• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why California needs Proposition 8..........

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,152
16
81
Prop. 8 to ban same-sex marriage leading

John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Gary Flieger (left) and John Finck (right) renew their vo... Jane Chaiken (left) and Sam Hamilton get married at City ... Adelaide Chaiken-Hamilton (left) and Amelia Serdar-Espino... Regina Richardson (left) and Dana Richardson from Richmon... More...

(11-04) 20:39 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- After a heated, divisive campaign, fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters Tuesday were backing Prop. 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

With 11 percent of the vote counted, the measure held a 55 percent to 45 percent lead.

Six months after the California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay and lesbian couples to wed legally, the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who took advantage of the landmark decision now are wondering if they will be the last.

The campaign pitted those who argued that a same-sex marriage ban was nothing more than outdated discrimination against gays and lesbians, and conservatives and Christian groups who countered that the state and the courts have no right to change unilaterally a definition of marriage that has existed for centuries.

The flood of dollars that poured into California from every part of the country made Prop. 8 the most expensive social issue race the nation has ever seen. And behind every one of those checks was someone desperately worried about what the result of the election could mean to them and their state.

To San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and other opponents of Prop. 8, as well as to religious groups that backed the measure, the proposed ban on same-sex marriage was the second most important election in the country on Tuesday.

The Prop. 8 battle, born in San Francisco, came eight years after more than 61 percent of California voters came out in favor of Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. But supporters had little time to savor the victory.

In 2004, Newsom set off a political and social explosion when he ordered marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in the city. Gay and lesbian couples flocked to the city, showing up in wedding dresses and tuxedoes for the chance to be legally married. Despite outraged reaction from across the state and nation, Newsom didn't back down until a court ordered the city to stop issuing the same-sex licenses.

In 2005 and 2007, the California Legislature passed bills that would have allowed same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them. In 2006, the state Supreme Court voted unanimously to hear several challenges to same-sex marriage and rule on them.

Opponents of same-sex marriage were ready with a challenge that became Prop. 8.

Worried that a governor after Schwarzenegger would sign a same-sex marriage bill or that the court would rule against them, Prop. 22 supporters began putting together another initiative drive to make the same-sex marriage ban part of the California Constitution, beyond the reach of either the Legislature or the courts. They raised the money and gathered more than 1.1 million signatures by this spring.

On May 15, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage.

The court voted 4-3 to overturn Prop. 22 and the same-sex marriage ban, ruling that the state Constitution provided a right to marry that extends to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the voters or the Legislature, not the court, to permit same-sex marriage, a view quickly taken up by opponents of the ruling.

"Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California," Prop. 8 supporters said in a TV ad. "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory."

It was an argument that continued all the way to Election Day.

But with same-sex marriage legal in California, opponents of Prop. 8 could run a totally different campaign from the type that had lost virtually every election over the issue in states across the nation.

Rather than arguing for same-sex marriage, opponents took the moral high ground atop the Supreme Court decision and argued that a vote for Prop. 8 was a vote for discrimination. They got another bit of help when state Attorney General Jerry Brown ordered the Prop. 8 ballot language changed to say that it "eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry."

Prop. 8 backers charged that politics, not legal rectitude, was behind Brown's decision. They went to court, but lost.

That allowed Prop. 8 opponents, worried that many voters were not enamored with the idea of same-sex marriage, to run a TV campaign that almost never mentioned gays or lesbians or showed them in an ad. Instead, the ads charged that Prop. 8 supporters wanted to take away rights from a single, unnamed group of people, which just wasn't fair.

"Proposition 8 would be a terrible mistake for California," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a "No on Prop. 8" ad in the final week of the campaign. "It's about discrimination, and we must always say no to that."

That pitch also was a big help for the Democratic presidential ticket. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden could give 100 percent support to the campaign's efforts to preserve rights, even though neither of them supports same-sex marriage.

Middle-of-the-road voters were the prize in the campaign, and both sides geared their efforts toward grabbing them.

"There are about 40 percent of the voters on each side, and nothing will move them," said Steve Smith, political consultant for the "No on Prop. 8" effort. "Then there's the other 20 percent that seems to change their mind every day. That's who we concentrate on."

The fight for undecided voters left each side battling around the edges of an issue that seemed straightforward enough: Should gay and lesbian couples be allowed to marry in California?

Both campaigns worked hard to avoid offending voters they needed for victory.

Supporters of the same-sex marriage ban aimed their ads at parents, warning that if Prop. 8 lost, children would be taught in public schools that there is no difference between traditional marriages and same-sex unions. As a little girl in one TV ad told her mother: "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess."

The Prop. 8 campaign set a record as the most expensive social issue election in the nation's history, with more than 140,000 donors giving a combined $73 million to the two sides. Across the state, thousands of volunteers worked phone banks and knocked on doors in an effort to drum up support.

Link
What a sad day in California when we can elect a black man to be the next president of our country, but doesn't have the heart to accept people for their biological life style. I can't believe people are actually falling for the the church bullshit about schools brainwashing their children when it's all lies. Disgusting.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
57,045
5,397
126
Originally posted by: Baked
Jesus says let there be buttsecks, and there was buttsecks w/ altar boys. Nice try you fucking hypocrites.
Homosexuality should be kept in the Catholic Church where it belongs, dontcha know..You Betcha!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
that sucks.

my cousin and her girlfriend got married in CA in August. at the time, I told her she was crazy for rushing it and getting married without any of their families there, but they wanted to get grandfathered in before Prop 8 and I guess they were right
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
lol @ yes on 8 fucks

"I'm doing it for my kids"
"I'm doing it for my kids"

Your kids are going to end up gay you bigot fucks.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
It's time we get off of our asses and start countering these fucking fundies. Ignoring them doesn't seem to be working.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,458
7
81
Originally posted by: Ns1
lol @ yes on 8 fucks

"I'm doing it for my kids"
"I'm doing it for my kids"

Your kids are going to end up gay you bigot fucks.


Thaaaats nice!! ;)
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
well 8 is winning.

frankly domestic partnerships and such is enough.

and a wake up call to anyone who thinks this is a massive national swing to the left.




 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
Not allowed to be married, get the right to marry, now it's taken away. It's just cruel. Rights granted and then rescinded.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well 8 is winning.

frankly domestic partnerships and such is enough.

and a wake up call to anyone who thinks this is a massive national swing to the left.
We should start calling interracial marriages domestic partnerships as well.

I wonder if I can get 120k signatures.

Hell I wonder if we can ban ugly people from getting married. I don't want my children suffering from look at them.
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
2
81
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: Ns1
lol @ yes on 8 fucks

"I'm doing it for my kids"
"I'm doing it for my kids"

Your kids are going to end up gay you bigot fucks.


Thaaaats nice!! ;)
Hey, real quick, where do you live? I can have a couple of my gay friends fucking on your lawn within the hour.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,458
7
81
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: Ns1
lol @ yes on 8 fucks

"I'm doing it for my kids"
"I'm doing it for my kids"

Your kids are going to end up gay you bigot fucks.


Thaaaats nice!! ;)
Hey, real quick, where do you live? I can have a couple of my gay friends fucking on your lawn within the hour.
Not without breaking the law. :p
 

Jschmuck2

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,623
2
81
A telling stat:

Amongst white people who have graduated from college 61% say no on 8 whereas 53% of those voting yes had no college.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,516
126
No gaining. There is hope I guess.

Was +275k now only +225k

-231k now :(
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
94
86
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
A telling stat:

Amongst white people who have graduated from college 61% say no on 8 whereas 53% of those voting yes had no college.
The odd thing here is that Blacks and Hispanics tend to vote liberal but not when it comes to gays. Hispanics make up a huge part of the CA voting bloc.

 

makken

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2004
1,476
0
71
not looking so hot:

53 yes to 47 no;
63% of SF county already reporting, heavy no
59% of San Mateo reporting, heavy no
16% of LA reporting, leaning towards yes.

Lets see if the east bay can pick up the slack (Alameda and Contra Costa, both leaning towards heavy no with ~15% reporting)
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Wow this video is silly. So some whacko claims that countries that allow same-sex marriages have a 46% increase in out of wedlock childbirth and the OP is willing to buy that hook line and sinker?

So many flaws with his argument.

The first is his first point "let's see if there's any benefit to allowing same sex marriages," then quickly redefines it as a "social/societal benefit." His answer is no, but how about letting a segment of society legally get married that had no legal right to marriage and the legal benefits that marriage entails. Sounds like he's tailoring his questions to fit predetermined conclusions.

The main problem, of course, is how can he possibly believe that the recent rise in out of marriage children is correlated (1:1 no less!) to allowing same sex marriages?
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
5
71
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Wow this video is silly. So some whacko claims that countries that allow same-sex marriages have a 46% increase in out of wedlock childbirth and the OP is willing to buy that hook line and sinker?

So many flaws with his argument.

The first is his first point "let's see if there's any benefit to allowing same sex marriages," then quickly redefines it as a "social/societal benefit." His answer is no, but how about letting a segment of society legally get married that had no legal right to marriage and the legal benefits that marriage entails. Sounds like he's tailoring his questions to fit predetermined conclusions.

The main problem, of course, is how can he possibly believe that the recent rise in out of marriage children is correlated (1:1 no less!) to allowing same sex marriages?
Obviously the straight people are feeling pressured to pump out more kids than the gays now that the gays can marry.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,829
804
126
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Not allowed to be married, get the right to marry, now it's taken away. It's just cruel. Rights granted and then rescinded.
Who else to decide what a right is other than man? It will ALWAYS be dynamic. Man is a dynamic creature.
 

freakyj92

Member
Nov 7, 2007
72
0
0
I can honestly say as a white straight man, I am ashamed to live in CA right now. The fact this country can elect a black president yet still pass a bill to discriminate is just embarrassing. And that people are persuaded by outdated, illogical morons like in this video is amazing. I was so proud of this country for being able to elect Obama and yet so ashamed that we have just redirected that bigotry toward another group.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY