Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, November 6, 2008

Voters approve gay-marriage ban

Legal future of same-sex unions now in question

November 6, 2008

Advertisement

Same-sex couple Kristina Haas, center, and Jennifer Briz, right, are denied marriage by a city clerk at San Francisco City Hall on Wednesday. Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.

Same-sex couple Kristina Haas, center, and Jennifer Briz, right, are denied marriage by a city clerk at San Francisco City Hall on Wednesday. Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.

— Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.

The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Amendments to ban gay marriage were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas 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.

But California, the nation's most populous state, had been the big prize. Spending for and against Proposition 8 reached $74 million, the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House. Activists on both sides of the issue saw the measure as critical to building momentum for their causes.

"People believe in the institution of marriage," Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, said after declaring victory early Wednesday. "It's one institution that crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides. ... People have stood up because they care about marriage and they care a great deal."

With almost all precincts reporting, election returns showed the measure winning with 52 percent of the vote. An estimated 2 million to

3 million provisional and absentee ballots remained to be tallied, but based on trends and the locations of the votes still outstanding, the margin of support in favor of the initiative was secure.

Leaders of the No on 8 campaign said they were not ready to concede.

"Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome," Geoff Kors, director of Equality California, said in a statement Wednesday.

Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. About seven in 10 blacks voted in favor of the ban, while Latinos also supported it and whites were split.

Californians overwhelmingly passed a ban on same-sex marriage in 2000, but gay-rights supporters had hoped public opinion on the issue had shifted enough for this year's measure to be rejected.

"We pick ourselves up and trudge on," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "There has been enormous movement in favor of full equality in eight short years. That is the direction this is heading, and if it's not today or it's not tomorrow, it will be soon."

The constitutional amendment limits marriage to heterosexual couples, nullifying the California Supreme Court decision that had made same-sex marriages legal in the state since June.

Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections, but none were in California's situation - with about 18,000 gay couples already married. The state attorney general, Jerry Brown, has said those marriages will remain valid, although legal challenges are possible.

Despite intense disappointment, some newlyweds chose to look on the positive side, taking comfort that millions of Californians had voted to validate their relationships.

"I'm really OK," said Diana Correia, of Berkeley, who married her partner of 18 years, Cynthia Correia, on Sunday in front of the couple's two children and 80 relatives and friends. "I hope the marriage holds, but we are already married in our hearts, so nobody can take that away."

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

It's time for government to get out of the marriage business altogether-- leave that to churches. Governments should establish rules for civil unions, and the personal interactions between those in civil unions should be a strictly private matter, whether it includes sex or not. Parental rights and responsibilities would be a separate issue altogether.

kidicarus 6 years, 1 month ago

"Since there is no incentive to get married there will be fewer marriage, and less stability in society which will be detrimental, especially to children."I'm not sure how you get much more unstable than a 70% divorce rate. I doubt that most people choose marriage for the tax breaks involved.

mom_of_three 6 years, 1 month ago

Yes, people believe in the institution of marriage - marriage or civil unions or whatever you call it for all. If they want to protect the institution of marriage, then stop getting divorced.

Deja Coffin 6 years, 1 month ago

Okay, here's my preaching comment. Why can't gay people be allowed to be recognized by the government as legal partners? People marry for money, green cards, etc. why not let two people marry for love? I mean really, why can't it be up to the individual church. If that church denies them then they can't get married in that church and nobody can complain about it. I can't get married in a Catholic church because they require you to be Catholic and I'm not, I'm baptist. But if you're going to deny gay people the right to be recognized as married individuals then you need to do that with Muslims, Islamic, and any other religion that's different from yours. To treat other people as sub-human is wrong. It really is wrong. Besides, in the Bible, in Leviticus where it condemns gays, it also tells you that if your child is disrespectful to their parents then they're to be executed. Who's enforcing that verse?

kidicarus 6 years, 1 month ago

"SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says: I can only thank the homosexual activists who ramrodded the gay "marriage" issue so fully down society's throat that the backlash of revulsion and disgust has resulted in DOZENS of constitutional amendments around the country codifying marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Thanks again."50 years ago blacks were fighting to be able to share a restaurant with whites. We now have a black president. I can't wait to see where the gay rights movement is in 50 years. I suspect STRS will have offed himself long before then. Gay marriage is coming sooner than later.

average 6 years, 1 month ago

"WHY must the gays inisist upon the term marriage and, in doing so, jeopardize whatever progress might be made on their behalf?"Why do the churches that pushed this insist that the state recognize the term marriage at all? If the state would drop that term, my church could marry who it wanted to, and the Catholics still wouldn't have to marry me or recognize my marriage (just like they won't do today).When everyone who wants a union gets a union, full stop, and those unions confer all the privileges (state pension benefits, social security survivors benefits, custody protection, etc) that any other union gets, gays won't be begging for the word marriage. They'll go to gay-friendly churches if they want to be married.

nativedaughter 6 years, 1 month ago

I moved to California from Lawrence thinking I would get away from bigots like the ones posting here. I am deeply saddened to say that I was wrong.Don't like gay marriages? Then don't get one. Simple as that. What are YOU so afraid of?

canyon_wren 6 years, 1 month ago

The approval of Prop.8 in California--a state which went largely for Obama--says one of two things: either there were a number of Republicans who were totally disgusted with their administration, but still opposed to gay marriage OR there are quite a few Democrats who are. Having just returned from a trip to CA, where I read a number of editorials about that proposition, I would judge the latter is true. I think the whole issue rests on applying the term "marriage" to homosexual unions. It would be so much simpler just to call it a civil union. I am totally in favor of businesses offering benefits to those in that sort of relationship--as long as they are not FORCED to, by the government. I think it will ultimately come to that sort of set up as time goes by, and will be welcome. WHY must the gays inisist upon the term marriage and, in doing so, jeopardize whatever progress might be made on their behalf?

9070811 6 years, 1 month ago

You don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. That simple. I agree with Just Another Bozo. Unions and rights to all couples...and religious marriages to churches.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

The passage of prop 8 is a blow to the advancement of social justice and to those of us who believe in liberty for all. However the election of President Obama give us hope that hard work and perseverance will lead to a breakthrough and institutional bigotry and discrimination will ultimately be defeated. It is only a matter of time.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

"Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target."It's stupid commentary like this that proves how utterly sympathetic the liberal AP is to its friends on the far left.

average 6 years, 1 month ago

I'm a member of a church that has been honored to bless same-sex weddings for over thirty years. Our religious freedoms are where, exactly?If you say my church's unions shouldn't count on some totally secular ground, then you can't be in favor of civil same-sex unions at all. If there is any religious consideration, then my religion is being discriminated against.My fiancee and myself (hetero, btw) were thinking about asking for a public vote on whether we should be allowed to get married. We decided, instead, that we will be married in Canada.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

"'Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome,' Geoff Kors, director of Equality California, said in a statement Wednesday."Which is code for, "We're going to sue until we can find a court liberal enough to agree with our point of view."Remember: Gay "marriage" â Real Marriage

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh, and Brian - Larry spent 20 years in uniform. I'll let you and everyone else make what assumptions you may as to why his self-loathing is spewed on to everyone else around him. God forbid one of his children were gay. Actually, I doubt God (if he exists) would forbid that. So sad that Larry would.

average 6 years, 1 month ago

"No, because practicing Judaism or being gay are rights. Two men marrying each other is not a right, as we all know."This is currently the case. But, as I said above, those rights and any rights, from a legal perspective, come through the Constitution. They are dangerously mutable. We can remove them.But, my church, so far, still has freedom of religion. We will continue to marry our same-sex couples. You don't have to recognize it (and never did).

Chris Golledge 6 years, 1 month ago

cg22165 (Anonymous) says:"Marriage has nothing to do with how the country is run. It is an agreement between individuals and has no affect outside of those individuals; so, the is no justification for others to tell them what they can or can not do."You're absolutely right. I think I should be able to spend my own money and not give it to the government to be redistributed. Is that okay with you?Nota,You lost me. You are saying that how we pay taxes is a private matter and not related to the running of the government?

average 6 years, 1 month ago

"Well, no, actually. There are certain inalienable rights, such as life and liberty. "You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. A moving document which has no legal standing whatsoever. The Constitution allows plenty of limitations on life and liberty, and allows the people to make all the restrictions we can find enough votes for.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 1 month ago

"A right delayed is a right denied." - Dr. King Jr.So sad to see the black vote carry this atrocious violation of civil rights and equality. My heart goes out to everyone on this, because we are all hurt by it. Keep your stinking marriage in your church. I completely agree with Bozo on this point. I propose that any couple or group should be able to establish a legally-binding union which grants them access to shared health care, property rights, and financial responsibilities as deemed by the state governing their union.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 1 month ago

btw, does"...all men are created equal..."ring any bells?

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

Our society is based upon one man and one woman, and healthy families are based upon one mom and one dad. Don't like it? Move to California. Oops! I mean Massachusetts.

gogoplata 6 years, 1 month ago

Whoa Dejacrew423, I must have missed the part where someone was wanting to stone homos. How did you get from banning gay marriage to the passage in leviticus where God commanded the Israelites to stone homos?

gogoplata 6 years, 1 month ago

SettingTheRecordStraight is right. Christians don't want to be forced by the government to accept gay marriage as legitimate. On the flip side homosexuals do not want Christian values forced on them by the government. So the best way, which applies to many other issues as well, is to get the government out of the issue. As seen in the post by average there are places where gays can get married. So by getting the government out of the way Christians in churches that oppose gay marriage are not having the issue forced upon them and gays still have a place where they can go and get married. The morality of this issue is still important but it can be hashed out on an individual basis without the use of government force.

Deja Coffin 6 years, 1 month ago

Setting The Record Straight,There are more SINGLE parent families around then you seem to think. And as a single parent it is the mother or father's role to be both things to the child. So why can't a gay family have one mother and father figure? Ignorance is bliss isn't it? I'm married, have two beautiful children and to think that I have more right then anyone else, gay, black, white, poor, rich, christian, muslim, etc. to have children and have that joy is silly. There are so many children in the foster system that don't care, all they want is atleast ONE parent to truly love and care for them.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 1 month ago

bozo: "It's time for government to get out of the marriage business altogether- leave that to churches."mom: "If they want to protect the institution of marriage, then stop getting divorced." What's marriage got to do with government OR churches... OR divorce,for that matter?I was legally married for a quarter of a century, tho' never had a ceremony in any church. It later was required that I appear at the courthouse to legally disentangle my entanglements... but my marriage is alive and well( and hot! ) .Marriage rules!

gogoplata 6 years, 1 month ago

This one has really come to bite big government liberals in the butt. You want government involved in peoples lives right up until that point when the government involvement conflicts with the things you value. It is OK to use force "government" to impose your values on others but it kind of sucks when the other side does it to you.

mom_of_three 6 years, 1 month ago

And there is no guarantee that traditional marriages provide loving homes to children born or adopted. Being straight doesn't guarantee a loving parent. Look at all the abused kids, some of whom have been adopted. And look at all the kids raised by single parents, who are doing just fine, thank you very much.

average 6 years, 1 month ago

Ksdivacat -We the people can do anything. If we could convince enough legislators and 3/4ths of the states to pass an amendment to the US Constitution that any baby born with six toes is to be immediately drowned, it would stand.In creating the constitutions of the US and the states, we decided some things are more important than just a simple majority vote. Thus, to rescind freedom of religion would take a 3/4ths vote. We passed that with a two-thirds vote of the Congress and vote of States.We also passed with such a vote, after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, which says that the Federal Constitution can be supreme to the states on certain issues, regarding equal protection before the law. Before the 14th (and after it sadly), states had different laws for blacks and whites. Many states also had established religions, restrictions on the press, etc.California is an oddball, because certain modifications of their state constitution only require a 50/50 vote. But, the US Supreme Court could find them to violate the US 14th Amendment.The danger, here, is that enough Americans realize that they could do something like ban Judaism or behead gays, legally, if they got enough support. This is a dangerous path.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 1 month ago

Diva,No, you really don't get it. Marriage has nothing to do with how the country is run. It is an agreement between individuals and has no affect outside of those individuals; so, the is no justification for others to tell them what they can or can not do.

feeble 6 years, 1 month ago

So is LDS going to lose their tax-exempt status for their role in getting this ballot initiative passed?

ksdivakat 6 years, 1 month ago

politics are confusing and sickening! Why cant everyone just get along, respect one anothers opinions and leave one another to live however they want?? that doesnt seem to difficult to me, but aopearantly its impossible! But thank you all who gave me an answer at least, Ive been searching for answers for a long time on these issues.....

roger_o_thornhill 6 years, 1 month ago

Get rid of government involvement in "marriage" altogether! If it is a religious practice, the government has no business in anyone's marriage. If it is not, than denial of any two people joining up (even two heteros of the same sex or two non-sexually involved folk of any sex) is discrimination. Just like saying that folk with red hair or stars on their bellies can't participate.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 1 month ago

average says:"If there is any religious consideration, then my religion is being discriminated against."And you, average, make one of the best points I have ever heard. Thank you so very, very much. ---------------------------------For those who would propose, as STRS does, that "Our society is based upon one man and one woman, and healthy families are based upon one mom and one dad," - get a clue. Our society is NOT based upon one man and one woman, and the greater majority of healthy families have been in actuality based upon ONE WOMAN busting her a** to provide a healthy, stable environment for children. I'm not man bashing here, so don't bother going down that route with me - I've heard it before. What I'm saying, and what most honest people will acknowledge as they have been witness to it throughout society - is that one man and one woman have nothing to do with the equation of healthy families.

ksdivakat 6 years, 1 month ago

ok again heres my question, and duplenty we are going around about this, but why is it ok for the american people to vote for who they want in office, but its not ok for them to vote on the way they want the country run?? Is it just that if the democrats dont like the outcome then its not ok but if they do like it then its ok?I really am not trying to be asmart elec, but this whole polictical thing makes no sense to me! Everyone is all about change and the American people spoke and elected obama, and thats cool, but when the american people again speak and say, they dont want gay marriage then thats not ok....I dont get it...really!

kidicarus 6 years, 1 month ago

"SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says: logicsound,I want government out of our lives unless a behavior harms another (or a government action is not endorsed in the Constitution, but that's for another debate). Homosexual "marriage" would open wide the doors to homosexual adoption - not that it doesn't already exist in some parts of the country. Homosexual adoption leaves a 0% chance that the adopted child will be raised by a loving mother and father."STRS - show me any valid study which states that gay marriage causes harm to anyone. And gay adoption exists - nothing prevents a single gay man or woman from adopting a child. There's been no harm yet. Why do you hate people, STRS?

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "I would expect that this vote fell very strongly along party lines. The vast majority of Republicans likely voted for it, while a majority of Democrats voted against it. Anybody seen any exit polls?"Republicans - "Yes" 82-18%Democrats - "No" 64-36%Independents - "Yes" 54-46%http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1***logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "1) Where in the Constitution is the power of defining marriage given to the government?"I dunno' - maybe right next to the part that guarantees a Constitutional right to marry in the first place? Oh, wait...***cg22165 (Anonymous) says: "Marriage has nothing to do with how the country is run. It is an agreement between individuals and has no affect outside of those individuals; so, the is no justification for others to tell them what they can or can not do."You're absolutely right. I think I should be able to spend my own money and not give it to the government to be redistributed. Is that okay with you?****average (Anonymous) says: "We the people can do anything. If we could convince enough legislators and 3/4ths of the states to pass an amendment to the US Constitution that any baby born with six toes is to be immediately drowned, it would stand."Well, no, actually. There are certain inalienable rights, such as life and liberty. There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 1 month ago

So sad that during this week when one civil rights generation culminated decades of hardship in an historic bid for the most powerful office in the world that another takes a huge hit like this. Senseless discrimination is still alive in this country. Just when you think we've come so far.

jonas_opines 6 years, 1 month ago

Practically, they should just change the word and stop asking for marriage. 52% though, that's pretty low. I don't recall that even Oregon had much less than 80% pro-ban in the 2004 election. 'Course, we mighta all been a tad crazy back in 2004.

gogoplata 6 years, 1 month ago

Get government out of marriage. Plus a whole bunch of other things that it is screwing up. Education, economics, health care, other nations, etc.

oldvet 6 years, 1 month ago

14 October 2008 at 12:19 p.m.Anonymous usersfjayhawk (Anonymous) says:"no need to rush, prop 8 will be defeated. Californians will not write bigotry into their constitution."So if you took the "no" vote and 3%.... you lost!!!!!

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

kid, (fitting)I don't hate people. I hate failed liberal policies. A societal endorsement of homosexual "marriage" is a huge way to run our country straight into the crapper.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 1 month ago

Nota,Also, most people would agree that the constitution is better interpreted as defining what powers the government is granted and leaving others out, rather than interpreting it as anything not defined is fair game for the government to take charge of.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

logicsound,I want government out of our lives unless a behavior harms another (or a government action is not endorsed in the Constitution, but that's for another debate). Homosexual "marriage" would open wide the doors to homosexual adoption - not that it doesn't already exist in some parts of the country. Homosexual adoption leaves a 0% chance that the adopted child will be raised by a loving mother and father.

Trobs 6 years, 1 month ago

Vote freedom!Get the government out of your lives. You may think Ron Paul is crazy, but he wants true freedom for America. If you don't like the government saying what you can and can not do, stop voting along party lines. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.htmlGood article by Dr. Paul. Democracy is not freedom.

average 6 years, 1 month ago

The word 'inalienable' does not appear in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment. Certain rights are set out. They can be rescinded by Amendment. The words "life, liberty, or property" do appear, twice, both times followed by "without due process of law". In other words, a law can deprive you of life, liberty, or property.

preebo 6 years, 1 month ago

As a native Californian, I am truly disappointed that my home-state has chosen to endorse discrimination and elected bigotry over equality. People of all walks of life should be afforded equal measure under our Constitution. In a time, where we elected an African American to the higest office in the land, we should use that example to focus a light on the last real civil rights issue in our country. Gay or Straight it should not change the application of the Constitution. Are they not Americans? Are they not people? How can we treat them as anything less than equal?

Chris Golledge 6 years, 1 month ago

@Larry"God created Adam and Eve: not Adam and Steve!"So, you are comfortable with the government basing laws on one religious viewpoint, and not one that is shared by all. Is that correct?

Deja Coffin 6 years, 1 month ago

gogoplata, When Larry the Moocher referenced the Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve slogan, I thought it only fair to reference other parts of the Bible.

gr 6 years, 1 month ago

"When everyone who wants a union gets a union......gays won't be begging for the word marriage."But what about those who won't be permitted civil unions?

Trobs 6 years, 1 month ago

Best part about this entire story?It happened in California!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

I would expect that this vote fell very strongly along party lines. The vast majority of Republicans likely voted for it, while a majority of Democrats voted against it. Anybody seen any exit polls?

ksdivakat 6 years, 1 month ago

ok I lied, I have another question, but it doesnt have anything to do with this issue, but how in the heck did the whole T thing pass when so many were against it here? Not only did they pass 1 sales tax but 2 about it! I was shocked! Anyway, cant we all just get along and live and let live???

gccs14r 6 years, 1 month ago

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies. Either consenting adults can marry or they can not.

BrianR 6 years, 1 month ago

Larry_The_Moocher (misled & misinformed) says:"God created Adam and Eve: not Adam and Steve!Good job California: protected your children from deviant lifestyles."Lifestyles. That's rich. What about your hetero "lifestyle", Larry. When did you decide that you were hetero? A. From the very beginning? B. Adolescence? C. Yesterday?

9070811 6 years, 1 month ago

Really, citizens, if you don't like homosexuality or gay marriages...then don't "become" gay or marry someone of the same sex. So NEAT! Otherwise, I'm sorry you have such hateful feelings as to direct them towards hurting someone else's love. Always remember... "And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."

Chris Golledge 6 years, 1 month ago

Average,Not that it is a major point of this topic, but"without due process of law"generally refers to a trial.

gogoplata 6 years, 1 month ago

The inaleinable rights he is talking about are set forth in the Bill of Rights.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

I can only thank the homosexual activists who ramrodded the gay "marriage" issue so fully down society's throat that the backlash of revulsion and disgust has resulted in DOZENS of constitutional amendments around the country codifying marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Thanks again.

kidicarus 6 years, 1 month ago

"ksdivakat (Anonymous) says: ok again heres my question, and duplenty we are going around about this, but why is it ok for the american people to vote for who they want in office, but its not ok for them to vote on the way they want the country run?? Is it just that if the democrats dont like the outcome then its not ok but if they do like it then its ok?I really am not trying to be asmart elec, but this whole polictical thing makes no sense to me! Everyone is all about change and the American people spoke and elected obama, and thats cool, but when the american people again speak and say, they dont want gay marriage then thats not ok:.I dont get it:really!"This is why we have checks and balances. Majorities don't always make the best decisions (look up "slavery" for a good example). Please read the last paragraph of average's post above.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 1 month ago

"The danger, here, is that enough Americans realize that they could do something like ban Judaism or behead gays, legally, if they got enough support."No, because practicing Judaism or being gay are rights. Two men "marrying" each other is not a right, as we all know.

preebo 6 years, 1 month ago

Larry,I'll ask you the question, Gay or Straight it should not change the application of the Constitution. Are they not Americans? Are they not people? How can we treat them as anything less than equal?

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 1 month ago

Cattfish,If it were as simple as that, then we would deport people like Marion and RighThinker becuase 51% of us think they add no value to America.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

kidicarus...70% divorce rate? Where do you get your facts?"I doubt that most people choose marriage for the tax breaks involved." - kidI didn't say "most," and the tax break was just one advantage. But nice try! You could try reading the articles on the link.

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

cg22165 (Anonymous) says: "You are saying that how we pay taxes is a private matter and not related to the running of the government?"You are saying that the government does not have an interest in who can claim the tax benefits of being legally married?"Also, most people would agree that the constitution is better interpreted as defining what powers the government is granted and leaving others out, rather than interpreting it as anything not defined is fair game for the government to take charge of."Also, most people would agree that any amendment that has been made to our Constitution is something that has specifically granted or expanded rights, not taken away or restricted them.***gccs14r (Anonymous) says: "Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies. Either consenting adults can marry or they can not."Well, there's a problem with that, gccs - any consenting adult CAN marry. They just can't marry someone of the same sex (or, in most places, their sister or a child or an animal).Some people like to compare defining marriage as being between a man and a woman as the same thing as a ban on inter-racial marriage. This is fundamentally untrue. With a law against inter-racial marriage, you're treating two groups of people differently; e.g., you're saying this group of men can marry these women, but that group of men can not. But prohibiting same sex marriage is not the same thing, as it treats everyone equally - no man can marry any man, any man can marry any woman. Now, I agree that means not everyone can marry the person they love, but if you don't want the government in the marriage business, you want them regulating love?!?So, gccs, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is satisfied - any man, black or white, heterosexual or homosexual, etc., can get married and have all the associated rights and benefits (such as taxes and inheritance) - they just have to marry a woman.*****logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "Well, here's a lesson in fully understanding the nature of the question before chiming in."Duh, gee, thanx, logic, me no understand big words, gud thing you explain so goodly.I understood the question just fine, thank you. I was merely pointing out, as you admitted yourself, that there is no right to marriage spelled out in the Constitution. So your question as to where the Constitution says the government can "regulate/define/manage/grant/promote" a right that doesn't exist was pretty much a moot point.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 1 month ago

Isn't is time the pro-homosexual response to such outcomes evolved beyond the half-dimensional conclusions of "prejudice, bigotry, and hatred?"Is it unfathomable that-rather than being prejudicial, bigoted, or hateful-a dissenting perspective may just reflect a different kind of understanding than that which has become the rhetoric of the gay community?I, for one, have attempted to address the matter from a perspective which qualifies as none of the above, and still the parrot barks.What IS the pro-homosexual response to a dissenting viewpoint which is NOT prejudicial, bigoted, or hateful? logicso: "Do I support:.: polygamy? As long as all participants are consent-capable adults, yes.: group marriage? See polygamy: incest marriage? As long as all participants are consent-capable adults, yes."[sigh]How can "consent-capable" possibly serve as the criterion?Some "adults" will consent to ANYTHING.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 1 month ago

Christian faith is not a reason for Law in the United States, and even the Bible supports that, Hail unto Cesar what is Cesars.Marriage was a civil concept until the Church took it over in the 14th Century, it is not a TRADITIONAL church activity until that time. We the people should include Gays and Lesbians as well, anything less is unpatriotic.The exact same arguments used against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage. It was wrong to prohibit interracial marriage and 51% of the people thinking it was ok did NOT make it right,did NOT make it American.If a man feels his marriage to his wife, or a wife to her husband feel their marriage is diminished because I also marry the the person I choose, then I suggest they have a deep crisis of faith and love and should not blame it on me.In the dozens of countries and states around the world that allow gay marriage, all of the hysterical harms the people who try and teach hate in the name of our Loving mother/father God have not come to pass, in fact marriage has remained in tact and often has become a stronger institution in those countries and communities.How many of the right wing extremist have been found lately cheating on their wives, divorcing them when they are in the hospital with cancer. Marriage is diminished much more by Britany Spears and less by Del Martin who has been with her lover for more than half a century.More children are from single parent homes or blended homes or untraditional homes and I find it arrogant and a downright lie to say that the ONLY way to produce a good child is through a mother and a father, it is disrespectful to the facts, to the families that have shown Love can make a family.As there are millions of children of gay parents across the country, is it anti-family to prohibit those families from entering into long-term stable loving relationships.The only legitimate argument I have heard is what my grandmother told me about gay marriage.She said Grandson, I love you, but I am really against gay marriage.Why Grandma...Well, haven't your people suffered enough?

areyouserious 6 years, 1 month ago

well done California...............if a liberal state like California wont allow this, it never will happen in Kansas..........THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

I don't want to jump into this discussion with both feet right, now but it is clear many people do not understand what is federalism. States decide who can marry, not the federal government, so whether the U.S. Constitution includes this term is irrelevant. This article is clearly biased, there was no amendment to restrict the rights of same-sex marriage, polygamy, group marriage or incestuous marriage. The amendments simply defined a word. All laws discriminate, therefore simply because a law discriminates does not mean it violates "equal protection." Anytime you define a word, anything that is not include in the definition is excluded. It would be like amending a state constitution defining the word tree and claiming that voters passed a law discriminating against bushes.

gogoplata 6 years, 1 month ago

All of the back and forth on this is just beating a very dead horse. If both sides can agree that getting government out of the way is the best solution maybe we could see some genuine progress. Freedom works. Live and let live. Until that happens you will have this endless arguing and namecalling. Wouldn't it be better if both sides quit trying to use government intervention to get their way so that everyone benefits? I don't want others telling me how to live my life, so why would I want to try and do that to someone else?

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 1 month ago

Danielsan,You have failed your family's name. you have failed America and you have failed God.You will suffer terribly come judgement day.

ddavis 6 years, 1 month ago

gay marriages = no reproduction = less tax payers = government not happy!

danielsan_10 6 years, 1 month ago

Thank God! This is the way God would want it.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

shockchalk...This is a state issue, so Obama's opinion doesn't really matter. (Except his selection of U.S. Supreme Court Justices who will likely be extremely liberal and not agree with his definition of marriage)

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

Logicsound04:."Now what?"Now that marriage is all encompassing and no longer has any civic meaning, the benefits of marriage (such as any tax benefit) will be removed, because when it applies to everyone it is logically pointless to apply to anyone. Since there is no incentive to get married there will be fewer marriage, and less stability in society which will be detrimental, especially to children.For a longer list read the scholarly viewpoints on Proposition 8http://www.whatisprop8.com/Scholarly-Viewpoints

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 1 month ago

Mine is not so much a desire to "tell someone else how to live their life" as a question as to why live one's life in one way as opposed to another.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

Liberal_one:."You are incorrect in your implied argument that the legality of all this makes it an acceptable or desirable outcome."First, it is up to the people of California to decide whether this is acceptable or desireable, just like when the issue was decided in Kansas.Second, obviously what is legal does not always equal what is moral and vice versa. Whether it is acceptable or desireable depends on your point of view. However a legitimate concern if Proposition 8 failed was the tax implications to religious institutions who chose not to perform same-sex marriages.

djgratt59 6 years, 1 month ago

When you (and me) get to know one or more gay couples your attitude begins to change to support gay marriage.

gccs14r 6 years, 1 month ago

A tyranny of the majority. Some things just shouldn't be voted on.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

Maybe I should re-utilize my tried and true argument of pointing out to same-sex marriage advocates that many of them are bigoted and hypocrites by asking how many of them also support polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage.Well:?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 1 month ago

Koolaid, Marion... You're overlooking something much simpler here... the placebo effect.No testing, no hormone therapy... if a young person is confused about sexuality, just tell them they were identified as homo-predisposed in utero and that they were administered the "cure"... voila, disorientation reoriented.Of course, then you'll have to address all those environmental ( social ) factors which really govern sexual orientation.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

gccs14r....So you support a tyranny of the oligarchs?

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

Liberal_One:"You are just like Scalia in your logic"Thank you---------------------------------"No, there's nothing inherently wrong in defining a word, but this amendment, placed in the circumstances of the California Supreme Court decision, has discriminatory effect-intentional discriminatory effect." Liberal_One(1) All laws discriminate(2) The people of California first passed a statute defining marriage 8 years ago, then California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people to promote it's social agenda under the guise of equal protection under the state constitution. So the people of California again decided to show that democracy should prevail and changed the constitution. So the context is the people of California reasserting democracy not the people of California discriminating.------------------------------":simply defining what a tree is doesn't hurt anything, but if the definition causes bushes to not get watered because only "trees" get watered, then you see that the bushes suffer." Liberal_oneYou analogy is specious. Bushes need water to live, humans don't need marriage to live. Again, any law which defines a term excludes everything else. Of course the law has an effect on people who want the definition marriage to include same-sex marriage, polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage; but that is the right of the people to decide who may and may not get married. That is democracy, and if you don't like it then either move somewhere else or attempt to form a new government where an oligarchy of only "enlightened" individuals get to decide the laws.

shockchalk 6 years, 1 month ago

Let's all remember that our new President Elect Obama has publicly stated he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and does NOT support the issue that just failed in California and has failed everywhere they have voted on it.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

KSA_21_3503....Just curious why you named yourself after a statute criminalizing sexual indecency with a child.

ddavis 6 years, 1 month ago

until the 1970's interacial marriages were not legal in every state.. So I do believe that same sex marriages will be passed. It will happen during our lifetime..

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 1 month ago

The people have spoken! That's the way it's suppose to work, right?!

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

I agree with t_r_a - I get at least 50% better reception with aluminum over tinfoil. <}:-)

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "I understand all that. In fact, that was my point to STRS."Sorry, my bad, I misinterpreted your comment somewhat - I thought your question was implying that there was some explicit right to marriage in the Constitution and you were asking where the power to restrict that right was spelled out.You know how I get about all you lib'rals claiming you have rights to this that and the other and all. ;)

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 1 month ago

I'm channeling as we speak... a l u m i n u m .Nay... a l u m i n i u m !

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 1 month ago

Aji: "You will suffer terribly come judgement day."So, "judgement day" is some point in time, some brief interval during which a single, irrevocable Heaven or Hell ( "suffer terribly" ) verdict is rendered?What if "judgement" were a curve, winding through time, self-imposed with unfolding understanding and insight, Heaven and Hell coexisting and coincident?Would it be much different from this human existence?And what, then, would be the verdict regarding a statement like the one quoted above?

danielsan_10 6 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.