Comments on: California Bans Same Sex Marriage

By: RPC

RPC — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:57:10 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:50:58 +0000

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.

By: RPC

RPC — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:41:43 +0000

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.

By: Whitney Drake

Whitney Drake — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:42:57 +0000

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.

By: mike mcEachran

mike mcEachran — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:54:11 +0000

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.

By: Jimmy the Dhimmi

Jimmy the Dhimmi — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:44:14 +0000

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