Voters oppose putting gay marriage back on the ballot, Times/USC poll finds

A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot next year, a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has found.

Views on same-sex marriage were sharply polarized based on political party, with 66% of Democrats thinking it should be legal and 71% of Republicans in opposition. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59%-34%.

Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed. Strikingly, however, almost 60% of Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot. 

In November of 2008, Californians voted 52% to 48% to limit marriage rights to one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage advocates have been split over whether to push for a new vote next year or wait until 2012, when the presidential contest will draw more voters to the polls than would be expected to cast ballots in next year's midterm elections.

Supporters of gay marriage are also strategizing in other states but on Tuesday received a stinging rebuke when voters in Maine repealed a state measure that had granted marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The California findings come from a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts & Sciences poll. The survey, which interviewed 1,500 registered voters from Oct. 27 through Nov. 3, was conducted for the Times and USC by two nationally prominent polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. The results have a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points. Full results of the poll, including the status of the campaigns for governor and the U.S. Senate, will be published Sunday in the Times and on latimes.com.

The survey showed that same-sex marriage continues to reverberate differently along race and generational lines. Just over half of whites backed it, while just under half of African Americans and Latinos did.

All three groups, however, opposed having to vote on it in 2010. (Asians were questioned by the poll and included in the overall sample, but their numbers were statistically too small to isolate.) Young voters continued to be far more supportive of gay marriage rights than their elders.

Among those ages 18-29, 71% said they supported same-sex marriage; among those 65 and older, only 37% favored it. Younger voters were also one of the few groups who backed putting it on the 2010 ballot, which will be dominated by the races for governor and U.S. Senate.

The difference in views by age likely explains, in part, the changing results in California on same-sex marriage. In 2000, voters outlawed it by a margin of 61%-39%; by last November’s ballot, opposition had slipped significantly. Election results differ from poll results, of course, because not everyone polled will cast ballots.

-- Cathleen Decker

Comments

[JV]

Why? Are they afraid the tide will turn in 2 years?

[Bijan Khezri]

It would serve a purpose if Cathleen Decker and her editors learned how to write in English, before working for LA Times. But I guess the paper has gone down the tubes... so now we have this title:

"A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot next year."

Could someone look "majority" in the dictionary, and compare it to "larger portion". How can "larger portion" be bigger than "majority"???????

[Don R.]

It's official.
CHRISTIANITY = HATE

[Lee B.]

I would love to legalize gay marriage in all fifty states right now - as far as I'm concerned, it's already legal under federal constitutional law. But putting it on the ballot next year guarantees the anti-gay-marriage base will turn out in droves again. Waiting hurts, but it will be much easier to pass this thing in 2012 or later, when more teenagers are voting age.

[Majority vs Minority]

Your first paragraph states: "A small majority of California voters supports..." and "a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts..."

So which is the majority group? You cannot have a small majority when there is a yes or no question. You are either in the majority or in the minority. You can have a small majority if there are more than two options in the question.

[Gaucho420]

When inter-racial marriage was illegal and the Supreme Court made it legal, over 70% of the American populace was agaisnt mixed-race marriages. The Supremem court, however, chose to protect the right of minorities over the WRONG BELIEFS of the majority. The US is a great laggard when it comes to social equality, it is a very bad fabric of the USA...we typically come around, but much later than the rest of the world.

So who cares what the voters think? Its the government jobs to protect minorities and just because people have wrong opinions, doesn't mean they're right.

[G]

How can you have the title of your story state "a small majority"? That is very misleading. The word majority denotes more than half, and there is by no means more than half of Californians in favor of gay marriage. I personally do not have " a horse in this race" and do not care one way or the other, I would just like some intellectual honesty from reporters regardless of their personal feelings!

[Tony Trigueros]

What is this? The power of positive thinking? In 2008 you had your best shot at this, and yet you still lost. Now, one year later you claim that a small majority support this? No wonder major newspapers are failing across the country, you and your brethren in NY and the AP, might as well call yourselves Pravda!!

[Anabelle]

Why is it so hard for the gay community to accept that the mainstream of society does not accept homsexuality as a normal human relationship? It's not about religion, or rights, or equlity, or anything else. Its about the social definition of natural relationships - a man and a woman. Any abberation is accpetable as it is a free country, BUT gay people need to stop cramming it down our throats, forcing us to accepet what they define as normal and we don't. Until the majority of the population is gay and we are the anomoly, too bad. Get over it.

[Kevin]

"Election results differ from poll results, of course, because not everyone polled will cast ballots."

And not everyone tells the truth to the pollster.

[John McLaughlin]

Some of our citizens are unaware of the phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and taken from the writings of British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780). Locke and Blackstone argued that the laws of man must comply with the immutable laws of nature instituted by nature’s God.
Since the writings of Locke and Blackstone greatly influenced the American Revolutionaries and subsequently the framers of our U.S. Constitution, it’s imperative that our laws take into consideration those eight words borrowed by Jefferson that have served as an underpinning for our U.S. Constitution and hence each state’s constitution.
Any fair minded citizen must conclude that homosexual acts do indeed go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce neither can they engage in sexual intercourse that is compatible to the design of the human body. Therefore, to enact a law that legitimizes any union that runs contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” will in fact violate this higher law that the framers of our Constitution considered key for the prudent governing of our society.
Why should we or why would we attempt to redefine the time honored definition of marriage and undermine the foundations of our constitutional law? Do we regard ourselves wiser than those who have gone before—those who laid the foundations of the world’s greatest democracy? If through our laws we should validate homosexual unions as a legitimate expression of marriage, then we would indeed go against the wisdom of our nation’s founders.
The majority of California’s voters made the correct call when they passed Proposition 8. They were not overturning some inalienable right granted by our Creator and embraced by our founding Fathers. They were merely upholding “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” And from their writings we may also deduce that Locke, Blackstone and Jefferson would most assuredly agree.
In light of this, one might conclude that when California voters passed Prop 8, it actually served more as a clarification than an amendment to our State’s constitution. We can be certain that it never entered the minds of our founding fathers that marriage would need to be defined as a union between one man and one woman—it was simply a given and to argue otherwise would have seemed ludicrous. California’s Prop 8 only became a necessity because of a militant minority that is attempting to overturn a key principle of American jurisprudence.

John D. McLaughlin
A California Voter

[dogrob1]

what is more important to the people and the voters in California that is what should be placed in the ballots for them to vote on

[Santi]

I don't understand this country, honestly.

Everyday US spends so much money in a non sense war, in instead of using that money to a Universal Health Care or, for example, give rights to its own citizens, like gays couples.

We are a binational gay couple and when I am leaving the U.S, we will have to be separeted... because government doesn't believe in our love.

I would like straight people feel the same than us....

It's so much painful... but one day, one elder people die, this country will allow it, that's life.

The proof? Youngest people allow gay marriage ( a huge percent of them). Only we need time

[Julian B Duron]

The Voters have spoken twice in California! Deal with it. In a democracy we may not always agree, but the majority rules. God Bless America!

[Lester Aponte]

WHAT KIND OF A STUPID HEADLINE IS THIS? Of course voters don't want this on the ballot. They will say the same thing in 2012 and 2014 and every time you ask. People don't like propositions and they don't want to deal with emotional issues EVER. This is the most salient fact: "Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed?"

[a smart person]

Its frightening that people like John D. McLaughlin can be so ignorant.

He writes,

"Any fair minded citizen must conclude that homosexual acts do indeed go against “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce neither can they engage in sexual intercourse that is compatible to the design of the human body."

Following his logic, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry and oral sex should be illegal (against nature's law...even though countless animal species have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, sodomy and oral sex).

Why are you so stupid?

[David]

The headline on this poll, and on Andrew Malcolm's blog post, is a dishonest attempt to bury the news. The news from the poll is that California voters now favor same-sex marriage by an 8-point margin. That is a stunning turnaround from the results of Prop 8 last year. Instead, the Times buries the news by headlining the much-less-newsworthy finding that people would rather not have this on the ballot. It would be hard to find a clearer example of twisting the news by the way it's presented.

[Linguist]

It's really quite a strawman to bring up whether it's "normal" or not to be gay, and even more of a distraction to argue that gay people shouldn't be able to protect their relationships because one views what they may or may not be doing in private as "normal".

Is it "normal" to be deaf? "Normal" to be a paraplegic? Is it "normal" to be obese, a rock star, dyslexic, a Wagnerian opera singer, a computer geek?

They are all protected under the Constitution.

Every deaf person in America is guaranteed a right to an education. We don't exclude them from the educational system just because we deem the trait of deafness as somehow abnormal.

We don't determine rights based on whether or not a trait is "normal" or not.

Gay people fall in love and form committed, meaningful relationships. I don't see how you justify preventing gay couples from signing legally binding contracts that protect those relationships. And I don't believe voters have the basic knowledge necessary to determine whether or not gay people are being treated fairly.

Rights simply aren't something that we should determine based on how popular --or un- -- some people or traits are.

If we decided things that way, there would be an awful lot of us deprived of some pretty basic rights.

[thomas]

bless every mom and dad and all the children and grandchildren and all the generations of men and women.
God saves

[thomas]

It's official.
CHRISTIANITY = HATE

it was signed into law by Obama last week.
The new "hate" crime bill outlaws Christianity and Judiasm.

[keyun]

im truly amazed that all print media especially the l.a. times and the tv media all are in agreement with so called gay marriage is that because their afraid of losing their jobs if they opposed it take a survey among yourselves and see how you voted on prop8 nobody wants the truth anymore but let GOD be true and every man a liar

[Vic Fera]

Response to "a smart person." You maybe smart but not wise. Wisdom and intelligence are two different thing. You are comparing your act to that of animals and of people with medical problems? Is that the best you can do? Just because animals can engage in homo acts doesn't mean that we should...BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ANIMALS! As for infertile couples, why do you compare your cause to people who have medical problems? Compare yourself to people who are healthy.

Homosexaulity is an act not a race so don't compare apples to organges.

Old Testament Proverb: Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom.

[Taggart]

Duh. The electorate doesn't like any question to be put on the ballot again so soon after they thought they had decided the issue--just like they don't like to be told "whether you like it or not, here it comes."

[AMG]

I can't believe people are still opposed. Opposition to gay marriage is based in religious doctrine. Our constitution clearly separates church and state. Ergo, it should be legal. If your religion forbids gay marriage, that's fine, your religion doesn't have to marry gay people or recognize their status, but the state does. Gay couples should have all the same legal rights -- including the right to marry -- that straight couples have. To do otherwise is no different than having separate water fountains labeled "white" and "colored".

That said, if you object to homosexual marriage on a religious basis, I'll remind you that the Bible says that gay sex is punishable by death. Let's see what happens if you try to put *that* one on the ballot.

[Your opinion]

John,

That is all your opinion, which your are allowed to have. But it is ONLY opinion, never to be confused with a correct assertion. There are other opinions.

[Ironman CarmichaelI]

Putting same-sex marriage on the ballot is madness from the point of view of marriage equality. If there's one thing that people find virtually impossible to resist, it's the power to deprive certain people of something they themselves are free to take for granted.

Otherwise, let's put women's suffrage on the ballot; it could just as easily be argued that the 19th Amendment is invalid because it wasn't determined by "the people." How about racial integration? That didn't come about by popular vote, either. While the Catholic Church savors its recent victory in Maine, how about a vote on whether women may become priests, or the Church obligated to pay income tax? If not, why not? The battle cry of same-sex marriage opponents has always been "Let the people decide!" So why should these other things be given a pass?

[Mark]

This was never really an issue that voters should have decided upon. This is an issue of rights which should never be dictated by a majority, plain and simple.

Didn't we learn anything from the civil rights movements of the 60's?

[Brooks Bayne]

the title is factual, the rest of this article can't even pass for jr high journalism. small majority vs larger portion? you've got to be kidding with this tripe.

[UncleRico]

Stop it Don R. With so many people posting well-thought out arguments for both positions on this site, why do you find it necessary to post played-out rhetoric?

[Tim]

"Following his logic, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry and oral sex should be illegal (against nature's law...even though countless animal species have been observed engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, sodomy and oral sex)..."

So I take it you are nothing more than an animal and wish to be nothing more than such?

[Ken]

One need not be religious nor believe that homosexual behavior is immoral to see that the state simply does not have the same interest in brideless or groomless couples as it does in marriage. Coitus is how new citizens are made. Homosexual behavior, as fun as it may be for the participants or those watching, does not contribute to society the same way.

There is no "right" to a state-issued license. Not for anybody. Licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state for a purpose. Why would states be involved in marriage in the first place? Because it is the KIND of voluntary relationship that has the potential to involve someone who didn't consent - namely, a child.
Click on my name if you want more - something other than "I don't like it!" or "It's not fair!"

[ruhroh]

Yeah, well, I didn't want my rights voted on in the first place!

[Mark]

In the long run, same-sex marriage will be legal again in California. I have no doubt about that. It's just a matter of time.

I think it's best to take a two-tiered approach: Push for civil unions in the states where they're not available, and push for marriage through the court system. It's the courts that will decide this issue anyway. There's not much good in revving up the anti-gay crowd by putting these issues up for a popular vote.

According to polls, about half of Americans believe that same-sex relationships are "immoral". That's a huge obstacle to overcome, and as we've seen time and time again, they're more than willing to discriminate against gays and take away their rights. Fighting them on the ground level is an exercise in futility. They're unable to understand or accept people who are different from them. That's just life. Gays should avoid dealing with them as much as possible. They don't deserve the attention.

[Mike]

I don't understand why the LA Times always commissions these polls that provide no data regarding the Asian American community, which is quite substantial in LA, but apparently not important enough to capture in a poll. I suspect the numbers would lean in the opposite direction of the African American and Latino groups.

[Brad]

When people are denied their civil rights, they don't just shut up and forget about it. They keep fighting. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. In the states eyes, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract between two parties. What does it matter if the two parties are the same sex or opposite sex?

You know, us gay (men) used to be criticized for being promiscuous. Now, we are fighting for our place at the table. How that can be denied us is unfathomable to me.

That said, I would prefer to see it put off until after 2010. It's still too soon. There are still too many old-fashioned people with old-fashioned ideas. I think we should think in terms of change happening across generations, not election cycles.

[Hilary]

What makes you think YOU should have any authority over whether two free, consenting adults can get married?

[Kat]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Who does anyone in this country think they are to define who can and cannot be in love and get married. And I don't want to hear any of this nonsense about God or religion because this country has a separation of church and state and if gay and lesbian couples want the right to legalize their marriage and take advantage of the legal benefits it will yield, then they have every right to.

And I think it's incredibly hilarious that this topic obviously makes so many people uncomfortable that they would rather grammatically pick apart the article than comment on the content.

Pathetic.

[Douglas]

You know, if all currently married couples were deemed to be "civil unions" and the term "marriage" would be removed as a legal term and left to the religious realm in which it belongs, there would be no need for any of this fuss.

[Matthew]

Dear Anabelle,

We are not trying to cram anything down your throat. We simply want access to the same rights and privileges as American citizens that you enjoy. Nobody said you had to accept us. And don't flatter yourself. We don't want or need your acceptance. What we want and deserve is equality before the law. And, girlfriend, it is about equality, so I think YOU need to get over it.

[Careful Thinker]

John McLaughlin asks if we are wiser than the Founding Fathers. Well, the answer is YES.

The Founding Fathers accepted slavery, which cost millions of lives a few generations later. That generation passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, but only in our time is their promise finally becoming a reality.

YES, we have made moral progress since the Founding Fathers at least in the area of civil rights. We do have progress yet ahead of us to become more peace-loving and charitable, but at least we have made some progress.

[jlb]

What a waste of time and energy. Trying to redefine a term, ( marriage), understood globally for all human history as between a man and a women is ignorance personified.
The truth is most people do not care what others do in private. But marriage is not what the argument is about, is it?
The same sex community are arguing to make a law, which removes the right for anyone to believe that same sex relationships are wrong, even on religious principles. The redefinition makes someone a criminal if they believe it and think it and say it in a public forum: they could go to jail.
But, that is the whole point. The end is religious and moral authority as well as legal and social equality enforced by the government. This is not an overestimation but an underestimation of the long term impact of such a law.
Rather than taking advantage of the political and moral climate we have today and write some sensible and comprehensive common law which has teeth and which gives the same sex marriage advocates the things that they say they need, all their energies are focused into finding a way to get what they want. And what they want is a law which forces others to say that what they do is not only legal and social but religiously moral.
Such an approach has great dangers. People may not care who you sleep with, but they will fight you to the death over their religion.

[Charles S.]

I don't think you can conclude much from 51% +/- 2.6%. That just means it could go either way. I'm admitting that even though I am part of the "majority." Besides, how representative of LA is a sample size that has a statistically insignificant number of Asian Americans? Yeah, I can say that cuz I'm Asian American.

[SunnyGal]

Why do so many people not understand the title of this article?

The two points are not mutually exclusive. The point is that most people favor allowing gay marriage, but not having it voted on in a referendum.

I agree with this personally, especially after what just happened in Maine.

Civil Liberties should not be up for grabs to an increasingly provincial, uneducated, lazy and gluttonous populous. This is what our Supreme Court is for and I trust that when they get a hold of it, they will rule according to the constitution which would clearly give gays the right to marry.

[Jeff]

Gay people are not forcing anything down your throat, Anabelle. They want you to stop forcing your definition down their throat, and in between their personal affairs (getting married).

Mr. McLaughlin, we can postulate all we want how the founding fathers would feel about these ballots, but the truth is, we have been repeatedly turning over many things we thought were constitutional. Voters were not merely voting for "the laws of nature and nature's god." Not to discredit great Americans, but if we only look to the wisdom of the past, we won't make any progress in the future.

Examples of going against the wisdom of our nation's forefathers: abolishing slavery, equal rights for women, minorities, and even the racially instigated prohibition of cannabis (even the same industrial hemp ol' boy Washington grew) because Americans were still afraid of the jazz playing African Americans just like they were afraid of the commies, Japanese (internment camps), and witches.

Perhaps as a "fair minded" nation we'll sooner learn to extend equal rights to every citizen (no matter what fringe group they may be identified with), not just to--or for--the conveniently voting majority.

[ferenc]

gays=no children=more illegal aliens=lost every war since ww2=demise of country.

[Holly Star]

Californians have already voted twice on this issue! Thirty-one states in a row have voted it down as well.

Have your parades, continue to whine on TV if you must, but let it go... it just ain't gonna happen.

You lost. Deal with it.

[Holly Star]

Let's go throgh the list of B.S. comments in most gay marriage discussions:

1. The obligatory comment on how the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is relevant to gay marriage in some manner.

2. The ignoring of the blatantly obvious- No mother or father wants their child to be gay.

3. That gay couples raise children as well as straight couples (yeah, show me one example with a kid that's not screwed up).

4. That European countries allow it.

5. That all religion is cruel and wrong.

6. That gays are paying millions in inheritance taxes when they die. Yeah, and Obama won't raise my taxes, what a joke!

7. That technology allows any permutation of child birth possible (sure, but it costs tens of thousands of dollars to do so)

8. The anyone voting against gay marriage is hateful, evil, and stupid.

9. That Saint Obama worked the gay community like a cheap Santa Monica street walker and has been burned by him, getting nothing in return.

Yet no gay person has ever detailed a single benefit to straight people regarding the benefits of gay marriage, because there are none.

[Sheryl B]

I support same-sex marriage, but I don't see 2010 offering a much different outcome than 2008. 2012 is another story, though. Those over 65 strongly oppose gay marriage, and those under 30 strongly support gay marriage. As the older people start to die off (I know that sounds harsh), there will be a definite shift. Strong increases of support have happened in CA from 2000 to 2008, and that number should shift to the side of gay marriage support by 2012.

I guess I have difficutly understanding how two groups that know what it's like to be singled out - black and Hispanics, have issues with gay marriage. Of all people, they should know that being singled out stinks, and should have more empathy than whites, yet whites have far more support on this issue.

Oh, and thank goodness that ex-Miss California, Carrie Prejean, is now finished with her way-too-extended 15 minutes of fame. With yet another self-proclaimed Christian exposed as a hypocrite, her days of anyone taking her words seriously are over.

[BobYerUncle]

Recognition of marriage in society is not a fundamental right. Our society extends recognition of marriage between one man and one woman by consensus of the society because society has determined over ages that it has a practical beneficial stake in it, NOT because when a man and a woman get together society immediately owes them something. The practical stake society has in a man-woman marriage is that a man and a woman can make, adopt and raise children.

Homosexuals, you have the right to associate freely, you do not have the right to make society extend you privileges that it has decided to extend to monogamous man-woman relationships.

Secondly, lets be perfectly honest, homosexuality is an abnormality. You have a right not to be persecuted, you do not have a right to special privileges and recognition society has decided to extend to man-woman marriage.

Society chooses not recognize a marriage between a parent and a consenting adult offspring (Dad&daughter, Dad&son, Mom&daughter, Grandma&grandson etc), society chooses not recognize a marriage between siblings, society chooses not recognize marriage between more than one woman and one man (polygamy), and society chooses not recognize marriage between individuals of the same sex. All these scenarios society has a determined are not beneficial for some reason or at the very least it has no beneficial stake in it.

Adopting children is not a fundamental right either. Children are people who deserve exposure to a normal natural families as best society can provide. Anyone can be denied the privilege of adopting based on the interests of the child alone.

Now go home, and enjoy the rights and freedoms you have.

[Crab]

To JV; A small majority of voters support gay marriage, but a larger portion oppose PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT. There is no need to compare. Follow along....

11 out of 20 people are for gay marriage, but 15 out of those same 20 don't want to bother voting on it again in 2010 regardless of their stance on the issue.

[ferenc]

smart person, you are the stupid moron for trying to push the perverts on sociaty.so go suck on a lollipop.

[Michael Smith]

Ignoring me will not change who I am nor what I am entitled to. Ignoring the rest of the world will only continue to lessen America as a "world leader" for she is not.

Ignoring me and my right to marry whom I love will only weaken the Country.

Ignoring will not silence me.

[Steve]

I don't believe this poll that shows a majority in favor of gay marriage. I believe the a majority of Californians oppose gay marriage.

[Schigolch]

Voters a concerned about the intellectual rationale for legalization. The rationale is nondiscrimination -- "you're discriminating against men who prefer sex with another man." And discrimination is bad. But we're also discriminating against men who prefer sex with multiple men, sex with children, and sex with sheep. If discrimination against one preference is wrong, what is right about discrimination against other preferences? Discrimination is discrimination. Where is the boundary line? You see where your logic leads? This is why voters are concerned.

[lycanr1]

natural laws? what is a natural law? did the "fair minded" writer actually consider scientific studies on pervasive same-sex behaviors exhibited in natural species? did the "fair minded" writer consider separation of church and state? if it is not for the state to interfere with religious ceremony, then how is it that the religious ceremony interfered with affairs of state regarding taxation, regarding visitations, regarding many other aspects of living? how is it that religious institutions can carry investments and not be taxed when said investments can and do carry political impacts.

it was perfectly "natural law" when the british chose to keep the colonies. it was perfectly "natural law" to station soldiers in a home at one time, and it was perfectly natural law to not allow any redress of grievance... interesting that the heathens at the time were the colonists. of course, we can go further with the "fair minded" men and how they wrote native americans out of nature...

"fair minded bigotry", i don't like the idea of cramming down people's throats, but you must understand a key part of the art of war by sun tsu, do NOT back people into a corner. ever. the native americans were offered an escape, and it is a shameful part in american history, but africans? no. the civil rights movements. the soldiers in vietnam and the civilian drafts? no. the protests. gay rights? no. more protests and gay pride events.

when will government and people stop being jerks and look themselves in the mirror and say, 'yes, we backed them into a corner and made their lives as difficult as possible'.

[lycanr1]

natural laws? what is a natural law? did the "fair minded" writer actually consider scientific studies on pervasive same-sex behaviors exhibited in natural species? did the "fair minded" writer consider separation of church and state? if it is not for the state to interfere with religious ceremony, then how is it that the religious ceremony interfered with affairs of state regarding taxation, regarding visitations, regarding many other aspects of living? how is it that religious institutions can carry investments and not be taxed when said investments can and do carry political impacts.

it was perfectly "natural law" when the british chose to keep the colonies. it was perfectly "natural law" to station soldiers in a home at one time, and it was perfectly natural law to not allow any redress of grievance... interesting that the heathens at the time were the colonists. of course, we can go further with the "fair minded" men and how they wrote native americans out of nature...

"fair minded bigotry", i don't like the idea of cramming down people's throats, but you must understand a key part of the art of war by sun tsu, do NOT back people into a corner. ever. the native americans were offered an escape, and it is a shameful part in american history, but africans? no. the civil rights movements. the soldiers in vietnam and the civilian drafts? no. the protests. gay rights? no. more protests and gay pride events.

when will government and people stop being jerks and look themselves in the mirror and say, 'yes, we backed them into a corner and made their lives as difficult as possible'.

[Randy]

I should have the right to marry whomever I wish. You are not allowed to judge me, you are not allowed to restrict me. You may not impose your will or your prejudice upon me. I am a responsible member of the community, I pay my taxes, I obey the laws. I don’t care if you don’t approve of our relationship. We love & support each other and that’s all that matters. I promise you that we won’t procreate, but we will adopt if we choose. If you don’t like it, then don’t come to our wedding. My wife & I are getting divorced so I can marry my step-son.

Gee – I just figured that if one group gets to redefine marriage to suit their needs, then everyone does (and remember, if you don’t like it, then you’re just a big ol’ hater!)

[Evey Loyo]

"A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot".
LA Times, stop the double talk. By definition, "a small majority" can not be a majority because a "larger portion of voters opposes their efforts".
You cannot have it both ways. They are in the minority as attested by the approval of PROP 8.

[Sandy S]

To John D. McLaughlin:

Our founding "fathers" treated human beings as property. They owned slaves. This was obviously against the laws of nature and your god's nature but they did not care. They did not care that untold hundreds of thousands of human beings were stolen from their home land and packed like sardines into the holds of sailing ships (where an attrition rate of 50% was understood and acceptable from these godly men). Our christian forefathers then sold these slaves away from the only home they knew... with no respect to familial attachment. Children were torn from their mother's arms. Young girls were routinely raped, with the resultant mixed raced children sold off so that the decent white women did not have to see their husband's cuckold progeny.

Do not think our forefathers acted with the best interest of anyone but themselves and an economy built on the misery of slavery.

Our founding fathers treated women as their property...their chattel. Women had no rights in our forefather's time. They could not inherit. They could not vote. They were considered worthless but for one thing. So much for your god's nature. The nature of men is to cohabit with as many women as they can. If there are no women (as in a prison) then men will do so with other men. It is the nature of the beast. But because the nature of some men is to lie with another man...you say that it is against your god's nature. Well, there is a lot that is against your god's nature but do you make laws against it.

Denying anyone who wishes to enter into a marriage is wrong. Don't bring our country's forefathers into this nor try to interpret any intentions they had when writing the constitution. Their right to influence us two hundred odd years later is null and void because they did out outlaw slavery when it should have been...at the very beginning of our nation. They should have absolutely no say in whether anyone can get married or not and neither should the constitution. The constitution, congress, the White House, the senate nor the Supreme Court have no business making laws that deny rights to anyone. Period.

[Michael]

Ya know, I'm gay and I strongly believe in marriage but right now I have to agree with the voters who were polled. From a political viewpoint when this is on the ballot it brings out the bible thumping wing-nuts who have an effect on other races. I think for now the marriage in everything but name only (like in Washington state) is the way to go right now or through the courts. There is too much at stake right now. Democrats need to maintain their majorities to make sure legislation like impending health care reform isn't rolled back. If you don't think the Repugs won't do it the first chance they get, think again. I think gays have to be more strategic in implementing their agenda (hint: Obama's second term) even though it's painful.

[Stephen Weiss]

Wow, for the first time in a year, I agree with California again!!

Same-sex marriage should be recognized, and it has no business being on the ballot. A-men!

[Edge]

To put it in the words of King Jaffe Jafur, ruler of Zamunda from that delighful Eddie Murphy flick of 1988; "Aeoleon please, the voters said no." The good people of CA have already decided, give them a break. Personally I could care less if my fellow gays want to marry, I feel it's none of my or the government's business. I would marry my b/f only on my terms, not the state's or anyone else's. What I want to see is the day when the government stays out of a private affair like marriage. That means no tax breaks for married couples or for having kids. Everyone gets taxed equally and separately.

[kristin]

I don't really care if gay marriage passes or not, but it should be noted that opposition to gay marriage is not strictly based on the Bible. Maine and California are not particularly religious states, but the majority of voters in both states do not support gay marriage. There are many non-Christian countries, such as atheistic China, Japan, and Vietnam, where gay marriage is prohibited.

People are opposed to gay marriage for any number of reasons, and not all are religious. Gay marriage supporters haven't won because they have yet to acknowledge this. They think that everyone who opposes them is a barely literate Christian who wears a white hood and robe. The truth is far different. If they want gay marriage to win, gay marriage supporters need to convince the diverse voters why gay marriage is a good thing instead of labeling all opponents as Neanderthal haters.

[Archangel]

Here's ANOTHER poll LAT's:
Briton:
5,700 British hemophiliacs received tainted blood and were infected with HIV. (BBC/Encyclopedia.com)
Scotland:
Nearly 4,700 patients were affected by contaminated blood in what was described as "the greatest treatment disaster of the health service".
The Scotsman (Scotland)
Canada:
More than 3,000 Canadians have died since getting the HIV tainted blood between 1986 and 1990. (www.news-medical.net/CBC News)
In General:
Nearly 22 million people have died from this disease, including 4.3 million children. (www.hawaii.edu)
Japan:
The first HIV patient was reported in 1979, who was also a haemophilia patient and prescribed blood products by his doctor. Second example is a Japanese male artist who had lived abroard for some years. Some other example also reported in the early 1980s and these patients were haemophilia patients or had homosexual experiences. Of some 4500 haemophiliacs in Japan, an estimated 2000 contracted HIV in the 1980s... (Wikipedia)
China:
...HIV/AIDS was China's leading cause of death among infectious diseases. Nearly 7,000 people died from the disorder in the first nine months of 2008. In the PRC, the number of people affected by HIV has been estimated at between 430,000 and 1.5 million. In many rural areas of China during the 1990s, particularly in the province of Henan, tens to hundreds of thousands of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs. (Wikipedia)
France:
French HIV-tainted blood trial;
In all, 4,400 people, many haemophiliacs or others who needed transfusions, contracted AIDS from the inadequately tested blood. (World Socialist Web Site)
Taiwan:
So far, 2,773 people have tested HIV positive in Taiwan, including 259 expatriates, with 578 HIV/AIDS deaths recorded since cases were first filed. Among the seven causes for HIV/AIDS listed by Department of Health, the transmission of the virus to hemophiliacs and other blood recipients is directly related to tainted blood supplies and related products. Up to 5 percent of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) -- the infection which leads to AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) -- cases worldwide are transmitted by the transfusion of contaminated blood and blood products. (The Taipei Times)
Wales (SW England):
FAILURES at the heart of Government led to thousands of patients being infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from tainted blood, an independent inquiry concluded yesterday. It is estimated 4,670 haemophiliacs – who need regular blood transfusions – became infected with hepatitis C, and 1,243 contracted HIV. Some 1,800 are thought to have died. (WalesOnline)

Reflecting back to the 80's and those [civic-minded] homosexuals like "Patient Zero" and thousands of his accomplices who donated blood, jump-starting the above carnage; can anyone (who retains a scrap of sanity) please explain why society should even entertain the notion of legitimizing and sanctioning the very behavior that has caused such reckless death and havoc. As usual, the already broken taxpayer is expected to march in politically correct goose-step and pick up the certain to escallate health care tab.

[Wil]

Thank goodness. Enough is enough. It is time for us to move on.

[markk]

Why have government legislate marriage to begin with. I find gays disgusting but they have a right to do what they want. If I want to marry my dog, cat, etc, no government should be allowed to tell me I cant. Eliminate all tax benefits to married couples for a start.

[Joe]

It goes beyond hilarious, now gay people are using animal behavior as "proof" for claiming rights. When a lion takes over a pride,he immediately kills all the cubs to get the females in heat, do you think that murdering a woman's husband and children will make her fall in love with you ?
Lets say that 3% of the population is homosexual (I dont know the real number)and from that percent only 1% wants to get married, should a society allow a very vociferous 1% to dictate definition of marriage...and whats next, should a man be allowed to marry his sister because he loves her, or his pets,once the natural is out of the picture, is a free for all

[A Democrat]

If people were truly in favor of gay marriage, Prop 8 would have passed.

Stop asking us over and over at the polls if you're not going to like (or accept) the answer...!

[Zach]

Firstly, while I support gay marriage, I don't think it should be on the ballot again in 2010. Further, I don't think it should be on the ballot at all; people don't vote on whether equal protection under the law is to be applied to one person or another, and they don't have to go before people like BobYerUncle or Holly to show why society would benefit and get their approval. Nevermind that marriage, gay or straight, promotes stability and family cohesion in the populace, which is to society's advantage. Nevermind that families, gay or straight, adopting children is a good thing (no reputable science has shown otherwise), because until you ban divorce and compel straight fmailies to adopt every last orphan, the idea of children having a "right" to a mother and father is a feel-good fantasy.

No, these perfectly good reasons for society to accept gay families shouldn't be necessary. The government isn't supposed to run by or like the Bible, where someone decreed something and that's that. Neither the people nor any branch of government gets to decide certain people must "go home, and enjoy the rights and freedoms [they] have." Nothing is so final in our system, and inequality has never stood when it's been enacted. It's only a matter of time, but I'll see the opposition in 2010, 2012, however many times it takes to fix the damage Prop 8 did to our constitution.

[Sabio]

"If people were truly in favor of gay marriage, Prop 8 would have passed.
Stop asking us over and over at the polls if you're not going to like (or accept) the answer...!"

Prop 8 DID pass. Pay attention.
And it wasn't the gays who asked for your vote on their marriages. In both 2000 and 2008 it was the gay marriage foes who brought up the initiatives.

But do you think, in 2012 after Prop 8 is reversed and the state votes to legalize gay marriage (as voting and polling trends indicate), that those foes are going to accept that answer? Highly doubtful.

[Jim Gee]

Deport ALL homosexuals to their own island where they can act out whatever sickness they enjoy. Children will be saved from recruitment molestation, marriage remains intact for man/woman couples. Problem solved. Goodbye, good riddance twisto's!
PS: This is NOT a religious comment. 'Nuf said?

[Danke Schoen]

Dear John,

While it may not be your experience, most heterosexuals actively pursue sexual intimacy for reasons that have nothing to do with reproduction. Many couples find sexual relations to be valuable for purposes of bonding and pleasure even when they have no intention of making a baby. You'd be shocked at the number of intimate acts between opposite-sex partners that have no reproductive function--and the participants like it that way!

Your assumption that you understand that rich meaning of sexuality--and that its only value lies in reproduction--conflicts with the experience of every happy heterosexual couple I've ever met. Further, any married straight couple can tell you that sexuality is only one aspect of a loving relationship. Likewise, loving gay relationships are multi-faceted and your fixation on the sexual element of them says more about you than it does about them. Until you are willing to apply your "natural law" argument to include heterosexuals engaging in reproductively frivolous acts, you should refrain from using it to condemn homosexuals. Thomas Jefferson didn't like hypocrites.

Gay people, same-sex couples and their children exist today and will continue to be part of our society. No amount of government coercion or ballot-box moralizing can change that. Society has an obvious interest in promoting the stability of gay relationships in the same way it supports heterosexuals toward the goal of responsibility and productivity.

How ironic that so many who claim to believe in "freedom" and "limited government" suddenly espouse neither when it comes to equality for gay citizens. But, the news that a majority can now be found to support the right of 5% of the population to live as equals is very encouraging news for those of us who actually believe in those values.

[Realist]

Noone is afraid of the gay community!! If there was so much hate towards Gay people there would be no Elton Johns, Ellen Degeneres and the dozens of gay men and women that have abundant success in this country.
The gay community wants to change the definition of marriage to advance there agenda. And the people of california have spoken. They don't AGREE. Period!! This has absolutely nothing to do with hate. The Gay community are the ones spinning this as a Hate Issue. NOT Christians! So lets stop pointing the finger at Christians. How come no one is talking about the fact that the Gay community INSULTED the black community by comparing there sexual orientation as equal to being black? That's part of why they lost Prop 8. They're stretching to advance there agenda and stuck there foot in there mouth with the "Gay is the New Black".

[Ken]

So what the poll tells us is that the people don't like that their fellow Californians are being discriminated against but they are just too apathetic to vote to correct it. Typical of California and shows why this state is so screwed up!

[George]

How many times do the MAJORITY of voters have to say that the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman? It seems that supporters of the gay agenda feel that if they throw enough money at it people will feel that it is right.
As for the hate crimes bill and Christianity, Christians do not hate Gays. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, you can not condone the behavior of the Gay lifestyle because God is very specific about His feelings about it. God gives every man the ability to choose to follow Him, or not to follow Him. Please do not make the mistake of believing that because politicians and activists say that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality, that Christians will re write the word of God.