California Bans Same Sex Marriage
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Bad Decisions, California, Law, Sexuality
A pretty shocking turn of events in California, as Proposition 8 narrowly passes.
As Proposition 8, the most divisive and emotionally fraught issue on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.“We caused Californians to rethink this issue,” Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
“I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn’t we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that’s at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage,” he said.
This measure literally nullifies all of those marriages that have been taking place in California since the legal decision back in May. Yes, people actually got a chance to vote on whether or not somebody’s love was legally binding.
Absolutely shameful.
Mark my words, the religious right will eventually lose this issue, but for today at least the agents of intolerance can chalk one up for their side.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Bad Decisions, California, Law, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
They got to vote on how the government defines “marraige.” It has nothing to do with love. People who aren’t in love can get married, people who are in love don’t have to and the government has nothing to do with it.
More often than not, ballot questions in this election show that the country is conservative. Obama did not win because the country is shifting leftward. He won because of Hopenchange
November 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The gay lobby really messed this up by overreaching and insisting that the word “marriage” was neccessary for full equality under the law. We had domestic partnerships in the bag more than 10 years ago, and could have privately adopted the word “marriage” to include same-sex couples into the cultural lexicon over time. We needed the time to show evidence that gay unions are not only NOT a threat to anyone’s traditional marriage, but also a benefit to society. Instead, the overreach empowered the intollerant – and this is the result – steps backward (including the loss of adoption privilages in many places). dumb, dumb, dumb. Full same-sex equality is inevitable – but now we have to wait another half a generation or so. The gays just don’t know when to end the party, say thanks, and go home.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ultimately, where the loss came was the Yes on 8 campaign made a lot of claims that were bold faced lies. The No on 8 campaign spent their time defending them in their ads, instead of really pushing the fact that at the heart of this it isn’t your personal views of marriage- it’s discrimination. Out and out discrimination.
Also, it didn’t help to persuade individuals that there were clips of Newsom saying that gay marriage would be here “whether they like it or not.” All it did was reiterate fears by the more conservative people that we were going to force this on them.
A shame. I saw many wonderful ads on the internet that really painted a personal face on the issue, and didn’t see any of those ads on tv.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Justin, you have strained you blog’s creed on this one. Labeling the proponents of Prop. 8 “agents of intollerance” and calling its defeat “absolutely shameful” is pretty divisive, don’t you think? Do you really think that over 50% of the electorate of California is intollerant? Do you suppose it is possible that there are other issues to consider here other than the religious right’s overwhelming desire to discriminate against people?
Obviously there were concerns about gay marriage well beyond the minority view of the religious right. Otherwise the proposition would not have passed.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
RPC, Don’t you think that the majority can be intolerant? Don’t you think if they had put all the civil rights issues to a vote in the South back in the day, they would have voted intolerance. I’m thinking that not everyone back then was a KKK member, but they were still interested in protecting their own interests at the deficit of the minority.
Weak argument man.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
John, you missed my point.
I was not trying to say that it is impossible for the majority to be intollerant. My point was that there are reasons other than intollerance a person may be opposed to gay marriage.
The fact that no one else visiting this site seems even willing to entertain this view has me wondering if this blog is as balanced as advertised.