same sex marriage in california

[April15]

I think we need to keep mexicans from marrying Native American Indians. That way it will keep marriage holy!

[Binky]

In Michigan, I voted for medical mariquana. Pot is a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. There are a lot of other things that deserve our attention and are far more important. And much worse drugs to worry about. Booze would classify as a much worse problem, for one.

[Sitarro]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.

California voters approve gay-marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/...nBLxrPVjpvzwcF

LOS ANGELES – In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

Hey lib, 5 million voted to ban fake marriage, that's how our Democracy works, if you don't like it maybe you should think about moving to a country that fits your agenda better.

[LiberalNation]

I know that and yes it is how things work. I'm not going around like some here claiming I wont recognize it, the world is going to be destroyed, life as we know will end, blah, blah.

The people spoke. Marriage is and state issue and they have every right to change their constitution to reflect there views on it until such a time the SC rules gay marriage is covered under equal rights law which I doubt we'll see for many more years to come.

[manu1959]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.

California voters approve gay-marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/...nBLxrPVjpvzwcF

LOS ANGELES – In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment — widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures — will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

first off... in california... they have all the same civil rights as anyone else.....

they simply can not use the term marriage....

now... if they put on the ballot "civil union" and asked for confirmation of all the same rights be granted to a civil union as that granted to a marriage thus achieving eqivilancy it would pass easy.....

but they want to force the issue beyond what the public wants....

[LiberalNation]

now... if they put on the ballot "civil union" and asked for confirmation of all the same rights be granted to a civil union as that granted to a marriage thus achieving eqivilancy it would pass easy.....

That would have been a lot smarter. Personally I don't care what you call it but don't mind giving conservatives the word as long as in the end civil unions grant the same rights as marraige to a couple.

[avatar4321]

This sucks but is not really a suprise. We are still a long way off when it comes to gay rights in this country.

Gays already have the same rights as everyone else. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous

[avatar4321]

wonder what happens to those married since june

my guess is automatic annulment.

[Little-Acorn]

Just heard on the radio that regardless of the vote, California is saying that it's too late to change gay marriage, so it will remain legal. (?) I guess it only works that way in California.

Better find a new radio station. In fact, it doesn't work that way in California. Prop 8 simply adds one line to the California state constitution, saying:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

Notice it doesn't say, "except same-sex marriages made in California between June and November 2008".

If you're two men, or two women, then you don't have a "marriage" in California. Period. Whether you had one earlier or not.

ON EDIT:
Limbaugh just pointed out something interesting. Among caucasian voters in California, Prop 8 was DEFEATED, 49 to 51. But among black voters, they passed Prop 8 by 70% to 30%... and that provided the margin of victory.

-------------------------

Actually, you didn't have one earlier, anyway. Suppose four judges announce that a garment worn from the waist down, that has two seperate cloth tubes, one for each leg, will be known as a "dress" from now on. Does that make the pair of pants you just bought, a dress?

Of course not. Just because a judge says it's so, doesn't make it true. Even if some judge issues the ruling above, does that turn the pair of Dockers you picked up the other day from Sears, magically into a dress? And four judges saying two men together form a "marriage", didn't make that true either. A marriage is man and woman, always has been.

Calif law says that the state has certain obligations in regards to "marriages". Yesterday's Prop 8 simply pointed out the obvious, in case anyone was so stupid as to think "marriage" could possibly include a same-sex pair. Including stupid judges.

Avatar4321 is right. Prop 8 causes automatic annulment.

[YamiB.]

This disgusts me, I really had hoped the American people and the people of California had gotten some kind of sense into their heads. This is just another addition to this continuing stain on our history.

Gays already have the same rights as everyone else. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous

In the same way that when interracial marriage was banned that everybody had the same rights to marry somebody within their own race?

first off... in california... they have all the same civil rights as anyone else.....

they simply can not use the term marriage....

Except for the federal rights that are given to married couples.

now... if they put on the ballot "civil union" and asked for confirmation of all the same rights be granted to a civil union as that granted to a marriage thus achieving eqivilancy it would pass easy.....

I'm not 100%, but I don't think it would be possible to create a separate institution from marriage and have it granted all of the same rights as marriage working only at the state level. If the civil unions are only happening at the state level then they are being excluded from the federal rights given to married couples. There is of course the question as well of how civil unions will be recognized in other states.

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they do not seem to be a solution unless it is changed so that everybody who is going to receive rights through their government gets a civil union. I'm okay with conceding on that point to the religious wackos and letting them pretend that they have some kind of ownership over the term marriage.

[LiberalNation]

I'm not 100%, but I don't think it would be possible to create a separate institution from marriage and have it granted all of the same rights as marriage working only at the state level. If the civil unions are only happening at the state level then they are being excluded from the federal rights given to married couples. There is of course the question as well of how civil unions will be recognized in other states.

Civil unions are a step in the right direction, but they do not seem to be a solution unless it is changed so that everybody who is going to receive rights through their government gets a civil union. I'm okay with conceding on that point to the religious wackos and letting them pretend that they have some kind of ownership over the term marriage.

I agree with you here but the country is not ready yet. Better to start small and get what you can get over riling people up and losing the small things you could have had.

[hjmick]

Good reading on the subject as it pertains to California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._in_California

[YamiB.]

I agree with you here but the country is not ready yet. Better to start small and get what you can get over riling people up and losing the small things you could have had.

Oh yeah I agree that it is unfortunately more reasonable to except same-sex couples to be given equal access to marriage in incremental steps. I was just pointing out that though civil unions are nice they're not going to be enough.

[hjmick]

Except for the federal rights that are given to married couples.

To my knowledge, the federal government does not recognize same sex marriage. You can thank Bill Clinton for that. DOMA

[Immanuel]

Oh yeah I agree that it is unfortunately more reasonable to except same-sex couples to be given equal access to marriage in incremental steps. I was just pointing out that though civil unions are nice they're not going to be enough.

And why, pray tell, are civil unions not going to be enough?

Immie