Prop. 8 supporters angry over protests

From his living room in Leisure World in Seal Beach, Larry Black has watched the anti-Proposition 8 protests on his TV. He's read about the legal challenges to overturn the measure. And he has a thought.

"It's ridiculous," said Black, 66. "It's the people's vote. . . . That's the way it should be. That's it."

Voters in Orange County passed the measure banning gay marriage last week by a margin of 14 percentage points, a larger victory than statewide.

On Main Street in Seal Beach on Monday, a sampling of supporters vented their frustration over the contentious issue dragging on after a clear win at the polls.

Read the rest of the story here.

--Joe Mozingo

Photo: Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Martin7052]

The “Cross Stomping” by opponents of Prop 8 disturbed me. It’s on You Tube. I have been a practicing Christian all my life, and so have my parents, grandparents, great great grandparents and so on. Our foundation is built on Christianity. Opponents of prop 8, do not defile religious symbols. That is not a good idea.

[Drew]

"What are people going to be asking for next?" she asked.

Answer: Equality under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Any more questions?

[Alek B.]

It's not that simple Mr. Black. We have government for a reason, Otherwise the general public could vote on anything and everything. This is a civil rights issue, and although the majority of the people might not think its okay to take away rights from a minority based on their sexual orientation, our laws do not. We will prevail through legislative measures, and soon the American people will see the constitution at work, protecting everyone under the law.

[John K.]

Good! Let them be angry. Why should we be the only ones? We should make their lives miserable by blocking traffic and protesting churches and weddings until they drag their bigot asses back to the polls to undo this travesty.

[cisco]

you lost means you lost... the people voted and thats it.. the law was made for the people by the people legislative measures dont mean anything and this is the constitution working the majority vote won so deal with it

[PDuff]

Why can't you people be patient like women, blacks, Mexicans and Jews were? We'll give you your 'rights' when we're good and ready! And don't push us -- be thankful we've allowed you to keep the rights you have. Ingrates!

http://www.newsophile.com/2008/11/yes-on-prop-8-supporters-grow-impatient.html

[sadhana]

What I don't get is why do people like Mr Black and others who voted yes to Prop 8 think its OK for them to pass judgement on what other people can do or not?
How does it affect you?
Does it lessen the value of your marriage?
By gays getting married what do YOU loose?
this is insanity and I think people have forgotten that in 1967 blacks couldn't marry whites and that was changed because it is the right thing to do
Yes voters of Prop 8 just show their own insecurities & narrow sense of the word.

[Cristina Buxeda]

I wish I was in California. I'd protest with them.
Most people didn't agree that blacks and whites should be getting married on the same basis: God, religion.
They claimed God didn't want the races to mix. My grandmother still thinks that way.

Now, claiming blacks and whites can't wed is "politically wrong". The courts decide, the younger generations agree, and after some time passes... churches follow in agreement. Justice has always prevailed in this country. It will be no different with this minority group.

[Thoughtful]

The "No on 8" folks keep trying to frame this as if it is just a "civil rights" issue -- it's not. It's about how we DEFINE marriage, NOT whether marriage is permitted or not. Neither gender is optional, nor unnecessary, for a healthy family unit; anything that affirms otherwise is just flat-out not the Truth.

This is akin to the abortion issue, in a way: How one defines "where does human life begin" from a legal perspective, has HUGE implications for what "rights" the child/fetus/tissue in question has at that time. We are talking about moving a boundary, not unlike moving the definition of "human life begains at ______" from "viability" (which is basically where it stands now in our law, though with much that self-conflicts) to "conception" or "at first breath."

The "gay rights'' folks want to redefine the word, because it re-frames the argument. Trouble is, marriage isn't just about "two people in love" -- it has much deeper implications than that, and (unfortunately, IMO) is tied to many so-called "rights" that perhaps should not be off-limits to even single people.

There IS much to discuss on this issue, but ram-rodding an anything-goes perspective on how we define something as societally foundational as marriage, is not only obnoxious; it's fundamentally wrong, and not in the best interest of society.

Men, and women. BOTH are essential.