[Shaddim]

Way to go fellas. Thought you guys on the Left had that one wrapped up.

I guess Rosie, Ellen, and Co. will be really pissed tomorrow. What will this do for gay couples who have already gotten married over there?

[- - e r i k - -]

Yeah, I guess we had to have one downer this day

[Shaddim]

It was across the board, EVERY state that had such a proposition passed it, even the "liberal" states.

[iMOTOR]

I can’t believe how racist my own state is. I’m so ashamed.

[macintologist]

The reality is that pro-gay rights is not a mainstream default position to take. If you talk to down-the-middle average Americans who participate in politics, their default answer would be "protect marriage". It will take another 20 years before that changes.

[22Gigs]

Am I confused, I'm watching the news and they're still reporting only 30% of California precincts are reporting, and it's about 54/46.

[- - e r i k - -]

Really sad how the US is lagging behind the world zeitgeist on that one.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Way to go fellas. Thought you guys on the Left had that one wrapped up.

I guess Rosie, Ellen, and Co. will be really pissed tomorrow. What will this do for gay couples who have already gotten married over there?

Huh? It hasn't been called yet...

(Although Arizona's gay marriage ban has been projected as passing.)

[Shaddim]

They're saying this nullifies the 1000s of gay marriages that were licensed over the last few months.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Huh? It hasn't been called yet...

(Although Arizona's gay marriage ban has been projected as passing.)

It was "called" earlier on the wire.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They're saying this nullifies the 1000s of gay marriages that were licensed over the last few months.

Well it would, if it had passed yet, which it hasn't...

I'm not saying it won't, I'm just saying no one has called it yet, so I'm trying to figure out why the hell you think it's passed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It was "called" earlier on the wire.

I'm looking and I can't find any news source calling it. Even Fox News says:

"In California supporters and opponents of a ballot initiative that would outlaw same-sex marriage were preparing for a long, tense wait Tuesday night after exit polls and early returns showed neither side with a clear advantage. Early returns showed the Proposition 8 passing with 53 percent of the vote, but that was with only 32 percent of precincts reporting."

[Shaddim]

Let's hope that somewhere a few 100,000 votes can be found to overturn this, but it doesn't look like it.

[Rumor]

41% reported,

Yes: 2,672,216 53.4%
No: 2,336,610 46.6%

[Shaddim]

You would think something as important as an amendment to a constitution would require more than just a simple majority.

[Chuckit]

It's still close (52–48 at the moment), and seems to be getting closer as the night draws on. None of the news outlets have called it yet as far as I know. I'll be very embarrassed if California actually makes such an idiotic amendment to our constitution. It's crap like this that makes me want to hate the Mormons.

And yeah, constitutional amendments really should require at least a supermajority, but the initiative process here is FUBAR.

EDIT: I see that meanwhile, the proposition to rehabilitate nonviolent drug offenders rather than waste money on overcrowded prisons has failed. WAY TO GO, US.

[Eug]

It looks like the gay-marriage-vacation-industry has been kickstarted again.

Vancouver and Toronto are popular destinations. We welcome your tourist dollars!

[Big Mac]

At least there's one thing I get to gloat about. We picked the wrong man for the presidency, but at least we got this right. My votes on the propositions were echoed by the majority of Californians this year, to an extent that is pretty surprising to me.

It's crap like this that makes me want to hate the Mormons.

How very tolerant of you, Chuck. I like Mormons a lot. I have strong religious differences with them, of course, but every Mormon family I have ever met has been very kind to others and very functional. I don't know why you would single them out for hatred. They're a tiny minority in California anyway.

And yeah, constitutional amendments really should require at least a supermajority, but the initiative process here is FUBAR.

It didn't take a super-majority of unelected judges to reject the will of the people of California, so why should it take a super-majority of voters to reinstate it?

EDIT: I see that meanwhile, the proposition to rehabilitate nonviolent drug offenders rather than waste money on overcrowded prisons has failed. WAY TO GO, US.

Yeah. . . well, I don't know if you followed it too closely, but every major advocacy group in the state was against that proposition on a bipartisan and non-partisan basis. Even Feinstein was against it, and she's far from a law and order politician. There was no way it could have passed. Besides, California already has alternatives to prison time for drug offenses.

[smacintush]

I really fail to see how this is "getting it right". It doesn't advance, preserve or otherwise improve anything about our society to restrict two people who love each other from getting married. Your religious beliefs or your bigotry are the only reasons to support such things. Neither should have any bearing at all in the issue. Grow the f*ck up America.

[Atheist]

It's time for gays and lesbians to realize that mainstream America still sees homosexuals as a huge threat. It's very sad. Pathetic really.

Time for the myriad separate-but-equal laws to start springing up. Let's see.
Separate laws for civil unions.
Separate laws for hospital visitation rights.
Separate laws for extending benefits to civil partners.
Separate laws in every state ad nauseam.

I really thought this was a no brainer. Humans really disappoint me. I was really starting to think that the tide was turning and I might someday be able to return to the States.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I really fail to see how this is "getting it right". It doesn't advance, preserve or otherwise improve anything about our society to restrict two people who love each other from getting married. Your religious beliefs or your bigotry are the only reasons to support such things. Neither should have any bearing at all in the issue. Grow the f*ck up America.

Spread all the vitriol you like, smacintush. You're so blinded to the reality of the situation that you don't realize your position failed in one of the most left-wing states in the country. Even the dullards who voted BHO into office voted against you.

Atheist, California already gives civil unions all of the same legal rights that are granted to marriages. There's no legal difference between the two. See California Family Code Section 297.5.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Spread all the vitriol you like, smacintush. You're so blinded to the reality of the situation that you don't realize your position failed in one of the most left-wing states in the country. Even the dullards who voted BHO into office voted against you.

If you would, explain to me how this is significant.

Just because a lot of people agree on something don't make it a good f*ckin' idea. This election should show you the folly of that.

[tie]

Prop. 22 passed with a 61.4% approval rating in 2000. With 95% of precincts reporting Prop. 8 is today only in the lead by 52%. I think the writing is on the wall for the anti-marriage folks.

I think in four years this will be fixed. Separate-but-equal isn't equal, people will realize once again. Obama shows that things can change very quickly in this country, and evil is overcome.

[smacintush]

Oh c'mon let's not bring the "e" word into this.

[Doofy]

Don't worry, California flamboyants... ..in just over two months Prez Barry will don his cape and swoop in to save you!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Prop. 22 passed with a 61.4% approval rating in 2000. With 95% of precincts reporting Prop. 8 is today only in the lead by 52%. I think the writing is on the wall for the anti-marriage folks.

I think in four years this will be fixed. Separate-but-equal isn't equal, people will realize once again. Obama shows that things can change very quickly in this country, and evil is overcome.

It's funny how much differently we interpret the returns.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's funny how much differently we interpret the returns.

With a 9.4% drop in support over the last eight years so that it now has only 52% support, I can see the trend clearly. Judging by your spectacular miscalls of the presidential election, it doesn't surprise me that you can't. Will it take two years or four years is the question---my guess is four.

I think we can both agree, though, that the forces of good triumphed over evil with the passage of Prop. 2. Chickens have rights, too!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

At least there's one thing I get to gloat about. We picked the wrong man for the presidency, but at least we got this right. My votes on the propositions were echoed by the majority of Californians this year, to an extent that is pretty surprising to me.

How very tolerant of you, Chuck. I like Mormons a lot. I have strong religious differences with them, of course, but every Mormon family I have ever met has been very kind to others and very functional. I don't know why you would single them out for hatred. They're a tiny minority in California anyway.


It didn't take a super-majority of unelected judges to reject the will of the people of California, so why should it take a super-majority of voters to reinstate it?


Yeah. . . well, I don't know if you followed it too closely, but every major advocacy group in the state was against that proposition on a bipartisan and non-partisan basis. Even Feinstein was against it, and she's far from a law and order politician. There was no way it could have passed. Besides, California already has alternatives to prison time for drug offenses.

Do you not see a complete contradiction here of your conservative beliefs you say you stand for, and this amendment? Think about it. I guarantee you that Ron Paul doesn't want the government to take over the decision making of religious institutions or impact the private lives of legal residents this way.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

How very tolerant of you, Chuck. I like Mormons a lot.

Of course you do. They help you oppress groups you disagree with religiously. And I never voted to have Mormonism not be recognized as a religion, so I'm being a lot more tolerant toward them than you are of gays.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have strong religious differences with them, of course, but every Mormon family I have ever met has been very kind to others and very functional. I don't know why you would single them out for hatred. They're a tiny minority in California anyway.

They're the ones who started the campaign of FUD for Prop. 8. I was there at the meeting. I don't know what gays did to those folks, but spreading lies just to oppress a group that already has it hard? That's evil in the book of every religion I know, including their own.

BTW, my whole family is Mormon and supported this abomination. Just for context.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It didn't take a super-majority of unelected judges to reject the will of the people of California, so why should it take a super-majority of voters to reinstate it?

I've said this about 10 million times, but I guess I'll say it again: Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, the judges were overstepping their bounds. But we should not be harassing gays in the first place, much less inserting it into our constitution. All of these are serious derelictions of duty, and I'm not excusing ours just because of theirs.

[TheWOAT]

Im glad Prop 12 passed, but bothered by Prop 2 passing... this year I voted against anything that would cost money (with the possible exception of Prop 5)... I also voted against all incumbents... WOo Hoo high speed trains!!! We cant afford it, but who cares right?

[Chuckit]

I know, that trains thing was just bizarre. But why are you bothered by Prop. 2 passing? The only group against it was a coalition of big farms. All the consumer advocacy, animal advocacy, food safety advocacy, etc. groups were for it.

[TheWOAT]

Because Id rather get food from a big farm in California than a big farm in Mexico. Our standards are better. The methods wont change, our food will still be grown (raised) in the same conditions, they will just come from different places (or worse, different countries)... It also might rise our food prices.. So Obama (who I voted for) will cut my taxes, but California will rise my sales tax, my food prices, my cost of living, on top of already higher than average gas prices...

Overall it seemed to me like a 'feel good' bullsh-t iniative... like that one a couple years ago banning the consumption of horse meat...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Of course you do. They help you oppress groups you disagree with religiously. And I never voted to have Mormonism not be recognized as a religion, so I'm being a lot more tolerant toward them than you are of gays.

I recognize homosexuals. I just don't recognize their unions as "marriages." And neither do most Californians, despite a number of factors: The overwhelming tolerance of gays here, the left-wing, gay agenda-promoting media, and the Democrats who got the leftist radical Barack Hussein Obama elected president and would otherwise be predisposed to voting against Prop. 8. They split their ticket over Prop. 8, voting against so many of our lefty politicians and advocacy groups.

They're the ones who started the campaign of FUD for Prop. 8. I was there at the meeting. I don't know what gays did to those folks, but spreading lies just to oppress a group that already has it hard? That's evil in the book of every religion I know, including their own.

If you can prove that the Protect Marriage people lied, I'd like to see that proof. It seems to me that the anti-Prop. 8 campaign was a lot more dishonest than its opposition.

BTW, my whole family is Mormon and supported this abomination. Just for context.

Okay, so you have a grudge. I'm sorry you're at odds with your family.

I've said this about 10 million times, but I guess I'll say it again: Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, the judges were overstepping their bounds. But we should not be harassing gays in the first place, much less inserting it into our constitution. All of these are serious derelictions of duty, and I'm not excusing ours just because of theirs.

If the judges did overstep their bounds, then it was right for the people to restore those boundaries. This isn't about harassment of gay people. They just don't get to call their unions marriages in California, just as polygamous couples and incestuous couples don't.

[TheWOAT]

With 96.4% of the votes counted...
08 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
YES: 5,220,694 52.2%
NO: 4,792,873 47.8%

[TheWOAT]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/...ot_measures_33

Looks like its being called.

[tie]

Another unknown is whether same-sex marriages performed after the election would automatically not be recognized by the state. Allie Schembra, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state, said Proposition 8 would become effective the day after the election if it passes.

But Hong and other county clerks say that because it usually takes a month for election results to be certified as final, they do not plan to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until they are directed by the state health department, which oversees marriage records.

AP

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I recognize homosexuals. I just don't recognize their unions as "marriages."

I don't get why it's become the role of government to decide what is and is not a marriage, period. My church married my wife and I, not the government. To me the government should only have civil unions, which only exist for legal purposes, and they should leave marriage to the religious institutions.

If two homosexual individuals want to enter into the same legal agreement that my wife and I have, why should I care? If they want to get married, in a church, that's a question the government needs to stay the hell away from.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: if BHO is a "left wing radical", what is somebody like Nadar, Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich? Certain outspoken PETA/environmental/Hollywood/San Francisco types? Super off the charts radicals?

Either your language is needlessly dramatic, or else you really are that far right that BHO seems genuinely radical to you. If the latter is true, have you ever traveled outside of this country?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I don't get why it's become the role of government to decide what is and is not a marriage, period. My church married my wife and I, not the government. To me the government should only have civil unions, which only exist for legal purposes, and they should leave marriage to the religious institutions.

If two homosexual individuals want to enter into the same legal agreement that my wife and I have, why should I care? If they want to get married, in a church, that's a question the government needs to stay the hell away from.

Ding ding!!

What I don't get is the complete and utter contradiction of so-called small government Conservatives who want the government to leave them alone and stay out of their lives, yet expend resources affecting the lives of complete strangers in this fashion for doing something which doesn't affect them in the slightest.

[Eug]

In my country, the government's marriage licence is a legal document only. It does not imply a religious union.

[hyteckit]

Damn. That's gay. So is California.

Oh wait. I live in California. That sucks.

[hyteckit]

Reason why Prop 8 pass. Latino votes. They are very conservative in values, but they like Democrats.

I had a feeling that Prop 8 would pass, when I was voting when I was surrounded by Latinos. Mostly older age Spanish speaking women who couldn't speak English and needed help from the workers there.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

I don't get why it's become the role of government to decide what is and is not a marriage, period. My church married my wife and I, not the government. To me the government should only have civil unions, which only exist for legal purposes, and they should leave marriage to the religious institutions.

That's the proposal Doofy mentioned weeks ago that I strongly support.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: if BHO is a "left wing radical", what is somebody like Nadar, Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich? Certain outspoken PETA/environmental/Hollywood/San Francisco types? Super off the charts radicals?

BHO ran to the right and did his best to conceal his radicalism in order to win this election. He succeeded. I don't think there is much of any difference between Dennis Kucinich and BHO in real terms. It's just that BHO is a far superior and far more charismatic politician who knows how to hide his true agenda for the most part.

[chris v]

Californians, in general have been reckless with their initiative and referendum powers, ever since prop. 13, if you ask me. Of course, it'd take a referendum to strip them of the right to referendum... *sigh*

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I recognize homosexuals. I just don't recognize their unions as "marriages."

What if the state of California eliminated the word marriage altogether and legislated civil unions only. Would you support that?

[ironknee]

shame

what i learned from the elections:

There are big parts of the American pie that's not cooked enough

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

What if the state of California eliminated the word marriage altogether and legislated civil unions only. Would you support that?

Would they still recognize a traditional marriage as a legal civil union? If so, then I would be fine with that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's the proposal Doofy mentioned weeks ago that I strongly support.


BHO ran to the right and did his best to conceal his radicalism in order to win this election. He succeeded. I don't think there is much of any difference between Dennis Kucinich and BHO in real terms. It's just that BHO is a far superior and far more charismatic politician who knows how to hide his true agenda for the most part.

Ahhh, so his radicalism is your gut feeling. Okay.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Reason why Prop 8 pass. Latino votes. They are very conservative in values, but they like Democrats.

I had a feeling that Prop 8 would pass, when I was voting when I was surrounded by Latinos. Mostly older age Spanish speaking women who couldn't speak English and needed help from the workers there.

Good point. The exit polls showed that blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8 while all other groups opposed it by a fair (but less overwhelming) margin. And it barely passed. Interesting.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Would they still recognize a traditional marriage as a legal civil union? If so, then I would be fine with that.

Yes. I'm speaking of civil unions between two consenting adults regardless of gender.

So all this really comes down to is that you are offended by same-sex unions being called a marriage.