Not everyone got what they wanted last night….
November 5, 2008 - 10:30am
by bryan_a_gordon
Ban on Gay Marriage: This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state.
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children: This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples
Ban on Gay Marriage: This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Results from some important ballets in yesterday’s election, I don’t understand how these got passed…. Did we learn nothing from the woman’s/civil rights era? Yes I’m thrilled Barack Obama was elected but its measures like these that make me lose faith in my country….
Arizona Proposition 102: PASSED
Ban on Gay Marriage: This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state.
Arkansas Initiative 1: PASSED
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children: This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples
California Proposition 8: PASSED
Ban on Gay Marriage: This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state. If passed, the measure would trump a May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.
Florida Amendment 2: PASSED
Ban on Gay Marriage: This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Delicious
Digg it
Stumble it
Reddit
Share on Facebook
Subscribe to comments- bryan_a_gordon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Comments
RE: kat 1) Marriage is not about having children, not every married couple has children. It is about love, being committed eternally. And it is love and responsibility that enable good parenting- homosexuals are capable of both these things.
Government sanctions marriage because of children, period. Like I said earlier, government does not care if two adults love each other or hate each others guts they can still get a marriage license and have it recognized. Government encourages marriage so that couples will stay married for the sake of their kids. Since gays cannot have their own kids and nearly every married couple does eventually have kids there is virtually no point in government recognized gay marriage. But that does not mean gays cannot go have a ceremony and live life like they want to. Nobody is persecuting them.
2) Where's the statistics stating that kids of homosexual parents are worse off?
There haven't been any real studies, probably because so few gay couples actually have kids. But that does not negate the fact that kids are far better off with their biological mom and dad. Instances of abuse are higher for kids with non-biological parents.
3) Not every single person in society is going to become homosexual, so their lack of reproducing isn't a valid point. Besides, lesbians often get inseminated to reproduce.
That is not the point, the point is that government has the right to choose which relationships it wants to sanction so long as they are not discriminating based on race. There is no difference between a black hetero couple and a white hetero couple or a mixed couple. There is a huge difference between a gay couple and a hetero couple of any race. You see, the problem is not that gays do not have some "right", because they do. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex, regardless of race. What they are seeking is a new type of marriage that has never existed before. Just look at what they did to eHarmony, forcing "equality" which is only possible if eHarmony MAKES A WHOLE NEW WEBSITE JUST FOR GAYS. That is not equality, that is nothing less than special treatment. Now how long will it be before churches, especially the mormon church, are under attack because they are spreading "H8" and being nazis because they will not allow a gay marriage in their church?
4) That is true. The first amendment doesn't state that you cannot vote based on religion, but that the government will stay out of your religious practices.
Exactly, so your point is moot.
5) It isn't a real marriage if the legal documents aren't provided. Not everyone has to accept it. I don't understand why you keep saying that in order for gays to marry, everyone need to be accepting of them because that makes no sense whatsoever. There will never be a case when every single person in the nation agrees on one point. Ever. Even in the case of racism and gender equality people disagree. So no, not everyone needs to accept gay marriage in order for it to be legal. They want government sanction so that they can be equal to everyone else. Anyone has the right to be legally married except for homosexuals. They are the only people to not be included. Even illegal immigrants can marry in the US, as long at the marry a legal citizen. A legal citizen should not be denied what everyone else is granted.
Gays in CA had exactly the same "rights" via civil unions. Marriage is just a label now, but they are still demanding that label because of what it means, which is affirmation of their chosen lifestyle. That's it, that's all. If gays would be happy with generic civil unions that anyone could enter into (including friends, relatives, anybody really) this would not be an issue. But no, they have to demand acceptance and affirmation and force it on the rest of us or they will throw a temper tantrum. Again I ask, how long before they go after churches and demand equality? How long before churches are accused of nazism? If they cannot have the ceremony done in a church like mine was, how could it be equal?
I just have to add...
With divorce rates as high as 50% in America, is it really right to say that heterosexual relationships are the single "right" thing for people? I have gay neighbors, and as long as I have lived here (my entire life) they have lived together and have been happy together. On the other hand, there have been three, maybe four straight couple that have divorced in my neighborhood. I don't know if it is just them, but the fact that gay couples, especially those who are "out of the closet" stay together while countrywide people look down on them, is a testament to the true strength love can have, whatever form it takes. Do you think they choose to be different? Obviously it would be easier for them to be straight, buit they can't. The person they love is not a choice, it is who they love. So we can allow gay people to display that love as you or I could, or we can force them to keep that love out of sight. No matter what you do, you aren't getting rid of their feelings, so why make anyone unhappy? It would be like telling someone you don't know to get plastic surgery. "You were born this way, but I don't like the way you are" Who are any of us to judge. I hope that someday people will realize the mistake that banning gay marriage is.
Please tell he how denying government sanction and national affirmation of gay relationships in any way denies them the right to behave as they choose and relate with whom they choose? They are the most tolerated of minority groups, yet they are also the biggest whiners.
Food for thought:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith
Don't lose hope on California's prop 8. The law can still go to the California courts, at which point it is the courts job to look at the law, and California's constitution. They will then decide if the proposition is even legal. So, there is still a chance.
Since Prop 8 amended the CA constitution, the court has no legal basis to strike it down. That was the whole point of it. The only court that could strike it down is the USSC.
The Obama victory was truly amazing- I was thrilled. BUt these things that passed... a huge disappointment.
I looked at the Obama victory as a huge step forward for the US. A point in US history that will go to show that our society is progressing- but these other propositions show otherwise.
I can't stand the argument that "God hates gays". I'm religious, and I love gay people just as much as straight people. I have been taught that God created everyone the way he wants them to be, orginal. Unique. I have also been taught that he loves everyone unconditionally. So in reality, the religion argument has no basis.
What the sad reality is, is that people are afraid. They don't want to accept homosexuals because they are different. They look up marriage in the dictionary and it says "a union between a man and a woman". What the American society needs to do however, is open their eyes.
Gays can vote, can die for their country, go to school, live, feel, love... They are human beings. And who are we to deny a US CITIZEN any right? We do not deny blacks any right. We do not deny women any right. Gays are still human beings, they are still US citizens and they deserve to have what every other US citizen has.
Prejudice is sickening.
And since when does sexuality affect one being able to be a parent?
This is not sad, it is a victory for democracy against tyrannical judges who seek to mandate their will on the american people. America may have accepted a fraud like Obama as its president, but we have not gone leftward as evidenced by California, CALIFORNIA, defining marriage as one man one woman. It has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with the belief that marriage is sacred and necessary. Gay marriage serves no real purpose, and government sanction of gay relationships does not benefit society in any measurable way. Gays are still free to behave how they want, on the other hand blacks WERE NOT free to behave as they wanted. A black man could not even be seen in the presence of a white woman without being persecuted in some places. To compare what blacks have been through in the past is NOTHING, not even within a light year of being similar to how gays have it. Its outrageous and historically ignorant to pretend that they are in any way similar.
I would expect a right wing conservative to say it is a victory for America to steal the rights of the innocent American citizens who fight so hard to achieve equality. And it is in this way that yes, they are similar to the blacks in the civil rights movement. Are homosexuals not degraded? Are they not dishonorably discharged from the military? Yes they are. There are many similarities.
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with benegitting society. Ever. It is to benefit the two who get married. They achieve legal benefits together and the most important thing of marriage is that it represents an everlasting love for one another. It is the symbol marriage has. This isn't the Victorian Age, we do not marry for property or money. We marry for love. And to deny them that right is unjust.
The California Supreme Court had the right to do what they did. It is the Supreme Court's job to determine what is and isn't constitutional. It is their job to deal with all of the interworkings of the constitution. They did their job.
Government does not give us our rights, therefore it is not a right to have government sanctioned marriage. They can get married, it just won't be legally recognized. It's not even about equality, we all share the same definition of marriage. It is about equating homosexuality and heterosexuality when there is no comparison. That is why there is no comparison between blacks and gays. A black man is identical to a white man except in appearance. A homosexual relationship is fundamentally different than a heterosexual relationship.
And I am sorry, but the government does not sanction marriage for the benefit of the adults getting married. The purpose is for the safety of children, which in turn benefits society greatly. If we have children growing up without parents, it is highly likely that they will become a burden on society.
If gay people want to have something that represents marriage, they can have it, nobody is stopping that, nobody wants to stop that. And FYI, gays already had all the legal benefits of marriage in "civil unions". This was not about legal rights, it was about mandating acceptance of homosexuality by 4 "judges". That is not democracy.
There is nothing in the CA constitution that even mentions gay marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right? If gays want it, put it on the ballot and let people vote on it. That is how we do things in America, that is how blacks got their rights.
it sounds like your version of democracy is closer to tyranny of the masses. we have judges so we can have a check on that sort of thing.
The argument that marriage is about child rearing is outdated. Children are not in danger when they are reared by homo couples. actually quite contrary to your belief their child abuse rate is almost zero and if you were wondering the children were not more likely to be gay. although as it is right now, a gay parent may have a harder time picking their child up from school because of prop 8, THAT is dangerous.
"nobody wants to stop that" thats not very thoughtful. its not democratic.
you have no proof that a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship besides their obvious differences in the way they show it physically. but you wouldn't go there.......
the story of the civil rights movement in your head is not actually true. In the end it was about a handful of people like judges forcing the general population to move on.
Sometimes it's necessary for the government to decide what is right because the public can't handle change. Such as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954....
The difference is that congress used the amendment process to change the constitution. Brown v. Board was merely upholding the 14th Amendment which was clearly not being followed and segregated schools were clearly (and probably intentionally) not equal. The 14th Amendment was not created with the intention of giving gays the privilege of government sanctioned marriage, that is not something that they probably had ever imagined would come about.
When society needs or wants something done, it will get done. If gays want government sanctioned marriage, why not try passing legislation instead of alienating every american by abusing the court system? It probably turns people off that might otherwise vote for gay rights.
We did not use the courts to give blacks equal rights, our ancestors sacrificed their blood, sweat, tears, and lives so that this nation could live up to its "all men are created equal" creed. Gay rights is not about people being equal, it is about homosexuality and heterosexuality being deemed equal which they are unequivocally NOT.
Gay marriage is coming, no matter how much people kick and scream, my generation is bringing it. Homosexuality is fine, and no matter how many times I ask you, you haven't given a straight answer
What is wrong with giving gays the right to marry? What is the negative consequence?
Obviously there is no negative consequence, which is why one hasn't been stated. Of course other than all of humanity ceasing to exist, according to Mr. S.
I'm honestly at a loss to as to why people are so against gay marriage. I usually can wrap my mind around opposing view points and enjoy discussions with people who disagree with me. But I can not understand why people are so passionate about not allowing two people who are in love get married.
I respect peoples religion and views, but last I checked there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. People can morally disagree with it, but what justification is that in a legal sense?
I was disgusted and ashamed of my state of California for passing 8. There shouldn't be a proposition in the first place taking away human rights, and the fact it only passed with a mere 51% shows how torn people are about this issue. My heart goes out to all the couples who were married since May who are now told that there love isn't good enough. This is a huge step backwards.
Luckily, there are still over 3 million absentee ballots that need to be counted. There is still hope.
1) Seperation of Church and state does not dissalow people from voting based on their faith. In fact, it guarantees people the right to do just that.
2) There was a proposition because the tyrant judges on the California Supreme Court decided that their point of view should be forced on the people of California. Democracy was victorious.
3) Government sanctioned marriage is not about love, there is no requirement that two people love eachother when they get a marriage license. Why should the government give a hoot if people love eachother? If gays want to exchange vows they can, why is it necessary to force every American to consent to it? Why does every American have to be forced into acceptance of the gay lifestyle?
4) God willing, nearly ever state will pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and all those leftists who whaled about how wrong it is to amend the Constitution will change their tune. It will be them, and you people, that will demand we amend the Constitution to suit your viewpoint.
Your bitterness regarding the victory we received this election shows, but is very unnecessary. Love is not required to be married- it is the reason to get married. People don't join in this union so that "every American is forced to accept them". That isn't the purpose of marriage. And no one is forced to accept the gay lifestyle to allow them to be married. Turn your head. Don't attend their wedding. It really is as simple as that.
It's funny and extremely aggrivating to see when people are in denial of their prejudice.
Why do gays have to have government sanction before they will be happy? They can get married in friendly churches now, they can pledge to love eachother, etc. I already turn my head, I already do not attend. When you want to redefine the foundation of society, you are forcing it upon everyone. It is my right, and the right of every American to stand up against this nonsense.
What about L.B.G.T people scares you exactly ?
Can't you refute my arguements without turning to the racist/bigot/homophobe card? I guess it is back en vogue these days...
The only reason why this is brought up is because you say things that sound so.
I'm only saying these are the reasons that people voted against it. U have a lot of friends who are gay and I will support them. But it isn't my place to tell them wether or not they are allowed to get married.
I think there should be am equal partnership law where if you want to say live with your sister, you have the same rights with her as you would with your husband. In this case it would work for homosexuals as well.
It isn't question of civil rights. It's a question of morality. Now before you feak out on me, I am going to defend this statement although I don't neccesarily agree with it.
I'm christian, so in the bible it says that marriage is meant for man and woman. If these laws were not passed it would be our religlion condoning an act of sin, which is something we aren't about to do.
Yes this is the land of the free, but not the land of the immoral.
I am on your side, but it is wise to avoid using religion to support your arguement. Especially when there are very valid non-religious reasons why the government should never sanction gay marriage. For instance, the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce together, the fact that marriage is recognized by government because it is the foundation of society, the fact that children are better off with a mother and a father. The foolish will try to argue against these things and pretend that there is no distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships, but thats why they are fools.
I'm sorry, but you're super close to being offensive. Do not call people who believe in equal rights "fools." I respect your opinion so you need to respect ours. The fact homosexuals can't reproduce together is your argument? Good thing every heterosexual couple can, and will have children. Children are better off with a mother and father? It's great there are no single mothers or fathers out there raising children themselves. And I had no idea the foundation of our society is marriage. I'm a political science major, but I probably just haven't had that class yet.
And these "tyrannical" judges ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. The constitution is kind of important to our society as well...
It just makes me sick to my stomach that I could get married in a drive-through wedding chapel in Vegas to a complete stranger and that's totally legal. But if two people who love and want to commit to each other cannot because they are gay. It's a massive leap backwards. I understand you have religious views opposing it, but as I stated before separation of church and state. You can not change a state's constitution based on your personal religious views. And that's how a lot of people voted yesterday: ignorance and religious superiority.
One more thing: No one is telling anyone how to live their life so drop the "forcing Americans to accept their lifestyle" argument. Don't like it? Don't marry a dude.
What do you call someone that blatantly ignores the truth?
1) Not every heterosexual can reproduce, that is correct, but do you really want government opening up every single medical file to find out if people can reproduce before they are allowed to marry? That would be ridiculous and contrary to everything that liberals preach. So I am going to guess no, you do not want government snooping into everyones medical records. The bottom line is that heterosexuals, firtile or not, represent the best case scenario for kids to be raised.
2) Children ARE better off with a mother and father, that is an indesputible fact. Some single parents can raise good citizens, but social science tells us that children with no father are vastly more likely to be a burden on society either through welfare or the criminal justice system. Kids with a mom and a dad are better off.
3) The foundation of every society is a union between one man and one woman which produces children. Without children, a society will cease to exist in one generation. Kids that have one or no parents are worse off than those with a mom and a dad. If you want proof, just look at black people in America. 80% of their kids are born out of wedlock, so it is no wonder they dominate the prison system. And it has nothing to do with race, because whites and hispanics born out of wedlock face the same rate of imprisonment as blacks do. Blacks are just far more likely to be born without a father.
4) Again, the 1st Amendment freedom of religion does not say people cannot vote based on religious views. It is called the FREEDOM of religion afterall, not the RESTRICTION of religion. I guess you haven't taken that class either yet?
5) Gays can still marry, what difference does it make if everyone accepts it or not? Why do gays need government sanction to be happy?
1) Marriage is not about having children, not every married couple has children. It is about love, being committed eternally. And it is love and responsibility that enable good parenting- homosexuals are capable of both these things.
2) Where's the statistics stating that kids of homosexual parents are worse off?
3) Not every single person in society is going to become homosexual, so their lack of reproducing isn't a valid point. Besides, lesbians often get inseminated to reproduce.
4) That is true. The first amendment doesn't state that you cannot vote based on religion, but that the government will stay out of your religious practices.
5) It isn't a real marriage if the legal documents aren't provided. Not everyone has to accept it. I don't understand why you keep saying that in order for gays to marry, everyone need to be accepting of them because that makes no sense whatsoever. There will never be a case when every single person in the nation agrees on one point. Ever. Even in the case of racism and gender equality people disagree. So no, not everyone needs to accept gay marriage in order for it to be legal. They want government sanction so that they can be equal to everyone else. Anyone has the right to be legally married except for homosexuals. They are the only people to not be included. Even illegal immigrants can marry in the US, as long at the marry a legal citizen. A legal citizen should not be denied what everyone else is granted.
The government also protects individual privacy to conduct acts of pornography which is immoral in the eyes of the Christian religion. How is this any more moral than allowing gay marriage? Many of our laws are immoral yet we condone them; so why not gay marriage?
Your argument for religion and morality is completely flawed. Our government is formed on the separation of church and state. Religious morals have no place in civil rights.
One thing that is absolutely ridiculous about the bible and in it's teachings, God states that he loves everyone unconditionally and created them equally. If you've ever talked with a gay individual you will realize that their feeling for the same sex are born with in them. Is it their fault that they are strongly attracted to the same sex? If God made everyone equal is he forsaking these people and deeming them as immoral from the time of birth? I know many gay Christians. I find it disgusting that their religion would turn their backs for the sole purpose that their genetics and feelings are seen as sins. Everyone sins.
I have absolutely nothing against religion but I do have a problem with those that follow the bible to a key and condone its ignorance.
Every law that exists is believed to be morally right by somone. So christians find porn to be offensive and sinful, but others find it morally right. Nary a law exists without some regard to morality. If you want truly secular laws without any religious influence, you would have to look towards the soviet union, china, or N. Korea. Not nice places.
Now wait just a minute here. When gay marriage passes, it will not force any church to practice it. It just means that the state will give the same benefits to all people who wish to become married.
You would put your personal beliefs above what is best for the nation? Seems a little selfish to me.
Do you have any other reasons for not support marriage for all people?
Your arguement is weak, given the fact that California ALREADY HAD civil unions which give gays THE SAME EXACT RIGHTS AS MARRIED COUPLES. This is not about rights and liberties, this is about forcing on America the idea that homosexuality is acceptable, normal, necessary, etc. for society to exist. It simply is not, none of those things are true.
The argument for gay marriage is ridiculous. There are more important things to worry about in our country than whether or not it should be allowed for two men or two women to be married. Gay marriage should be validated, no questions about it.
I like this post. I think it is amazing that Obama won as president but these props make me upset, especially prop 8 of California since I am from there originally.
I like this post. I think it is amazing that Obama won as president but these props make me upset, especially prop 8 of California since I am from there originally.