Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

2010 gay marriage vote unlikely in California

Gay couple

It's looking less likely that California voters will take up the issue of gay marriage in 2010.

Some gay rights activists planned to ask voters next year to repeal Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved last year. But this week, a key organization backing the 2010 effort said it needed more time to develop a successful campaign. 

A Los Angeles Times/USC poll released in November found 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 on the ballot in 2010.

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% to 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. 

The Courage Campaign, a leading civil rights group, announced it was going to focus on repealing Proposition 8 beyond 2010. That leave several smaller groups with the tough task of collecting signatures for a 2010 ballot measure.

-- Shelby Grad

Photo credit: Associated Press

More breaking news in L.A. Now:

Polanski moved from prison to undisclosed location for 'security reasons'

Gloria Allred cancels L.A. news conference involving Rachel Uchitel, woman linked to Tiger Woods

Pedestrian killed in downtown L.A.; one arrested

Comments () | Archives (31)

Homosexuals keep trying to force their evil lifestyle on Americans, even though 30 of 50 states have a state constitutional amendments to oppose it. A 60% majority is all that is required to approve a federal constitutional amendment should it come to that. If homosexuals want "gay marriage" they should move to Canada. It's not just tolerated there, it's encouraged ... taught in the schools, and that's why they have a bumper crop of them.

Wow what a horrendously ignorant and short sighted comment Mary!

Like the Jim Crow laws were overturned by the federal courts the courts will have to do the same so gays will have equal rights too.

The 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

Mary Waterton I suggest you review your history of the evil lifestyle of white american cizitens who supported the Jim Crow laws.

Wow.. when I read comments like Mary's it makes we wonder if we all live on the same planet, breathe the same air, and all were born with love or with hate in our hearts. Your comment seems to imply that the tolerance, love, and understanding that Canadians (and many countries) embrace is a bad thing. I will go on living my "evil lifestyle" in spite of the anger and evil thoughts that you harbor. No one is forcing anything on anyone... let's try to remember that we all share this planet together.

Mary, your comments are the same type of comments that people used in regards to interracial marriage before it was made legal. A homosexual lifestyle is not 'evil' as you claim. It doesn't harm anyone, kill, cause pain, or anything else associated with the word evil. If you want examples of things that are evil, here are a few:

1.) Wars justified by religion and/or greed
2.) People denying equal rights and treatment to other human beings
3.) Going beyond denying rights to a minority group of citizens by bashing them at every opportunity, including in comments to an article in the L.A. Times.

The items above are a few examples of evil. The opposite of evil would be treating everyone as equals and letting them live their lives in peace. If we did that, there would be true harmony in the world.


Yes, people should move to Canada if they want equal treatment under the law. Apparently America's not about that anymore. These days we determine what's "evil" or just unpopular by a vote and ban it.

Anyone who believes in that kind of moral fascism had better get used to the idea that a significant segment of the country won't put up with your amendments perverting our constitution. It'll take time (so sense rushing things in 2010), but we'll clean up your mess.

Not that I agree with Mary's comments, but why are we arguing about revisiting an issue that California voters have already shot down on numerous occassions. I am not saying I am against gay marraige, I just don't agree with a system that allows us to keep putting this issue on a ballot that we've already said no to more than once! Doesn't the vote that was already given count for anything. What kind of a state / country do we live in where everytime we don't agree with something we just have a "do-over"? Should the vote have been different? maybe, but the point is it's over and done with, let's move on.


I think it is more religious Americans trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of us. America allows you to marry the man you love, so why shouldn't I be allowed to marry the woman I love?

Its simple equality. It seems like the U.S. is in a round about when it comes to discrimination and "separate but equal" laws. Why can't we all just learn to live with one another and accept the small differences that make us unique.

Four or five ACORN petitioners should be able to gather enough signatures within a couple of weeks...

Si Se Puede!

Bravo Mary!

Sadly, there are now hundreds of people snooping into every aspect of your private life. Terrorist (or Scientology) tactics...

Si Se Puede!

Marriage is a concept belonging to both religion and law, for me that's where the confusion is. If they were simply disassociated I believe the emotion would be subtracted from the equation. The moment you associate "gay marriage" to a non-legal, pious belief you are indeed forcing your agenda on others. I want gay people to have the same rights in union as all others, absent of what we call it. Just don't call it "marriage" -- I would be in support of removing the word in it's legal sense for heterosexuals as well. If we used neutral language I feel like the major conflicts will be diluted. I don't mean to dumb down the issue, I just feel like that's where the conflict is.

Religious people keep trying to force their evil, archaic, lifestyle on Americans, even though the country is founded on the separation of church and state. If religious people want "religious freedom" they should move to Saudi Arabia. Its not just tolerated there, it's required...taught in schools, and that's why they have a bumper crop of them.

Jeanna has a good point. I think other issues should be solved first before we can go back and worry about same-sex marriage, etc.. What is more important? The future of our school system (Universities, high schools, charter schools) or the future of a questionable 'minority' arguing whether their lifestyle is acceptable and should be allowed to change vows? I'm sorry but I honestly think our California government should worry more about finding ways to improve our schools. Let's take care of our priorities first.

Homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord. It is sin.

As a gay man and a Libertarian, I have no problem if you believe "marriage" is between a man and a woman. What I do have a problem with is those that use the law to impose their beliefs on others. If you believe in so-called "traditional marriage," go for it. Marry someone of the opposite sex. That's your right. And it's my right as well to pledge my love and commitment to someone of my choice, even if it's the same gender. You don't see me trying to pass a law that would define marriage as only between two people of the same sex, do you? Even if I believed that's the only way it should be, I would not impose my belief on you via the law.

For those that believe in what is their definition of traditional marriage and believe it should apply to everyone, OK, let's get serious about this and apply the law equally. African-Americans supported Proposition 8 by some 70%. So to make sure we've covered all the bases with respect to traditional marriage, I'm going to suggest that my white, Jewish cousin divorce her black, Christian husband (mixing races and religions--a double-whammy at that). I'm sure that totally mixed marriage will will destroy the institution of marriage, though since their wedding in 1994 it hasn't happened yet (wow, a marriage still going strong after 15 years--what a concept). But a little over 4 decades ago, the same arguments were being used of why mixed-race marriages would be the end of the world as we know it. (And I'm sure there's plenty out there wearing white bed sheets that would still argue this. I'm referring to the KKK, for those of you that might be totally clueless.) Our own President might as well get a divorce. His mom was white, so his marriage to Michelle is a mixed-race marriage! Imagine that. Our own President and First Lady destroying traditional marriage!

Oh, no! I'm in deep doo-doo. My mom was a Catholic and my dad is a Jew. My own parents destroying marriage as we know it! And mom was pretty sure I was conceived on a Sunday--the Lord's day! Shameful.

At one time those with disabilities could not marry. How about those I've met who are hearing but have married a deaf person? Let's bring back bans on that too.

No, frankly I'm disgusted with the hypocrisy that surrounds this issue. With a 67% divorce rate, and let's not even get started on all those well-known people that are all for "family, God and country" who are then found to be doing the nasty with everyone except their own wives/husbands, it's time you all cleaned up your own house as the saying goes. You gladly accuse every gay person of being promiscuous, yet when that same person wishes to legally prove his/her faithfulness to one person via marriage, you go ballistic. As the young folks say, you need to "chill."

Dear gay people:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not PERISH, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Mary, I want to think that you've never experienced any kind of prejudice, either towards yourself or someone you love. This can be the only reason why you have no tolerance for people who may be 'different than you.'

Our country is based on equal rights and protection for all. Leaving my country (as you suggest) to escape your type of hatred is not option. You don't need to embrace me, just accept that my love for another is equally as important.

I recongnize gay marriage, no matter what the bigoted voters or meddlesome church thinks. Yes, I said it. If you are against gay marriage, you're a bigot. All the excuses about "defending marriage" are just a weak BS cover-up for bigotry.

Rhonda and Tony emphasize my point. Leviticus 18:22 and "gay marriage" are not compatible concepts. If we keep calling it "gay marriage" then the gay community will continue to be isolated and overruled by the religious majority. It's fair that the concept of marriage is a deeply rooted religious concept, so it's not fair to redefine the word (and Tony's example is a good one) - but the legal rights should be separated from the religious beliefs. I bet that if we used neutral diction and expressed a 'legal union' as being between two persons with equal rights for all then it would be hard for anyone to argue against it.

While I'm a fiscal conservative and usually vote those candidates, I did vote against Prop 8 and was as surprised as anyone it passed. I don't think it can ever be demonstrated how tough it will be to get a pro-same sex marriage lasw passed than to point out that at least 25% of the Obama voters also voted for Prop 8.

For that reason I think the anti-Prop 8 forces are smart to skip the upcoming election. Unless President Obama starts changing the direction of his presidency, only Republicans and disillusioned independents are going to show up to the polls in 2010. If that's the case I seriously doubt there could be enough anti-Prop 8 voters to overturn Prop 8 in 2010. In fact, it could go down by a bigger majority, which would be worse than not having any vote at all.

I have no doubt that if pro-gay marriage forces push a positive education campaign it will eventually pass. But if an angry, backlash oriented campaign attacking churches and other interest groups is waged as happened right after Prop 8 passed, the campaign will lose those even modestly willing to consider approving same-sex marriage. More Mitchell and Cameron (Modern Family), less LGBT protests against Mormons.

I'm also skeptical enough to think "Mary" is a sham. If its a sham perpetrated by someone who is actually pro-gay marriage, then shame on that person.

Dear Rhonda,

We're talking about civil marriage, the contract recognized by government. Your God said nothing about that, so save the religious talk until the issue comes up in your church whether or not gays should marry. You're talking about touchdowns at a soccer game right now.

Rick's right, to avoid all this nonsense both sides should be pushing for what the government now calls marriage to just be called unions across the board. Everyone gets the legal equality, and religions can sort out their own business. We want equal rights, if they want semantics then let them have the stupid word!

Rhonda, you are right. That's why as Christians we know that marriage -- gay, straight, or any other sort -- really has nothing to do with our religion. It's all about Jesus and forgiveness. Why then did so many Christians and Mormons hijack our religion and turn it into a message of bigotry by supporting Proposition 8? That action gave our religion and, worse, our Lord, a bad reputation. When Christians persist in acting in ignorance and intolerance, we all suffer because others don't take the time to distinguish between what Christianity really teaches and what some of its very vocal pretenders spew out. "You shall not make wrongful use of the Name of the LORD your God" (Ex 20:7, the 2nd commandment), but that is exactly what the supporters of Prop 8 did.

This has nothing to do with Jesus, directly, the "bishop" and others continue to confuse this issue by blending political rights and religious beliefs. This is about rights, legal ones. The fallacy of Prop 8 is that it was born of a sneaky attempt to resolve this issue through the judicial system. Declaring a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional through the courts gave birth to a reciprocal action, equally sneaky, through Prop 8. So any criticism of the 'evilness' of Prop 8 has to be equally directed back at the root cause in a poorly planned political movement. The plain fact is that gay marriage opponents played the game better, and won; for better or for worse, for right or for wrong.

This issue has been wrapped with so much emotion, false claims, bigotry, hate, ignorance and politics that it will take a completely new approach to resolve. Maybe even a new generation. Jeanna is right, this incarnation needs to be dropped and everyone needs to move on.

And if you DO believe in Jesus, you know that He will help us figure it out, in a time of His choosing.

Perhaps we all should be homosexual, then we can have the laws we need to raise up future generations, oh wait, there wouldn't be any future generations.

How terribly ironic and wrong it is, to allow the majority to vote on a minority group's rights . . . why, if we had allowed this back when segregation still existed, just imagine how many more decades we would have gone through of that! Perhaps we'd still be segregated.

We're all human beings, with the same love and hope in our hearts. Why would I want to get married in a system that doesn't even allow another specific group of people to marry the person they love? I'd rather not.

1 2 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: