does not recognize a second marriage made by someone who ended their first marriage through divorce. Forcing any religious organization to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies would indeed be violating people’s right to freedom of religion, but that was not what was happening in California). I could point out that in the United States of America, we are not supposed to base civil law on religious doctrine. But since the Biblical gauntlet has been thrown, I’ll pick it up.
“in the end I dont have to face Man, I have to face God.”
Yes. You do. You have to face the God who said “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” The God who said, “In my father’s house, there are many mansions.” The God who twice enjoins humanity to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (once, you may be interested to note, in Leviticus). The God who championed the despised and the outcast.
If I were truly a good Christian, I would be praying for the souls of everyone who voted in favor of that propostion, of everyone who takes their own prejudices and calls them “God’s law.” Perhaps you (general you - I’m speaking to everyone who cited their religious beliefs here, not just Robin) are an Orthodox or Hassidic Jew and your religious beliefs truly do enjoin you to follow every single provision of the laws set out in the Old Testament/Torah. If so, then I retract my statements. If not — if you are, as I suspect, a Christian who probably does not cover your head in temple, refrain from eating pork or shellfish, refrain from mixing meat and milk, from wearing certain kinds of blended fabrics, from working on the sabbath (shall I go on? I think I’ve made my point), they I’d ask why you hold two individual paragraphs in the Bible as so vitally important while ignoring so much of the rest of it. Why that part of Leviticus, and not the rest? I think it’s worth considering that at least some people are using the Bible to justify their own prejudice and bigotry.
And I’d like to point out, just for the sake of argument that the verses in Leviticus and Deutoronomy that you’re referring to only deal with sexual congress between men. The Bible (and God’s law) say nothing about women laying down with other women, so if you want to go for Biblical literalism, lesbianism technically isn’t prohibited.
I’d also like to point out that “God’s Law” also condones slavery. If we as a society made the Old Testament our final word on all matters social, legal, and moral, hundreds of thousands of Americans might still be living in bondage. And we’d be stoning adulterers to death and forcing widows to marry their brother-in-laws.
43. Elizabeth | 11.06.08
//Their imposition of their “theology” is no more troubling than the imposition of certain individuals and groups liberalistic ideals on a populace that isn’t necessarily sold on what you simply assert to be “rights” without the proper arguments.//
What, in your opinion (or the opinion of anyone out there who agrees with this) would be considered “the proper arguments?” I’m not attempting to play Devil’s Advocate — I’d be interested to know for the sake of furthering debate without speaking past one another.
Also, why is theology in quote marks here? Several commentors have opnely stated that they believe gay marriage to be against God’s law, and the Church of Latter Day Saints opposes it because it goes against their religious beliefs. As far as I am aware, those are theologically-based arguments (or at least religiously-based ones).
44. Sunnypies | 11.06.08
I’m glad that Obama and the supreme courts can’t make the decision was up to the residents of California and they spoke out. The popular vote wins this debate.
45. disappointed | 11.06.08
In reply to Robin, who said the following, “If I have to choose between God’s laws or Man’s Laws, I will always choose God. Because in the end I dont have to face Man, I have to face God. If I have to choose between God’s laws or Man’s Laws, I will always choose God. Because in the end I dont have to face Man, I have to face God.”
No-one is asking you to marry another member of your sex, heck, no-one is even inviting you to ATTEND a gay marriage, and although it’s very kind of you to be looking out for the souls of the Californian gay community, I believe they can do without. This sort of ban on personal rights does not make for a healthy democracy.
46. For the record… | 11.06.08
In Leviticus, where it is said “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination,” it is also commanded to eat neither shellfish nor pork, to never shave your beard, and demands a multitude of regular animal sacrifices. I ask you, why aren’t any of THESE enforced by law?
Furthermore, if you are going to make laws according to the bible, you might as well do it right, for Leviticus demands the execution of any man who lies with another man, as they are to atone with their blood. So get cracking America, you have a whole lot of people to murder.
47. Scott | 11.07.08
In response to a few comments already made. “Homosexuality” is far more common in this world than some people may believe. In some cultures it has been a prerequisite in order to become a warrior, or to have a “heterosexual marriage”. To suggest that homosexuality is unnatural, and frowned upon in all cultures is absolutely absurd. I would suggest that a few people would look into their claims with a little more scrutiny and realize that all societies include those of the past (the term homosexuality didn’t exist until the late 1800’s, heterosexuality was coined a few years later) and also those of cultures and nations outside of their comfortable anglo-judeo/christian moral view.
48. Josh | 11.07.08
I’m a Mormon and I am very heartened to hear open-minded people come to our defense. We make up less than 2% of the population of California and certainly did not stand alone for marriage on proposition 8. Our church’s members in general feel very strongly about the importance of family. We’re perfectly ok with gay and lesbian people having civil rights, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. Here’s a quote from our church’s news release.
“Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”
That pretty much sums up our feelings. Thanks again to those of you who have been so understanding and to the many, many people who helped prop 8.
49. Joshua Lawrence | 11.08.08
people of faith from all backrounds Black Latino and White voted yes on 8. WHy pick on the Morman Church? Maybe because it would take real nuts to go after the other communities. Gay rights will happen give it some more time.
50. Cherie | 11.09.08
Amazing how opponents to Prop 8, the No votes, just won’t take no for an answer. The legal system, voter ballets, police supervision all cost the tax payers money. Do these individuals believe they are entitled to sucking more revenue by protesting? Maybe we should look at a very strong fact. Gay men will never be women. Gay women will never be men. Check the Chromosomes. Why be forced into giving validity to something that isn’t physically possible? Marriage across the globe has been the union of a man and a woman.
Why don’t these folks legally petition for something new like “Barriages” and ask for the same rights as a traditional marriage? Maybe get it on the ballet asking for a new status. We have developed Palimony in the courts. It’s not called Alimony. It appears to me, they just don’t want anyone telling them no and that includes the author of life and anyone who agrees with Him.
It’s a lot like spoiled kids isn’t it? I’ll toss a big one til I get what I want.
51. Cherie | 11.09.08
If the Gay marriage issue didn’t attack our basic human beliefs at the core perhaps it would not meet with such opposition. Marriage licenses have been issued for a man and woman union. I stand behind that defination. Anything otherwise should be address as to its fully disclosed nature and considered on it’s merit, not piggybacked on something of a totally different nature. It’s the duplicity that’s offensive. We are comparing apples to oranges here.
I guess this logic would fall under the broad sweeping name of bigot, huh? Too bad individuals have been duped into believing wiping out centuries of agree upon idealogy, worldwide is a smart way to go. I think we can look at the last 30 years of making knee jerk policy and see how productive that is.
52. Jerome | 11.10.08
Marriage is older than you think. It’s older than all the religions we know today — hence the definition of marriage doesn’t belong to any particular religion. It belongs to human society. Yes, it’s always been between a man and a woman. Granted. But society changes things over time. Society can expand the definition of marriage if it so pleases. Let’s keep today’s religions out of it. They weren’t around when the institution of marriage was created, back in human prehistory and any rights they claim to have over it are questionable.
53. Shaun | 11.10.08
THANK YOU “ForSameSexUnions”, post #14. This is the problem I have as well. To quote a CNN article:
“Marriage is little more than a license,” Riolo said. “It is a privilege given by the state and, like a driver’s license or any other type of license, the state can set up rules and criteria.”
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/gaymarriage.irpt/index.html)
Marriage to me is MUCH more than that! Marriage is sacred. Just like our morals and ethics, the idea of marriage in the U.S. is becoming watered down and marginalized (hence the large divorce rates). I am all for equal rights. I am against re-defining the sacred meaning of marriage in my household. It is a covenant that goes above and beyond “little more than a license.” Just as gays and lesbians feel the “religious” are imparting their beliefs on them, the “religious” feel that the gay community is crossing the line as well and imparting their views on our belief system by redefining the sacred term.
54. G.C | 11.14.08
I am against this gay nonsense. I wish they would all go back in the closet, and lock the door behind them. Perverts, every one of them. They scream ‘Hatred’ when they cannot get their own way, but 2% of the populace does NOT get to dictate to 98% of the rest re: how we live our lives. California voted ‘NAY.’ Get over it
OBTW, see God’s Urban Renewal Plan for Sodom and Gomorrah.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Erick Swenson | 11.05.08
Note to President-Elect Obama: Do not throw gays and lesbians under the bus the way that Clinton did. We worked HARD to get you elected, including voter registration of blacks and get out the vote movements (for you) with many first-time black voters. In the process, gay and lesbian Californians were stripped of a right in our state Constitution. Frankly, I was a Hillary-Man, but put my full force (and dollars) into your election. Please be our advocate on this issue. Do not pull a Bill Clinton on us (take our money and take away our rights). We’ll be voting again in 2012. Thank you. Oh, and congratulations on your win; in the process I have been invalidated as an American thanks to your black supporters.