Log in

View Full Version : California votes down same-sex marriage



Hostage
6th November 2008, 00:11
California votes down same-sex marriage

Voters in Florida and Arizona also approved similar bans in a setback for the gay rights movement.

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.”

Article Link: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/11/05/california-votes-down-same-sex-marriage/

AAFCE
6th November 2008, 00:56
I fucking hate when people say Adam and Steve.

:thumbdown:

Damn, all that progress stuffed right down the can. :(

Foldered
6th November 2008, 08:16
It's fucking ridiculous. Seriously. And honestly, even with a fundamentalist Christian perspective, how is fucking bretheren any more gay that banging a person that was created from a dude's rib?

ÑóẊîöʼn
6th November 2008, 09:36
It's all complete and utter bullshit. Same-sex marriage will have absolutely no fucking effect whatsoever on straight marriage. It's typical religidiot meddling disguised as moral indignation, which itself is code for "I'm annoyed that people are having fun/different to me".

Jazzratt
6th November 2008, 09:56
Calafornia can just fuck off. This does illustrate, though, that despite all the gushing about people electing Obama very little of America's core religious bigotries and braindead beliefs have gone.

Plagueround
6th November 2008, 10:05
They also banned gay marriage in 2 other states, as well as a ban on unmarried couples being able to adopt in Arkansas (which the supporters had no problem making very clear it was aimed at gays). Truly disgusting amidst an election that is trumpeting the notion of overcoming bigotry.

Rosa Provokateur
6th November 2008, 15:41
A sad day, I'll be in prayer and mourning:crying:

Catbus
6th November 2008, 18:35
Seperationa of chuch and state my ass. This is disgusting.

Chapaev
6th November 2008, 18:52
I live in California and I mailed a spoiled ballot on election day. I did not vote for or against this measure.

Seeing how our Black and Latino brothers overwhelmingly voted in favor of this measure, it is rather oversimplistic to attribute the results to religious fundamentalism. If Blacks and Latinos do not approve of same-sex marriage, then their desires should be respected. 90% of Blacks voted for Obama and 70% voted in favor of 8. Among the United States proletariat, Blacks have been the most consistently progressive.

It's interesting to note that those who agitated against this measure included the decadant Hollywood aristocracy and bourgeois liberal politicians like Senator Feinstein and the Mayor Newsom. I myself encountered formiddable opposition against 8 among labor-aristocratic and petit-bourgeois white people.



Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban. Slightly more than half of Latino voters, who made up almost 20 percent of voters, favored the ban, while 53 percent of whites opposed it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

ifeelyou
6th November 2008, 20:53
I live in California and I mailed a spoiled ballot on election day. I did not vote for or against this measure.

Seeing how our Black and Latino brothers overwhelmingly voted in favor of this measure, it is rather oversimplistic to attribute the results to religious fundamentalism. If Blacks and Latinos do not approve of same-sex marriage, then their desires should be respected. 90% of Blacks voted for Obama and 70% voted in favor of 8. Among the United States proletariat, Blacks have been the most consistently progressive.

It's interesting to note that those who agitated against this measure included the decadant Hollywood aristocracy and bourgeois liberal politicians like Senator Feinstein and the Mayor Newsom. I myself encountered formiddable opposition against 8 among labor-aristocratic and petit-bourgeois white people.

Regarding the "decadent Hollywood aristocracy and bourgeois liberal politicians," what is your point?

Regarding "among the United States proletariat, Blacks have been the most consistently progressive," what is your point?

Regarding " I myself encountered formiddable opposition against 8 among labor-aristocratic and petit-bourgeois white people," I am Latina and I vehemently opposed 8.

Plagueround
6th November 2008, 20:59
I live in California and I mailed a spoiled ballot on election day. I did not vote for or against this measure.

Seeing how our Black and Latino brothers overwhelmingly voted in favor of this measure, it is rather oversimplistic to attribute the results to religious fundamentalism. If Blacks and Latinos do not approve of same-sex marriage, then their desires should be respected. 90% of Blacks voted for Obama and 70% voted in favor of 8. Among the United States proletariat, Blacks have been the most consistently progressive.

It's interesting to note that those who agitated against this measure included the decadant Hollywood aristocracy and bourgeois liberal politicians like Senator Feinstein and the Mayor Newsom. I myself encountered formiddable opposition against 8 among labor-aristocratic and petit-bourgeois white people.

Even if the results of this were largely the result of black and latino votes, a socialist does not condone allowing one minority to repress others. Using that logic, we should condone all actions of our government, because, after all, that's what the people wanted and we should respect that. :rolleyes:

Chapaev
6th November 2008, 21:43
Regarding the "decadent Hollywood aristocracy and bourgeois liberal politicians," what is your point?

The point is that it is suspicious why such hostile-class elements had been opposed to the measure.


Regarding "among the United States proletariat, Blacks have been the most consistently progressive," what is your point?
I am suggesting that support among Blacks for the measure is based on good faith rather than religious fundamentalism. Many of those that voted for Obama also voted in favor of 8.

AAFCE
6th November 2008, 21:55
They also banned gay marriage in 2 other states, as well as a ban on unmarried couples being able to adopt in Alabama (which the supporters had no problem making very clear it was aimed at gays). Truly disgusting amidst an election that is trumpeting the notion of overcoming bigotry.

Same here, In Arkansas.


It was also aimed at Gays aswell.

ifeelyou
6th November 2008, 22:15
The point is that it is suspicious why such hostile-class elements had been opposed to the measure.

Why is it suspicious to you?


I am suggesting that support among Blacks for the measure is based on good faith rather than religious fundamentalism. Many of those that voted for Obama also voted in favor of 8.

What do you mean by "good faith"?

I guess I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to get at by racializing and classing the matter. What I'm suspicious of is that it seems like you're trying to bring up issues of race and class to justify this form of discrimination.

Plagueround
6th November 2008, 23:45
Same here, In Arkansas.


It was also aimed at Gays aswell.

My apologies, it should have said Arkansas in the first place. Last night crossing of wires.

Hyacinth
7th November 2008, 00:39
I am suggesting that support among Blacks for the measure is based on good faith rather than religious fundamentalism. Many of those that voted for Obama also voted in favor of 8.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Many of the working class are sexist, many of the working class are homophobic, many are religious, etc. This doesn't imply that revolutionaries shouldn't oppose sexism, homophobia, etc., nor does it mean that we shouldn't criticize workers who are such.


If Blacks and Latinos do not approve of same-sex marriage, then their desires should be respected.
If someone doesn't "approve" of gay marriage they can refrain from getting one. Otherwise it is none of their business.

Module
8th November 2008, 00:34
then their desires should be respected.
Err.. why? :confused:

Sasha
8th November 2008, 01:09
there is an call out to boycot Utah and anything from Mormon companys since from every 5 dollars spend on the yes on prop. 8 campaing 4 dollars where donated by the LTS (mormon church).
And since every mormon HAS to give 10% of his or her income to the church every mormon is resposible for passing this bigotry law.
because you see, Mariage should be between an man and a woman, and an woman, and an woman, and a woman etc etc.

pass the word: Utah is the new Coors...

Guerrilla22
8th November 2008, 01:12
It's a disgrace and an embarassment. Especially considering that many of the people that rushed out to vote for Obama also voted in favor of proposition 8.

Pogue
8th November 2008, 02:19
It has nothing to do with anyone except those getting married, therefore to restrict same-sex marriage is absoutely insane and morally abhorent. Theres so many things in the world to oppose, and some people oppose two people of the same sex uniting in love? mental.

AAFCE
8th November 2008, 03:08
Damn, Today in Civics, my teacher was talking about how happy she was California is finally getting some Christian Values..

I've never wanted to push someone down the stairs so much..

Foldered
8th November 2008, 05:30
I live in California and I mailed a spoiled ballot on election day. I did not vote for or against this measure.
What?

JohnnyC
8th November 2008, 07:26
This is what happens when you give power to the people over something that's none of their business.It only shows how great American democracy is... :rolleyes:

JorgeLobo
8th November 2008, 16:44
Understand your bias but disagree with your diagnosis. When the majority of the population demonstrates a behavior /shares a concept - those who disagree are typically considered aberrant.

Poor the gays - they don't get to play at the cute bourgeois concept of marriage. Maybe they ought to grow up politically and stop imitating those they see as oppressors.

deLarge
10th November 2008, 04:06
I say they should repeal the marriages of everyone who supported proposition 8..

N3p7uN3
14th November 2008, 14:40
Understand your bias but disagree with your diagnosis. When the majority of the population demonstrates a behavior /shares a concept - those who disagree are typically considered aberrant.

Poor the gays - they don't get to play at the cute bourgeois concept of marriage. Maybe they ought to grow up politically and stop imitating those they see as oppressors.

Yes, but you must keep in mind that not all homosexuals are necessarily leftist in ideology, so you cannot expect every oppressed group to start calling marriage a "bourgeois" concept.

Lenin's Law
14th November 2008, 21:02
Seeing how our Black and Latino brothers overwhelmingly voted in favor of this measure, it is rather oversimplistic to attribute the results to religious fundamentalism. If Blacks and Latinos do not approve of same-sex marriage, then their desires should be respected. 90% of Blacks voted for Obama and 70% voted in favor of 8. Among the United States proletariat, Blacks have been the most consistently progressive.


I fail to see your point.

Religious fundamentalism was certainly a major factor in all of this; including in the Black and Latino communities. Given the material conditions of many Blacks and Latinos in the US and the lack of a serious left alternative this is not really surprising. I don't see how the racial/ethnic background of someone prevents them from having a bigoted view on certain issues influenced heavily by religion.

By that logic we should "respect" all the corrupt, reactionary city bureacrats that have been elected in many urban areas..

TC
16th November 2008, 02:58
this truly sucks, its sad, and shameful for people to want to demean others most important, intimate personal relationships. Its just truely upseting i think.

Cheung Mo
17th November 2008, 22:37
All the fucking Mormon and fundie shitstains rigged the election. I hope the SLC Temple burns down.

On the bright side, former RIAA head Hilary Rosen had some of her rights taken away, and thinking of her and her partner crying makes me happy given the suffering they've inflicted on working class Americans.

Sendo
18th November 2008, 03:59
This is what happens when you give power to the people over something that's none of their business.It only shows how great American democracy is... :rolleyes:

You have to understand that right-wingers pour far more money into voting drives and propaganda for this.

Even with this sad news, Americans are economically very left even though they themselves don't know it (in clearly written, blind issue polling they always go far left). If we had absolute democracy many bourgeois institutions that propagate discrimination would disappear. In the meantime we can always educate people.

You can't condemn democracy because people aren't 100% perfect on social libertarianism. We just need to rally people and do a revote.

Or better yet, if we had real democracy, we would have no time for stupid referendums, only important ones. Look at the history of anti-black racism, the history of slavery (why and how did it become racial based in the Western hemisphere). Then look at the North American Indians, one of the very few groups of people who unconditionally accepted outsiders into their tribes as 100 % citizens (including many a white). What was the difference between Euros and Amerindians? ARe whites predisposed to racism? Or maybe it's their institutions. And we know why capitalism grew in Europe at the time it did.

Slight fear of what's different is often natural, but racism and sexism are the products of power.

Rascolnikova
18th November 2008, 13:04
there is an call out to boycot Utah and anything from Mormon companys since from every 5 dollars spend on the yes on prop. 8 campaing 4 dollars where donated by the LTS (mormon church).
And since every mormon HAS to give 10% of his or her income to the church every mormon is resposible for passing this bigotry law.
because you see, Mariage should be between an man and a woman, and an woman, and an woman, and a woman etc etc.

pass the word: Utah is the new Coors...

The appropriate acronym is LDS. They make a huge point of being "politically neutral."
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality

Here's a bit more of their propaganda.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=e1f83189-843f-41d7-84c4-2029fbd9a2ce

*sigh.*
:(

Poum_1936
18th November 2008, 17:34
They have to be politically neutral otherwise they could lose their tax exempt status as a church. However, since the large use of LDS money spent in support of passing prop 8 alot of people want the IRS to strip the Mormons of their tax exempt.

But I heard the church didn't contribute directly. But were not so subtle as to where members should personally donate.


Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

wasteman
18th November 2008, 21:45
Definately a set back, but we all know its only a matter of time before same sex marriage gets passed again, its the future and we should embrace it.

Rascolnikova
19th November 2008, 01:07
They have to be politically neutral otherwise they could lose their tax exempt status as a church. However, since the large use of LDS money spent in support of passing prop 8 alot of people want the IRS to strip the Mormons of their tax exempt.

But I heard the church didn't contribute directly. But were not so subtle as to where members should personally donate.

Annoying as fuck, but an important distinction.

freakazoid
19th November 2008, 06:22
This is why I think we need to focus less on getting laws passed to allow same sex couples to marry and focus more on getting the government out of marriage. Not only would homosexuals agree to this but I believe many anti-homosexuals would also support this.

Plagueround
19th November 2008, 08:34
This is why I think we need to focus less on getting laws passed to allow same sex couples to marry and focus more on getting the government out of marriage. Not only would homosexuals agree to this but I believe many anti-homosexuals would also support this.

My only concern with this is a number of important social programs that are designed to support single parents (particularly pregnant mothers) that are living off of their income alone.

freakazoid
19th November 2008, 09:09
What does being single have to do with governmental involvement with marriage? :confused:

Plagueround
19th November 2008, 09:19
What does being single have to do with governmental involvement with marriage? :confused:

If a person receives benefits for being a single parent, what act do you think would remove that status? I agree government needs to get their noses out of marriage, but if we were to go that route, we would need to ensure that it isn't used as a loophole to oust people who legitimately need these programs. Of course, everyone should have access to the assistance provided by such programs...

freakazoid
19th November 2008, 09:29
I see what you mean. Yeah, there should still be a program to help with things like that. If couples, homo or heterosexual, want the benefits that are currently given by being married then that should be a separate issue from marriage. Things like health and money issues.

Rascolnikova
19th November 2008, 17:44
I see what you mean. Yeah, there should still be a program to help with things like that. If couples, homo or heterosexual, want the benefits that are currently given by being married then that should be a separate issue from marriage. Things like health and money issues.

Of course, the obvious way to negate the state's involvement in marriage as a property relation would be universal health and welfare rights. . .

gorillafuck
23rd November 2008, 23:00
Disgusting:(

Sasha
24th November 2008, 09:48
:tt2: from the bill o reilly show

Prop 8 protesters target Christians Since gay marriage was rejected by California voters, there have been protests throughout the state, some of them violent. The Factor welcomed Christine Cloud, who went to a San Francisco gay neighborhood with some fellow Christian missionaries. "Our mission is to share the love of God and minister the gospel of Jesus Christ," Cloud said. "We are not trying to convert gay people into straight people, but we are telling them about Jesus in hopes that they would have that revelation." Cloud described how she was recently assaulted in San Francisco's Castro district. "We were singing 'Amazing Grace' when a man walked up to our group and picked up a Bible. He hit me upside the head with the Bible

see video @ link: http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/video/2008/11/christen_gemept_met_bijbel.html

Poison
24th November 2008, 18:08
I can proudly say that as a Californian I voted against this. However, this is the kind of thing that makes me have little patience with left-wingers who refuse to vote. I can completely understand why you wouldn't vote someone into office. However, when it comes to voting how your state is actually run, there's no excuse. If you knew this was wrong (and as a left-winger you should!) and didn't vote for it, what excuse do you have?