How Proposition 8 was won -- and lost

The Obama victory was tempered in certain circles of California by the victory of Proposition 8 -- an outcome that seemed to genuinely shock many opponents. How did the Yes on 8 crowd win the day? Political experts told The Times' Dan Morain a lot had to do with a simple, clear message that hit with a broad cross-section of voters:

They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings, and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed. Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%. "It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want," but the supporters shifted the focus to children.

Phil Bronstein says one statement by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the Yes on 8 team a great weapon:

Gavin Newsom screwed it up. Voters are the ones who make the decision but no one person handed the Yes on 8 campaign a more persuasive and compelling sound bite than our own mayor. Even if there were other flaws in the anti-8 operation, he was unquestionably the poster child for the pro-8 push, whether you like it or not. And unlike Willie Brown, whose 70s high afro and muttonchop sideburn photo got used as a thinly disguised racial scare tactic in the 80s by some Republican candidates for the State legislature (nothing he could do about it), Mr. Newsom willingly and imperiously handed over the ammunition in yesterday's election.

--Shelby Grad

Photo of Gavin Newsom: Associated Press

Comments

[DAVE]

i am from mass and i sighned a pettion for gay mariarge becuase the women taking the names said this is important to me and me getting maried will in no way affect you. i agreed with the aregument. the next thing i new catholic charities adopitions was gone. catholic charities asked for an exception so it could continue to excist as it always had. the gay rights people who dominated the politics in mass said no. well now you asked for something that was important to you and people said no. how does it feel? you get what you give in life.

[Dude]

Gays should establish civil unions first, then work towards official marriage. It takes time for people to accept new things, and so this will be the more effective route. Gay rights are inevitable, but ovbviously not immediate.

I think that homosexuality is genetic, similar to a genetic flaw of one's gender identity. Heterosexual's view this as a flaw, whereas homosexuals do not (obviously). I think it's better for gays to be accepted versus being repressed.

[Maciek Kolodziejczak]

As I watched the news about the continuing protest by No on Prop 8 supporters, I read the headline in the LA Times Thursday say: "Opponents of gay marriage shrewdly targeted the implications for schools, churches and children, analysts say." The article then quotes Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson: "It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system."

I found Mr. Johnson's comment particularly offensive. Let me put his analysis in perspective. Those opposed to interracial marriage used the same "masterful" arguments not so long ago. They raised the specter of "mulato" or "half breed" children. Opponents claimed that bi-racial children would be ostracized because they would not be accepted by either race of their parents. I do not deny the prejudice and discrimination that some mixed-race children experience even today. But is that the fault of marriage or of the ignorance and bigotry that still permeates our nation?

Characterizing the campaign to ban gay marriage as "masterful" and "shrewd" diminishes its deception, malice, and intolerance. Crafting injustice is not shrewd, it is wrong.

To this day, many people regard bi-racial or interfaith marriages as socially unacceptable. However, we no longer legally prohibit marriage for a man and a woman from different races, faiths, social status, or national origin. They are able to marry, despite the frequent social pressures that conspire to thwart these relationships.

Domestic partnership does not provide the same legal status, benefits, and protection that marriage does. We as gay and lesbian people do not seek the majority's approval or acceptance, but rather we seek our human rights as citizens of this country.

The Bible was used to justify slavery. Religious tenets were invoked in the vitriolic antagonism to interracial marriage and are still used today to subjugate women world wide. Religion continues to be articulated as the basis for the ban on same-sex marriage.

The phrase "the will of the people has spoken" has been used in previous initiative campaigns to justify the ban on gay marriage. The "will of people" intransigently entrenched slavery in this country. The "will of the people" continued racial segregation for over a hundred years after the civil war. The "will of the people" prevented women from voting until the early part of this century.

We have a right to marry, and are entitled to the rights and privileges that marriage affords. That is why the thrust of the No on 8 campaign addressed equality, justice, and fairness. That is why we march. That is why we are outraged about the deceit and treachery shrouded by political expediency. That is why we continue to challenge this injustice in the courts, the ballot box, and on the streets.

[Jenna.]

Why do homosexuals feel the need to align themselves with racial minorities as if it is the same thing? It's not comparable. Neither is their constant crowing that those apposed to their 'lifstyle' are Nazi's, or use Nazi-like tactics. Sorry, but there IS an agenda happeing here. Gay people have a DESPERATE need to be told their lifestyle is normal. Well, in my opinion, it's not. Two women having oral sex with each other is repulsive, and so is too men having intercourse. I suppose I'm a 'Nazi' for thinking this (those who use this slur have no idea just how hurtful it really is, a classic display of 21st century arrogance and ignorance), for not immeidately accepting their sexual activity without thought, for not goostepping out of fear of being labled a bigot. As someone whos family was severely slimmed by the Babi Yar massacres I can say that the majority of those who appose this agenda are NOT Nazi's...just people sick and tired of being told what to do, what to think and what to accept. I never thought of the gay community or even cared until it became a media objective to shove their world down my throat. I will NEVER accept homosexuality as natural, will teach my children the same and will not vote to have gay marriage legalized. People's habit of defining themselves by their sexual identity needs to stop. The gay communities constant need to be defined and congratulated by what they do in the privacy of their own homes has gone too far. Why must something so personal be accepted by so many? Even those you'll never have contact with? You lost. The vote was taken. Deal with it.

[dodz]

@ Steve D, AndrewCA, Liberty --

Thank you.

@ beckyvr --

I totally agree about the separating "beliefs" from "facts" thing.

@ Ivan Konstantinov --

Don't "copycat" you? Are you serious? Based on your name and your grammar, I would hazard to guess that you are not originally from America. But even if you were, your ancestors definitely weren't... So, tell me, does your entire family eat only what was traditional in the homeland, or have you "copied" Americans and started eating hamburgers and fries, watching football, using American money, checking out American girls? ... You have adopted what was not originally yours in a way that suits your lifestyle, but you're telling other people not to copy you?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Christianity didn't start out in Asia, did it? Yet, there are many Christians in Asia... Why was it okay for them to copy your religion over there?

Maybe your friend is usually calm, but perhaps he was not calm at that school... Heck, you're not at all calm in your post here, and your borderline hysteria makes me question the veracity of the things you say... Really, what do police cars called by the superintendent of the school your friend complained at have to do with not trusting gays? Did the GAY community send out APB's on your friend, chasing him down with the GAY policemen, in the GAY police car squadron, using the GAY streets leading up to your friend's house? That's utter garbage.

If you wish to say that gays affect your church, I will maybe accept that, if I also accept that you are extraordinarily narrow-minded, as there are many devout religious people who don't think it affects them.

However, if you complain about gays affecting YOUR schools -- those are THEIR schools, too. They pay taxes to fund these schools. They send their children there. They become involved in the PTA. It is THEIR school, and they have a right to see that THEY are represented. Get over your narcissism.

@ Fetrovsky --

"What's the big deal?"? Would it be a big deal to you if Prop 8 had been rejected? I assume so, since you bothered to post on this forum.

@ James --

You are using circular logic, by already defining marriage as traditional marriage. You also picked too narrow a subject, the square, in your analogy, and accordingly skewed your logic. Try picking polygon: "A polygon can have as many sides as it wants, but a square is a polygon that only has 4." Or, if you're going to be a real stickler about using the same word over, then: "A polygon is a figure that is bounded by a closed path, composed of a finite sequence of straight line segments, but a regular polygon is both cyclic and equilateral." The marriage statement would then be: "A marriage is the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, but a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman."

We use qualifiers all the time, even in marriage, precisely because there are many types of marriages. There are good marriages, bad marriages, love marriages, abusive marriages, marriages of convenience, thrill-seeking marriages, marriages based upon routine, honest marriages, marriages built on lies, interracial marriages. Whatever qualifier you add to it, those are still marriages by the legal definition, even though if you were to ask a random, decent person about a battered wife and abusive husband, they might say something like "Geez... What kind of a marriage is that?" That person's belief of what a marriage should be does not affect the legal rights and obligations associated with those people's marriage... Why should your beliefs of what a marriage should be have any bearing on a gay couple's legal relationship status?

@ Chris C --

So, can hermaphrodites get married? Because they'd be able to procreate... Would you have a problem with a hermaphrodite marrying a person of the same gender that the hermaphrodite appears to be on the surface (for example, a hermaphrodite with a male face marrying a male)?

I have nothing against hermaphrodites, by the way, and I don't think it's worse than having only female or only male reproductive organs. I'm just bringing this up because I don't think your real problem with gay marriage is the ability to procreate.

If you object to homosexuals being married for not being able to procreate, then why should heterosexual couples who cannot, or choose not to, procreate be allowed to marry? They clearly are not getting married to procreate, after all. Nobody is rewarded in life simply for their POTENTIAL to do something, but for what they ACTUALLY do... Yet, you are saying that heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry for their POTENTIAL to procreate.

And you totally missed the point of Steve D's statement, which is that discriminating against gay marriage is arbitrary, and it denies that right to a whole group of people for no reason other than a single shared quality.

@ jd --

"The people" have not spoken [in favor of Prop 8]. A 52% to 48% pass rate is hardly a mandate. It barely passed, with 48% of "the people" speaking out against it.

Please, for the sake of those who voted against Prop 8 -- and for the many people who objected to Prop 8 but were too young to vote -- stop trying to speak for us.

@ Pamela Snow --

The issue isn't whether you can say what you believe in. The issue is that gays do not have the right to live their beliefs, the way you do.

@ Deborah --

How is homosexuality not "another form of lifestyle"? (1) It is definitely a lifestyle. (2) It is not yours; in other words, it is another.

The gay lifestyle -- even gay marriage -- in no way pushes the rights of homosexuals onto you. As it is their RIGHT, it is something INHERENT to them. It exists whether or not YOU exist.

I'm willing to bet that you push your right to live in a safe neighborhood on the police. I'm willing to bet that you push your right to have your children educated in a safe environment on school officials. I'm willing to bet that you push your right to be respected as a human being with an actual brain, personality, and feelings upon some chauvinistic males, to not be discriminated against in the hiring process because of your gender. I'm willing to bet you would support a female friend's right to not be sexually harassed at work. If you were ever unemployed, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be completely averse to pushing your right to an unemployment check, which comes from the taxes collected from the population at large -- including from gays. So, basically, you're pushing your rights onto them already.

Even now, you are pushing your "right" to live in your own little bubble where homosexuality does not and should not exist on other people who (1) do not agree with your worldview, and (2) want nothing to do with your worldview.

Teaching your children morals, by the way, is YOUR job as the parent. If you're so afraid of them learning bad morals, then be a better mother.

You answered your question of "What makes 'equal rights' for gays more important than anyone else's rights?" -- the fact that it's EQUAL rights. You have rights that they don't: Your lifestyle IS taught, your commitment to your partner IS recognized. Their rights are not more important than anybody else's, nor are they saying that they are -- they are merely asking for EQUAL RIGHTS.

@ Bob Jones -- I might recognize that gay unions do not have the same "essence" in that they cannot procreate naturally, but as a commitment to a partner, how do they not have the same "value" as a heterosexual union? Honestly, I think a healthy gay relationship has much more value than any abusive heterosexual relationship any day -- and partner abuse IS a big problem.

@ What about MY rights? --

First of all, pedophiles and people engaging in bestiality are not about relationships and commitment; they are about the physical act of getting off, which does not resemble marriage in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, they actually harm or take advantage of the people/animals they engage in these activities with. Gay couples aren't harming each other when they wish to get married.

[DrSurf]

I believe that homosexuality is immoral, and am very heartened that a majority of Californians agree with me. Thank God for Barak Obama. His candidacy brought millions of black men and women to the polls and helped acheive this fantastic victory.

[Ivan Konstantinov]

I am fine with you gays having a civil union, as protected as it can be. But marriage... Sorry people you have to see and admit that the very thing marriage came out not of the homosexuals, not trying to offend here, but from heterosexuals. Don't just copycat the us because we got what you don't and again not to offend but it is what it is. You gotta admit it if you are in sane state of mind. Have your civil union, who minds???! I don't ! But marriage? When you gonna be able to recreate, or clearer yet to have torn your front stuff giving a birth to child from your very partner vastly conceived in natural way, then, who minds have your marriage. But if it is not what it is, then don't call it marriage, because it is not in the gays case.
Simply leave our churches alone, don't make us do the nonsense. The idea of marriage is to procreate in a Makers given way, why do you make churches to marry you when they are supposed to do that to a couple of man+woman?
You should not boldly lie that it will not affect our schools, our churches, so bold lie! before the first voting that judges overturned, gay community was hopeful. My friend which is very calm, I would say even extremely slow man was met at home with five! I REPEAT FIVE POLICE CARS! when he returned home after driving his child to school. He talked to school admin asking his kids not to be exposed to possible gay education materials. and he got bunch of cops waiting for him at home later. Cops asked him why he shouted at school. My God! You people just happened to run into a wrong man, my friend is so calm and quiet that for years and years that I know him, and also he is known close to several thousand people I repeat several thousand people know him. Some people know him very close, and he is known to never do what the cops asked him why he shouted in school. Wrong man people, you just really got the wrong man... After that I am a lot away from gays... You people should think very well before doing things like that. No law even was enacted and the very respected man got five police cars at his door... How can I trust gays after that. My friend was shocked to the bottom of his consciousness... He now doesn't trust gays even at a range of several hundred miles. If I would get abused like that I guess me too. and I do believe now if gays get the law like prop 8 in their favor we are done then, ready to come into the grave alive... I exhale and that people for keeping the traditional values as is and I say you gays have your civil union I don't mind, just don't mimick what is holy to us. You will not make it look and stand right, just please indeed stay sane!

[Ivan Konstantinov]

I am fine with you gays having a civil union, as protected as it can be. But marriage... Sorry people you have to see and admit that the very thing marriage came out not of the homosexuals, not trying to offend here, but from heterosexuals. Don't just copycat the us because we got what you don't and again not to offend but it is what it is. You gotta admit it if you are in sane state of mind. Have your civil union, who minds???! I don't ! But marriage? When you gonna be able to recreate, or clearer yet to have torn your front stuff giving a birth to child from your very partner vastly conceived in natural way, then, who minds have your marriage. But if it is not what it is, then don't call it marriage, because it is not in the gays case.
Simply leave our churches alone, don't make us do the nonsense. The idea of marriage is to procreate in a Makers given way, why do you make churches to marry you when they are supposed to do that to a couple of man+woman?
You should not boldly lie that it will not affect our schools, our churches, so bold lie! before the first voting that judges overturned, gay community was hopeful. My friend which is very calm, I would say even extremely slow man was met at home with five! I REPEAT FIVE POLICE CARS! when he returned home after driving his child to school. He talked to school admin asking his kids not to be exposed to possible gay education materials. and he got bunch of cops waiting for him at home later. Cops asked him why he shouted at school. My God! You people just happened to run into a wrong man, my friend is so calm and quiet that for years and years that I know him, and also he is known close to several thousand people I repeat several thousand people know him. Some people know him very close, and he is known to never do what the cops asked him why he shouted in school. Wrong man people, you just really got the wrong man... After that I am a lot away from gays... You people should think very well before doing things like that. No law even was enacted and the very respected man got five police cars at his door... How can I trust gays after that. My friend was shocked to the bottom of his consciousness... He now doesn't trust gays even at a range of several hundred miles. If I would get abused like that I guess me too. and I do believe now if gays get the law like prop 8 in their favor we are done then, ready to come into the grave alive... I exhale and that people for keeping the traditional values as is and I say you gays have your civil union I don't mind, just don't mimick what is holy to us. You will not make it look and stand right, just please indeed stay sane!

[Chris C]

Steve D writes: "Prohibiting the marriage of homosexuals is the same as prohibiting the marriage of heterosexuals"

The equivalent contrapositive statement is: Permitting the marriage of heterosexuals is the same as permitting the marriage of homosexuals.

I beg to differ. Homosexual marriage is never procreative, while heterosexual marriage can be.

That alone is sufficient to show a real, non-null distinction between the two forms of relationship. If one wishes to emotionalize this, they will miss the point that good law first requires us to recognize actual differences of circumstance -- something that four Supreme Court justices resolutely failed to do.

[Pamela Snow]

If one side has the right to argue it's case, why is the other not allowed to argue theirs? If you want to stand up for your life style, why can't I? If you want to teach children what marriage means, why am i not allowed that same right or desire? The majority won. If you are going to villify one side for fighting for what they believe than why did the other side have the right to fight for what they wanted? Are some groups allowed to speak and not others? All I am saying is that if someone says they believe in gay marriage, why can't someone else say they don't believe it?

[Love4All]

What supporters of No on Prop 8 fail to realize is that many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, Whites, Agnostics, and Atheists voted to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Not all of these people are bigoted or full of hatred as many of No on Prop 8 will paint them. People of the book (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) believe their Bible, Torah, Qu'ran is the Word of God and they will follow these tenements to the best of their ability. What surprises me is the disgust, hatred, and name-calling that people who do not believe in God have for people who do? Also, marriage between blacks and whites was not forbidden by the Bible. Enforcing the enslavement of black people by white people was not instructed by the Bible. The Bible says that slaves (servants) should obey their masters. It did not say that one group of people has a right to take another group of people as slaves, however, it did say that man lieing with mankind is an abomination to God. Does that mean that people of the faith are to hate those who choose to do so? Absolutely not. Can they actually be friends to these people, yes, of course! This country has freedom of speech and religion. So, one's right to believe in their faith is also protected by the law.

[Evolution and natural selection]

Legislation currently exists that affords the same rights to gay partners/unions as heterosexual married couples. Human beings are heterosexual from a species and evolutionary standpoint. A constitutional amendment will not change that fact. The moral construct of marriage evolved as a method to ensure procreation and the maintenance of the support of family units resulting from heterosexual union. The survival of our species relies on heterosexual union. Natural selection will ensure that this characteristic of our species continues. Homosexuality in most heterosexual species occurs as a natural form of birth control in response to over crowding. Study physical anthropology, ethology, and comparative mammalian physiology and you will see that these socio-cultural issues are not new and will ebb and flow in accordance with population density.

[J.J.]

Prop 8 does not discriminate, it only defines. Heterosexuals can't marry same sex people either. Then again, we don't want to.Just because some people want to call an apple an orange doesn't change the fact that an apple is an apple, and an orange is an orange.

[seethelight]

No on 8 lost because their argument is flawed. You cannot equate a lifestyle choice with race, gender or ethnicity. The Constitution was never designed to guarantee special lifestyle protections. Gay couples already have every right, benefit and protection under the state's domestic partnership laws. Proposition 8 did nothing to undo that. Trying to argue that Proposition 8 removes fundamental rights is a blatant lie. Do I agree with the homosexual lifestyle? No. Should gays be involved in committed relationships? I don't believe so, but go right ahead and live your life. You are free to do so, just don't try to get society to legitimize your behavior, which is the only purpose in trying to push same-sex marriage on Californians.

[jd]

The people have spoken. Doesn't anyone think it should be respected? Prop 8 won.

[Harley]

Those who say "live and let live" are fooling themselves.

OUR DECISIONS, AND THE WAY WE LIVE OUR LIVES, IMPACT OTHERS.

Yes, those who voted for Prop 8 affected the lives of many people in the gay community. Likewise, those who support gay marriage, or even openly gay lifestyles, affect the lives of those people who believe in traditional marriage and conservative values in raising their children.

Society decides how to balance those conflicting interests, and has recently done so with Prop 8.

Equal rights, but without the word marriage.

[Harley]

It's very simple: LEAVE THE WORD "MARRIAGE" ALONE. It's a word with an established meaning--Man and Wife. The Court was wrong, by a 4/3 margin, in ruling that the word itself (assuming all rights are otherwise equally shared) is a "fundamental right." That's absurd. Courts can be wrong, and that's what happened here, causing the current chaos.

Marriage is a brand name. It has always meant something specific. Now, the gay movement is trying to steal and hijack a word that does not apply to them. Period.

Develop your own brand name. Be proud. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, equality under the law has been the amazing accomplishments of the gay movement. They should be proud of, and grateful for, those expanded rights.

However, hijacking the word marriage was a bad move.

[valleyvalley]

I'm sure supporters of Proposition 8 would like to thank San Francisco first grade teacher, Erin Carder, for helping galvanize votes. When she took her first grade class on a field trip to city hall to watch her same-sex marriage on October 11th, the timing couldn't have been better. It was proof that there would be a "spill-over" into public school education.

The most thanks, however, should go to Gavin Newsome. He is the face of gay rights and, unfortunately, his greatest talent is in totally infuriating others. His pompousness is becoming legendary. If Gavin is for it, you can be sure that people will vote against it - he is disliked that much.

[Corwin D]

Actually, we liberal bastards aren't trying to impose our point of view on people.

People who preferred marriage to be restricted to a man and a woman have used the political process to gain social and economic benefits.

Fine. But the political process is not holy, and not a religion. Now some unmarriageable couples (in the sense of many religions) are using the political process to take the same goods. (Get over it.)

The real problem is the attempted ensnarlment of a sacrament with the affairs of a secular government. Marriage would ideally be left to the churches.

Think about this: Most marriage laws are written by states for administering the "sacrament" of divorce. The laws also entitle the federal government to more money from married couples.

But if married couples are being doled preferences that same-sex couples are denied, then I am supportive of establishing same-sex civil marriage.

[UK]

This just shows how horribly backward America is next to the rest of the civilised world

your a bunch of Neanderthals

[Liberty]

I am genuinely surprised that so many have so little understanding about the actual position that gay and lesbian couples are put in when they want to commit to each other for life. So often the argument is that they are infringing on everyone else's rights to define marriage and not as if they are just trying to ensure their own civil rights under the law, for their own relationship.

If a same-sex couple gets married, it really has no bearing at all on my own marriage or on the views of my own church about same-sex marriage, or what I will teach my children, which is my own responsibility. Supporters of proposition 8 succeeded in framing this as an infringement on the rights of the majority as opposed to our constitution's stance on protecting the rights of minorities.
To me this is a common issue in American politics. Would I personally have an abortion? No. Do I feel comfortable actively voting against another woman's right to choose what is best for her? Absolutely not. Therefore I can practice my morality, and encourage my friends to make the best choices for them, but I'm not going to use the law to actively remove the rights of others. There were nearly 18,000 couples, many who have been committed to each other for decades (better rates than many heterosexual couples, despite overwhelming difficulties and lack of support) that had a LEGAL right to marriage under law one day, and not the next.

Do I feel as though I represent Christ's love by excluding them from legal protections? No. Does proposition 8 have anything to do with my own faith or practice? No. As Jesus Christ said, render unto Caesar that which is Caesars (i.e., our constitutional protection of minorities), and render unto God that which is God's.

[James]

The only "rights" disputed in this was the right to redefine the term "marriage" legally. Changing legal definitions for a sense of self-satisfaction, at the cost of mitigating the strength of society's cultural/social/biological/psychological/educational/moral/intellectual developmental foundation is not the right of a minority. It's not anyone's right. It's ridiculous the proposition had to be drafted in the first place to remove the modifiers of "traditional" in front of "marriage". That's as silly as forcing us to begin saying "A square can have as many sides as it wants, but a traditional square only has 4!"

[Robert]

My daughter (13 years old) was singled out in her 8th grade class last Friday for supporting the Proposition 8 campaign. Their teacher began the discussion by explaining that she is against Prop 8 and explained why Prop 8 was wrong for society. She ten asked for those students who supported Prop 8 to raise their hands. Only four students (out of 28) raised their hands.This shameful teacher made the four students feel like they had voted wrong and proceeded to tell them why. This is exactly why I supported Prop 8 and am glad it won. Before that happened, I had heard of other stories, but never was quite sure how accurate they were. Now that it has happened to our family, I'm 100% resolute in resisting any future attempt to change the constitution.

[Bryan]

"MAJORITY RULES, SORRY, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA, HOWEVER HE IS MY NEW ELECTED PRESIDENT."

So if one day, all the whites decided to vote a proposition that states all other races are below the caucasian race, do you think the government should pass that proposition?

Democracy strive under the condition that the "People" are smart and knows what's good for themselves.

But in a condition where the slight majority (52%!) habours so much hate and contempt for the minority, then, democracy is not a wise system to pursue. For if democracy is built on a nation that is infested with hatred amongst one another, the state would simply collapse as the minorities would be stripped of every single right.

[Debra]

Now they want to challenge the vote, take it to the court, have somebody else decide... whatever goes just as long as it is THEIR will that prevails, right? As I said, you lost. Get over it.

Posted by: Fetrovsky | November 06, 2008 at 09:37 AM

WE WILL NOT! WE"RE HERE< WE"RE QUEER GET USED TO IT!!
WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, GET USED TO IT!
WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, GET USED TO IT!

Let's take it to the streets, my fellow Gay Americans! Rise Up!

[Fetrovsky]

What's the big deal? Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? Why are all these liberal bastards trying to impose their point of view over everybody? A law was proposed, everyone voted, and it passed. Period. Get over it.

Now they want to challenge the vote, take it to the court, have somebody else decide... whatever goes just as long as it is THEIR will that prevails, right? As I said, you lost. Get over it.

[Sam K]

I am sorry but "Marriage" has been clearly defined before the U.S even came into being. Civil unions suit me just fine for Homosexuals. Also gay is not a ethnic group.

[What about MY rights?]

Minority = GAY & LESBIAN
Minority = POLIGAMY
Minority = PEDOPHILES
Minority = BESTIALITY

WHY SHOULD GAY AND LESBIAN MARRY AND THE PEDOPHILES, MORMONS, PEDOPHILES and ANIMAL LOVERS GO TO JAIL?

Heck if the Gay have rights so too MUST the other MINORITIES!

[Obama Win is the bigger story]

President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to repeal D.O.M.A.....the "Defense" Of Marriage Act. And with a Democratic majority in the house & senate has a good shot, as well as--Don't Forget--naming U.S. Supreme Court justices. That is the silver lining in this story. Just chill and wait.....wait

[beckyvr]

It is fine to have to beliefs against gays based on certain churches (biased and outdated bible) but to use the "belief" and not a "fact" to discriminate and second class a minority group is WRONG. It is very common that supporter of Prop 8 use " FEAR TACTICS to mislead the real issue here which is equal protection for everyone blacks, asian, arab decent, gays, straights, disable people ect... The real issue here is equal right for two adults who want to get married (unions don't have the same right as marriage) and it is NOT ABOUT with teaching children at school about gay marriage or impose sexual preference on people. Also that i find it is quite sad and ironic that majority Africian-American support Prop 8 which discriminates a minority group. If they don't want to be discriminated then please don't discriminate others based on your religious belief. We should educate people about tolerance and separate religion from law making.

[Harley]

People who are crying "Equality for All" had better be prepared to support polygamy, sibling marriages, and other nontraditional unions as marriage. Otherwise, they are hypocrites.

If Prop 8 failed and I were a polygamist, I'd be challenging anti-bigamy laws as unconstitutional. Based on the state supreme court's logic (and without Prop 8), ANY limits placed on marriage (polygamy, sibling marriages, etc.) would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

Marriage has been deemed a "fundamental right" under the state constitution, and cannot be limited unless there is a compelling state interest. None exists to make the distinction between gay marriage and polygamy or other nontraditional unions.

I am sad that Prop 8 has caused so much hurt. But most voters believe it is best for our society to protect the historical definition of marriage.

[Bob Jones]

it's dissappointing that we have high school teachers like "Sarah" who readily practice intellectual dishonesty. Prop 8 proponents did not fear a discussion about homosexuality as it relates to politics or otherwise. On the contrary, any fair minded person welcomes that discussion. The concern expressed was over the redifinition of marriage and the teaching of "gay marriage" as being of the same value and essence as traditional heterosexual marriage when science, common sense, and reality prove otherwise.

[AndrewCA]

Paula: Your comparison of how you feel about Obama (even though you did not vote for him) and how gay people and their millions of supporters feel about the passage of Prop 8 is fundamentally flawed. Obama's win, however disappointing to you, did not relegate you to a second-class citizen. You still have every right you had on November 3. Prop 8, on the other hand, removed a right from gay people in CA and they now have FEWER rights than they had on November 3. Get it?? Gay people and their supporters cannot and will not simply 'move on' from this. Not now. Not ever - any more than you would be able to move on if you were suddenly told yesterday that you personally were unfit and unworthy of marriage equality. If you can suppress your glee for one moment at the hurt and anger this has caused gay people, be prepared to hear a whole lot more about this in the months and years ahead -- however long it takes.

[Joy]

"the No on 8 movement stepped all over it's message of tolerance, by vilifying religious opponents as bigots and haters"
ok. We hear people who say "i don't want a black president, but i'm not racist" or "i don't want my daughter to marry a black man, but i'm not a bigot" or "i will never speak to my son if he's gay, but i'm not a hater".
I agree that that putting a the label "bigot" or "hater" may not be the right titles, but how do you explain the people who make those comments and think they have the right to affect the lives of others?
As americans we "gave" interracial couples the right to marry. A right that should not need to be "given" but belongs every human couple who decides to take the big step to commit to each other.

Those "reasonable voices" did not want to allow for interracial marriage in the 60's, and some day gay marriage will not be an issue.

Peace.

[Debra]

It makes me want to move to CA to help in the fight, but then who would deal with the bigots in TN? They're everywhere!!
My brother refuses to meet my partner, and will not allow us to be around his child. When she grows up and wonders why she doesn't have a close relationship with her VERY cool Aunt Debra, what's he going to say then? What if by then she has discovered for herself that she is gay? They say it's a choice, it's a sin, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line....separate but equal never works. You label someone as different, or worse yet, wrong, and you are setting the example of bigotry and intolerance for your children. They are going to be very disapopinted in you when they figure it out.

[Deborah]

I don't get it. No one cares whether or not homosexuals are allowed to marry. If that's what they want to do, then so be it. They can take it up with God when they meet their maker. He'll let them know that their marriage was nothing but a sham. However, my concern isn't about gays being married. My concern and the reason I whole heartedly support YES ON 8 is the ramifications if prop 8 didn't pass. You have to be living with your head in a hole if you really think prop 8 is JUST ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. I don't push my heterosexual "rights" and beliefs on others. However, you better believe if prop 8 didn't pass there would be lawsuit after lawsuit from homosexuals (with the support and even funding from the ACLU) until their "rights" and lifestyle was PUSHED into my life. I don't want my children being taught that being gay is "another form of lifestyle". I don't want my church being told whom they must perform marriage ceremonies on. I don't want my rights trampled on because someone else insists that they have "more" rights since they are considered a "minority". It's absurd. I had a friend tell me "just stay out of their bedroom". Let me tell you, if it STAYED in their bedroom and didn't infringe on the rights of others I wouldn't care. Let me remind you, the government didn't stay out of the Mormon's "bedrooms" when plural marriage was practiced. What makes "equal rights" for gays more important than anyone else's rights?

[Rightsforall]

Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. Representative Seaborn Roddenbery compared the marriage of an African American man and a white women to the enslavement of white women, and warned of future civil war that would ensue if interracial marriage was not made illegal nationwide: His speech to pass an amendment to the US Constitution: “No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainous character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [Applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratify it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy” Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502-503. Note that many of the laws were not just whites and African Americans. It was whites not allowed to marry any other race based on biblical teachings. History is doomed to repeat itself.

[Shash Nahalin]

In addition to Gavin Newsom's arrogant dismissal of otjher reasonable voices, the No on 8 movement stepped all over it's message of tolerance, by vilifying religious opponents as bigots and haters. Ad hominem arguments are inherently fallacies. Using intolerance in an ad hominem argument and then shining the light on your own intolerance can some times turn a 5 % lead into a 5% loss as it did here. Votes notice such things.

[Sarah]

I am a high school teacher and yesterday the kids were talking politics in the halls! (This is not the norm.)
Whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right, teachers must protect their students from discrimination. Yesterday, in the aftermath of this decision, I had MORE conversations with students about homosexuality than I have ever had before... the very thing that the supporters of 8 "feared."

[PAULA ALEX]

MAJORITY RULES, SORRY, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA, HOWEVER HE IS MY NEW ELECTED PRESIDENT. SIMPLE. PROP 8 WON. YOU TRIED. I WANT MY VOTE TO MATTER. WHY SHOULD IT NOT? WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE THINKING THEIRS MATTERS MORE? WE ARE ALL EQUAL RIGHT? ISN'T THIS THE THING WE ALL WANT?

[Steve D]

Regarding Proposition 8--

The act of becoming married neither infringes upon nor restricts the rights and freedoms of other persons or groups.

Prohibiting marriage based on a characteristic shared by a group or class of people does infringe upon and restrict the rights and freedoms of that class of people.

Prohibiting the marriage of homosexuals is the same as prohibiting the marriage of heterosexuals, or of people of mixed race, or people with blue eyes, or people who like football or are less than 5 feet tall. It unfairly abridges the rights and freedoms of a particular class of people, like prohibiting women from voting or blacks from sharing public bathroom facilities with whites.

Proposition 8 has that fundamental flaw that makes it unfair and unconstitutional. Sooner or later a ban against gay marriage, like all other arbitrarily prejudicial laws, will be challenged and destroyed on that basis.