gay ass marriages killed again.... thank you

[pavelbure]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05 ... ationwide/

California Gay Marriage Ban Appears Headed for Victory
A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California is ahead by a narrow margin early Wednesday

AP

Wednesday, November 05, 2008
1
x

LOS ANGELES -- A proposed ban on same-sex marriage in California -- widely seen as the most momentous of the 153 ballot measures at stake nationwide -- remained undecided early Wednesday.

The proposed constitutional amendment would limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in state where gay unions are legal.

Sponsors of the ban declared victory early Wednesday, but the measure's opponents said too many votes remained uncounted for the race to be called.

With 84 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the ban had 4,605,065 votes, or 52 percent, to 4,293,068 votes, or 48 percent, against.

"The battle tonight has been won," Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, told about 60 supporters at a Sacramento hotel event.

While the initiative's supporters were celebrating, opponents ended their election night gathering at a historic hotel in San Francisco's Union Square insisting it was premature to concede.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom preached patience to the same-sex couples who were unable to enjoy Barack Obama's victory while their personal lives hung in the balance. Newsom called the wait "excruciating."

"You decided to live your life out loud, to fall in love, and to say 'I do,' and now you have to wait for this verdict," he said.

Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections, but none were in California's situation -- with thousands of gay couples already married following a state Supreme Court ruling in May.

Gay rights activists had a rough day Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and gay rights forces suffered a loss in Arkansas, where voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado and South Dakota rejected measures that could have led to sweeping bans of abortion, and Washington became only the second state -- after Oregon -- to offer terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide.

A first-of-its-kind measure in Colorado, which was defeated soundly, would have defined life as beginning at conception. Its opponents said the proposal could lead to the outlawing of some types of birth control as well as abortion.

The South Dakota measure would have banned abortions except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother. A tougher version, without the rape and incest exceptions, lost in 2006.

Anti-abortion activists thought the modifications would win approval, but the margin of defeat was similar, about 55 percent to 45 percent of the vote.

"The lesson here is that Americans, in states across the country, clearly support women's ability to access abortion care without government interference," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

In Washington, voters gave solid approval to an initiative modeled after Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law, which allows a terminally ill person to be prescribed lethal medication they can administer to themselves. Since Oregon's law took effect in 1997, more than 340 people -- mostly ailing with cancer -- have used it to end their lives.

Elsewhere, the marijuana reform movement won two prized victories, with Massachusetts voters decriminalizing possession of small amounts of the drug and Michigan joining 12 other states in allowing use of pot for medical purposes.

Henceforth, people caught in Massachusetts with an ounce or less of pot will no longer face criminal penalties. Instead, they'll forfeit the marijuana and pay a $100 civil fine.

The Michigan measure will allow severely ill patients to register with the state and legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea, appetite loss and other symptoms.

Nebraska voters, meanwhile, approved a ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action, similar to measures previously approved in California, Michigan and Washington. Returns in Colorado on a similar measure were too close to call.

Ward Connerly, the California activist-businessman who has led the crusade against affirmative action, said Obama's victory proved his point. "We have overcome the scourge of race," Connerly said.

Energy measures met a mixed fate. In Missouri, voters approved a measure requiring the state's three investor-owned electric utilities to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021. But California voters defeated an even more ambitious measure that would have required the state's utilities to generate half their electricity from windmills, solar systems, geothermal reserves and other renewable sources by 2025.

Two animal-welfare measures passed -- a ban on dog racing in Massachusetts, and a proposition in California that outlaws cramped cages for egg-laying chickens.

Amid deep economic uncertainty, proposals to cut state income taxes were defeated decisively in North Dakota and Massachusetts.

In San Francisco, an eye-catching local measure -- to bar arrests for prostitution -- was soundly rejected. Police and political leaders said it would hamper the fight against sex trafficking.

[Roofus]

There you are! I missed you, buddy!

[|darc|]

grow up, bigot.

[pavelbure]

There you are! I missed you, buddy!

i even linked to foxnews.com because i know you like it.

[Stormwatch]

I don't recall who suggested this, but I'd support banning the teaching of religion to children. If they're not indoctrinated a set of irrational superstitious taboos when they're the most vulnerable, they'd have a better chance to deal with it rationally. "Just WHY am I supposed to interfere with someone else's relationship? Because invisible-man-in-the-sky said so? You're talking nonsense!"

[Ex-Cyber]

I still don't see why governments should legislate "marriage" at all, regardless of orientation. Is there any good reason for the various legal mechanisms involved to be tied to what amounts to a religious lifestyle prescription?

[|darc|]

As I posted on another board earlier: Why can't the government just do civil unions ONLY? Set an age limit and let any two people form a civil union with one another (limit one civil union per person until you dissolve your previous one). They will receive all the benefits that married couples currently enjoy. Then, if people want the title of "married," let them do it at a church. If polygamists want to get married to multiple women, let them, they just won't enjoy the benefits the government provides or be acknowledged by the government at all.

[toastman]

Prohibiting gay people from being able to get married potentially violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

If there is a religion that allows for gay marriages, you then could not fully practice that religion in California. Even if there is not a religion that allows for gay marriages, we could just start one. It's not impossible (see Scientology).

[Stormwatch]

|darc|, that sounds interesting, but...

Marriage is always a civil union, and optionally a religious sacrament. The way you put, a straight atheist couple can not get married either. I understand they would get the benefits under a different name; but the "being married" has a social, symbolical value, so that idea takes something away from those who do not follow a religion.

toastman, ever heard of Unitarian Universalism? It's a "religion without a creed", look into it.

[toastman]

|darc|, that sounds interesting, but...

Marriage is always a civil union, and optionally a religious sacrament. The way you put, a straight atheist couple can not get married either. I understand they would get the benefits under a different name; but the "being married" has a social, symbolical value, so that idea takes something away from those who do not follow a religion.

toastman, ever heard of Unitarian Universalism? It's a "religion without a creed", look into it.

Then that is an open/shut kind of deal. No state constitution can ban gay marriages without being in violation of the federal constitution.

Not to mention that a constitution is to explicitly restrict a government's power, not to strip away a person's rights.

[JuddWack]

I live in California now and it seems like Prop 8 is the talk of my work place, unfortunately it is making some people upset. I had one question.

Is it true, that besides not being officially recognized as a "married couple", domestic partnerships don't grant the same rights and privileges as marriage? This seems pretty clear to me that they do:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =297-297.5

There was a girl arguing at my work today that they don't in some areas, such as death and dieing. For example a domestic partner may be denied visitation rights in a hospital. Unfortunately the noonprop8.com puts up a pretty weak argument. I do completely agree that is unfair that government enforces who can marry and who can't, but if the campaign really wants to make some people switch sides they need to offer some cold hard facts, not information open to personal opinion.

[|darc|]

The way you put, a straight atheist couple can not get married either.

Why not? If the government doesn't define marriage, anyone can simply declare themselves married. It'll be no different than if I made up a friendship pact named borfuffling and I declared myself borfuffled to my friends. It's a religious/philosophical choice. I can make up my own religion and declare myself a priest, too...

[Stormwatch]

Or you could just pay $30 to become a minister of the Church of SubGenius, praise "Bob"!

For a somewhat more serious (and free) one, try the Universal Life Church.

[Christuserloeser]

Stormwatch's selling "religions" now. I know these are cheap, but no thanks, we got way too many already. - But seriously: Why on earth would someone be interested in even reading about some super-obscure cult ?

[Quzar]

There was a girl arguing at my work today that they don't in some areas, such as death and dieing. For example a domestic partner may be denied visitation rights in a hospital. Unfortunately the noonprop8.com puts up a pretty weak argument. I do completely agree that is unfair that government enforces who can marry and who can't, but if the campaign really wants to make some people switch sides they need to offer some cold hard facts, not information open to personal opinion.

I'm pretty sure the major difference is public perception. If you go to a hospital and they say "are you a relative or spouse" and you say "I'm their domestic partner", they may simply not know/care/understand that legally you have the same rights.

[Stormwatch]

Stormwatch's selling "religions" now. I know these are cheap, but no thanks, we got way too many already. - But seriously: Why on earth would someone be interested in even reading about some super-obscure cult ?

These are "legally religions", but are not really - UU and ULC are more like institutions in defense of freedom of belief, while SubGenius is a satire of religion.

[|darc|]

Why on earth would someone be interested in even reading about some super-obscure cult ?

in the name of psychology and sociology?

[JuddWack]

There was a girl arguing at my work today that they don't in some areas, such as death and dieing. For example a domestic partner may be denied visitation rights in a hospital. Unfortunately the noonprop8.com puts up a pretty weak argument. I do completely agree that is unfair that government enforces who can marry and who can't, but if the campaign really wants to make some people switch sides they need to offer some cold hard facts, not information open to personal opinion.

I'm pretty sure the major difference is public perception. If you go to a hospital and they say "are you a relative or spouse" and you say "I'm their domestic partner", they may simply not know/care/understand that legally you have the same rights.

That's what the other guy said. So the girl was wrong, but was arguing in favor of my vote. I don't care how you want to put it. Marriage is not equal to a domestic partnership. If it were, they would have the same name.

[TechnoWolf]

Regardless of anyone's view on whether to allow "same-sex marriage" or not, the fact that the State of California's Governor, and it's legislature, and our President elect are all actually considering / supporting overruling a vote by the people of that state should make ALL of us (who live in the US) VERY, VERY, VERY, FREAKING CONCERNED. What happened to majority vote democracy, rule of law, government for the people by the people??? Many hundreds of thousands of men and women fought and died in many wars to preserve the democratic system of government we have. No matter what the issue, to blatantly overturn a vote is a dangerous sign of the times. If a group with a belief feels let down by a majority vote, you press the issue in the public forum and attempt to convince a new majority to vote your way the next time around. That's how it's been done for hundreds of years.

[Lartrak]

I don't recall who suggested this, but I'd support banning the teaching of religion to children. If they're not indoctrinated a set of irrational superstitious taboos when they're the most vulnerable, they'd have a better chance to deal with it rationally. "Just WHY am I supposed to interfere with someone else's relationship? Because invisible-man-in-the-sky said so? You're talking nonsense!"

How exactly would you enforce that? Not only is it unenforceable, it's also unconstitutional. I personally think parents shouldn't give ANY religious instructions in any direction until the children are older (which is what I was lucky enough to receive, I never got any religious instructions from my parents at any point), but I also feel the government doesn't have a place in such matters.

Regardless of anyone's view on whether to allow "same-sex marriage" or not, the fact that the State of California's Governor, and it's legislature, and our President elect are all actually considering / supporting overruling a vote by the people of that state should make ALL of us (who live in the US) VERY, VERY, VERY, FREAKING CONCERNED.

That sort of thing is a semi-regular thing. It basically always has been. Here in Missouri, the same thing happened with concealed carry. Well, not exactly. Basically, a referendum to allow concealed carry failed by a narrow margin, then a few years later the state assembly just passed a law allowing it without public input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Propo ... n_Missouri

They did raise the minimum age for concealed carry with the newer law though. Other than that though, concealed carry in Missouri is one of the most permissive in the USA. You can carry any amount of anything as long as you can conceal it (including larger than normal knives, which very few concealed carry laws allow). I don't think too many people bother with anything besides the usual small handgun though.