California State Measure Results

[Heracles 417]

SVRT I take everything I have said about CA back. While 47.9% of the state is stupid the other is clearly not...

I also liked the High speed rail bond.

I always did like San Diego.. Maybe I can move to San Jose and be your neighbor.

[Heracles 417]

It is sad - I'm just not sure I understand why this is an issue that requires a democratic referendum. Can we not call out prejudice and discrimination without resorting to a popular vote to validate it?

I am surprised so many people voted against it.

I am waiting for San Fran to declare they are breaking off.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Childrens Hospital Bond was a bit of a rip from what I understand - they used the same commercials from 4 years ago, and apparently haven't even sold those bonds yet. So why they need more...

[sara535 15]

I'm so disappointed in most of those results. at least prop 2 passed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is sad - I'm just not sure I understand why this is an issue that requires a democratic referendum. Can we not call out prejudice and discrimination without resorting to a popular vote to validate it?

I am surprised so many people voted against it.

I am waiting for San Fran to declare they are breaking off.

Why?

Why is banning gay marriage in anyone's self-interest?

Its blatant bigotry.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

It is sad - I'm just not sure I understand why this is an issue that requires a democratic referendum. Can we not call out prejudice and discrimination without resorting to a popular vote to validate it?

I am surprised so many people voted against it.

I am waiting for San Fran to declare they are breaking off.

bad image, bad image.

[Heracles 417]

Why is banning gay marriage in anyone's self-interest?

Its blatant bigotry.

Now that Obama and the fellow Dems are in complete power, I am sure there will be some sort of Constitutional amendment to recognize them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is banning gay marriage in anyone's self-interest?

Its blatant bigotry.

Now that Obama and the fellow Dems are in complete power, I am sure there will be some sort of Constitutional amendment to recognize them.

You think? I rather doubt that.

I'd just settle for an answer to the question I asked.

[mRx 16]

I'm curious how this affects domestic partnership in CA. To my understanding, civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have the religious importance of marriage. But, I guess the problem with these is that they don't offer the same benefits that "marriage" does. So instead of fighting over what God thinks marriage should be, why not just extend all the benefits of marriage to civil unions and domestic partnerships?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm curious how this affects domestic partnership in CA. To my understanding, civil unions and domestic partnerships don't have the religious importance of marriage. But, I guess the problem with these is that they don't offer the same benefits that "marriage" does. So instead of fighting over what God thinks marriage should be, why not just extend all the benefits of marriage to civil unions and domestic partnerships?

This is the question I had about it. Either people want gay couples to have the rights pertaining to marriage but for it not to be called "marriage" (in which case the argument is entirely semantic and only slightly bigoted) or they simply don't want committed gay couples to have those rights (in which case its very bigoted and blatantly discriminatory).

From what I've heard - there are a good few people out there who use the former argument simply to hide the fact that they support the second.

Wasn't it SF where gay marriage was permitted? From what I understand those marriages will be anulled as a result of this.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[mRx 16]

I don't see why it's not possible to just extend all benefits from marriages to domestic partnerships. I don't speak for the gay community, but I doubt that they are fighting for what the Biblical meaning of "marriage" is.

If the state merely grants the same benefits to all recognized couples, then it should effectively remove the semantics that are involved in it now.

Then the bigots won't be able to hide behind the sanctity defense, because it won't exist.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Matt85

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see why it's not possible to just extend all benefits from marriages to domestic partnerships. I don't speak for the gay community, but I doubt that they are fighting for what the Biblical meaning of "marriage" is.

If the state merely grants the same benefits to all recognized couples, then it should effectively remove the semantics that are involved in it now.

Then the bigots won't be able to hide behind the sanctity defense, because it won't exist.

Well as I said I had a conversation with some CA republicans about this on monday. It does seem that they are opposed to granting of marriage rights and the legitimizing committed homsexual relationships under the umbrella of marriage. That and as was mentioned elsewhere that they feel that "gayness" is being flaunted and imposed on people via public education.

When you consider that a short drive from LA a person can get married in 5 minutes by a guy dressed as Elvis, this whole idea of taking back marriage for the religious folks seems a bit ludicrous.

[IAMX 3,055]

Ok, so while I knew the gay marriage thing would be close (61% voted for it in 2000, versus right now at around 52%.. a huge decrease), the one thing that is surprising me right now is the redistricting initiative.

Here is how I voted, versus how they have things right now:

1A: Me=> Yes, Voters => Yes ~

2: Me=> Yes, Voters => Yes ~

3: Me=> Yes, Voters => Yes ~

4: Me=> No, Voters => No ~

5: Me=> No, Voters => No ~

6: Me=> Yes, Voters => No

7: Me=> No, Voters => No ~

8: Me=> No, Voters => Yes

9: Me=> Yes, Voters => Yes ~

10: Me=> Yes, Voters => No

11: Me=> No, Voters => Yes

12: Me=> No, Voters => Yes

Of course, there's several initiatives right now that can still be turned the other way, but the only one that it's really logically possible (rather than mathematically) is the redistricting measure.

[IAMX 3,055]

I don't see why it's not possible to just extend all benefits from marriages to domestic partnerships. I don't speak for the gay community, but I doubt that they are fighting for what the Biblical meaning of "marriage" is.

If the state merely grants the same benefits to all recognized couples, then it should effectively remove the semantics that are involved in it now.

Then the bigots won't be able to hide behind the sanctity defense, because it won't exist.

The funny thing is, religion is the premise behind this, but they wouldn't DARE insert the real reasons for this on the ballot measure, fully knowing it would get struck down as fast as a religious lightning bolt. The measure is about as conniving as the science of "intelligent design". Goes to show some people know no limits of their religious prejudice and their lack of concern for the rule of law and the freedom of others.

I look forward to seeing a challenge to this and hope there comes some rationality from the judges in knowing the scope of limitations on marriage for homosexuals is outright denying them their biological choice that they have no control over any more than the rest of us. Marriage is not a religious institution, being that this Constitution upholding secularism, laws have no business being related at all to religion, for or against, as for a marriage to be recognized in this country it's filed through the state, not through the church.

The funniest thing of all is the threat that I've heard some people suggest, in my very own uneducated family nonetheless, that gays are going to force churches to marry them. Uh, what? Firstly, gays can't storm the churches. Secondly, why the hell would they want to get married in a place that's bigoted to them? Sure, I imagine there are going to be some unitarian churches or others that DO allow this (being that ultimately gay marriage will be legal again one way or another), and it's their choice. Rumors come from the strangest corners. The ads for Prop 8 were also, typically, highly deceptive.

[akdiver 3]

So - my question remains, with respect to the first point. In the event they lose in federal appeals court, how do the prop 8 opponents plan to convince SCOTUS to hear the case? Simply claiming prop 8 violates FFCC, DP, and EPC is not necessarily enough. Other cases have raised these very same issues and have been declined for a hearing. So what is different about prop 8?

This is going to continue happening until SCOTUS hears it, as it directly addresses an issue entirely relevant to the 14th Amendment. Keeping in mind these states ratified it, it means they must uphold it.

....sigh....ok, nevermind man.