California Gay Marriage Banned As Proposition 8 Passes

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - California Gay Marriage Banned As Proposition 8 Passes stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 11- 5-08 12:14 PM   |   Updated: 12- 6-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Prop

LOS ANGELES - In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.

The constitutional amendment -- widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures -- will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal.

Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments 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.

In California, with 95 percent of precincts reporting Wednesday, the ban had 5,125,752 votes, or 52 percent, while there were 4,725,313 votes, or 48 percent, opposed.

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

Spending for and against the amendment reached $74 million, making it the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House.

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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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.

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. And in San Diego, voters decided to make permanent a ban on alcohol consumption on city beaches.


Ellen Urges California Residents To Vote No On Prop 8Ellen Urges California Residents To Vote No On Prop 8

Obama: California Gay Marriage Ban "Unnecessary"

LOS ANGELES - In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent co...
LOS ANGELES - In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent co...
Filed by Dan Duray  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
2062
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next › Last » (40 pages total)
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

There is room to accomodate both sides. Gays should have basic rights, they just shouldn't call it marriage. There needs to be a clear distinction between what the state sanctions and the ceremony religions perform.

No religion should be faced with a discrimination lawsuit simply because they refuse to marry a gay couple, or refuse to let a gay couple use their facility for such a union. That is the natural next step once "marriage" is redefined.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 11/05/2008
- bob72 I'm a Fan of bob72 6 fans permalink
photo

Everyone should have equal rights.

Gays getting married does not take anything away from straight marriage.

"Separate but equal" makes second class citizens, not equal citizens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 PM on 11/05/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

I agree everyone should have equal rights. Change the state definition to a "civil union" for gay or hetero unions. Let churches deal in marriage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 11/05/2008

No religion or church currently or would have been required to perform any marriage ceremony they choose not to.

Try to get married in any mormon church if neither party are mormon.

Try to get married in any catholic church if either or both parties are divorced.

Many congregations establish rules that in order to get married in their church building one party must be a member of the church.

Using the argument of churches being forced to perform gay weddings is a smokescreen and a lie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 11/05/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

I'm not suggesting they are being forced. You'all are so single-track focused that you simply cannot recognize the flaw in your position. Religious folks generally believe what I have described is the very slippery-slope that they must avoid at all costs. QUIT giving them any reason to believe this is even possible. Sponsor a proposition in the state that changes state definition of marriage to a civil union to avoid any conflict.

If you just want to complain about unfair discrimination from here until forever, then clearly your on the right path. If you actually want progress, perhaps you should reevaluate the situation. I'm not against equal rights for gays.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 PM on 11/05/2008
- SpinDown08 I'm a Fan of SpinDown08 127 fans permalink
photo

I was wondering when someone would bring up these points.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 11/05/2008
- JohnJames I'm a Fan of JohnJames 120 fans permalink

Get it through your head. This is about government! Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples etc. can do whatever they please. Some do marry same-sex couples and most refuse. No matter. Did you sleep through junior high civics class? The government can't force them to do anything. Do you seriously imagine government will be forcing churches to marry gay couples when churches can still refuse to marry any couple for any reason and there's nothing the government can do about it? Unbelievable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 PM on 11/05/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

I may have slept through it, don't remember. The point is, you potentially have two competing rights. Civil rights and religious rights. While the government has limited recourse against a church, I don't see any reason why, if not properly protected, the governmnet couldn't find that a church was violating civil rights and decide to pull it's tax exempt status.

To be clear, I'm not against gay rights. I'm simply saying there should be a clear deliniation between a marriage and a civil union. It suprising that more people don't agree with this position. If it were in force today, this proposition wouldn't have existed in the first place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 11/05/2008
- suec03 I'm a Fan of suec03 12 fans permalink

Please read the California Supreme Court opinion. You can find an article about it in Wikipedia at "In re Marriage Cases" which also gives the case citation (where you can look it up yourself). The court SPECIFICALLY said that no officiant (the clergyperson conducting the wedding) would be required to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony if it were against his/her religious beliefs. Thus, no discrimination lawsuit. There is a rumor that a Methodist church lost a suit because it would not allow a gay couple to be married in its church. In fact, there was a Methodist Church back east which owned a "beach pavilion" it rented to the public for events. It refused to rent the gay couple the facility that it rented to other groups.

We could switch to the European system: couples have a civil marriage ceremony and if they want a church wedding they have a second ceremony in the church.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 11/05/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

Yes, interesting. Didn't realize that. Thanks for the clarification.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 PM on 11/05/2008

You believed these lies by so-called "christians". Every Church, etc. is exempt from EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (Federal, State and Local) even while it's protected by them. Total religious freedom in that sense along with tax exempt status. Churches should be prohibited from being involved financially with the political process.

No Rabbi, Priest, or Minister would have to marry anybody before and after this thing passed. Learn the law. Right now a conservative rabbi can refuse to marry a 95 year old woman and a 19 year old man or marry a couple where one is of a different race or religion. That would not change.

Funny, every "marriage" performed by a minister, etc. is not recognized by the State unless there is a signed civil marriage license. The Ministers, etc. also have to be registered with the State. Now State can perform any "sanctifications". All marriages should be civil with the option of a religious ceremony -- the way it is now. The State has to recognize you before God does so cut the crap.

Some Churches to perform same-sex marriages so this law prevents some religious organizations from performing it's religious beliefs and that's against the law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 11/05/2008
- Palemoon I'm a Fan of Palemoon 243 fans permalink
photo

Marriage as a custom and human right has existed long before organized religion and way, way longer than Christianity was ever thought. The United States agreed on the passing of the Universal Delcaration of Human Rights at the United Nations. This serves at the funadmental inalienable rights all citizens of the world enjoy, or are entitled to. Article 16 of the UDHR makes marriage a fundamental right, not controlled by society or religion or race and other factors. It does not define marriage as being between man and a woman. It does not restricts or prevent gays from marrying. It is an open right to all.

And since this is a fundamental right in common law. The 9th Amendment of the US Consitution invalids any proposition designed to take away any of our rights. The 9th Amendment specifically says we can never have any of our rights denied or disparaged by any group or anyone.

And if that wasn't enough, the 10th Amendment says that bans or amendments on gay marriage is NOT a State issue and that no State or group of people have a right to pass such a law since it is already covered by the US Constitution!!

I really wish people would read and explore their countries founding documents. Proposition 8 should have never been allowed to be considered as it is illegal and un-Constitutional.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 11/05/2008
- zetacplus I'm a Fan of zetacplus 14 fans permalink
photo

There is something horribly wrong when the rights of a minority is put in the hands of the majority. That's why we have laws and courts. This injustice must not stand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 11/05/2008
- Palemoon I'm a Fan of Palemoon 243 fans permalink
photo

That's also why we have the 9th Amendment, it pretty much says in a nutshell, the will of the majority can never strip rights from the minority. The key word in that Amendment is the word "enumeration".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 PM on 11/05/2008

Hopefully, the Courts will agree but with the constitution having been shredded by Scalia, Roberts, Bush, Cheney, et al, what does it mean to have a constitution? Nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 PM on 11/05/2008
- HowIronic I'm a Fan of HowIronic 3 fans permalink

Since keeping marriage between a man and a woman is to protect the children lets go all the way. I think we should have a parenting test that all people wanting to get married will have to pass. If you can't prove that you will be a good parent, you can't get married. While we are at it, outlaw divorce. We all know how traumatic that can be to kids. Adultery as well (after all, those people are just having sex for fun). I could go on, but you get the point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 11/05/2008

Let's start a petition for an amendment to the CA constitution that states that since marriage is only for the raising of children that a couple has to have a child or have their marriage annulled with all benefits and monies received from the 1000 benefits of marriage be returned with interest and a jail term. If someone is sterile or too old to have children then they cannot get married.

Put the requirement to procreate into the state marriage law and see how they will yell and scream about their right to privacy.

Make all state marriages provisional until they drop a little rug rat or adopt. But no marriage for sterile people.

You want to protect marriage, pass a constitutional amendment against divorce.

There is no marriage law in the land that mentions procreation as a requirement -- let's make it one.

If you're against gay marriage, don't marry one. Don't make your bigotry (religion) State enforced.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 11/05/2008
- SpinDown08 I'm a Fan of SpinDown08 127 fans permalink
photo

Unfortunately, this vote stands on the fence between church and state. People have the right to choose their beliefs in this country and the state. This is why Prop 8 won because it fell on the side of a majority belief system. I'm sorry it was this way, but it's the most truthful way of expressing it.

Another reason:
In California, the marriage licenses have been reprinted since the Supreme Court decision, replacing the bride and groom signatures with -Part A- and -Party B- (I know because I downloaded it from the ca.gov site). Sounds discriminatory to hetero marriage doesn't it? So it's OK to omit bride and groom from the marriage lexicon? Did those become bad words to use now?And if you're going to comeback with "Then they can have two separate marriage licenses" you have proven the argument that same sex marriage IS different. You had my NO vote at the beginning until I considered the legalities. This really wasn't as simple a vote as the NO side wanted you to believe.

Put two pictures up side by side of traditional marriage and gay marriage. If you saw no difference, then you had to vote NO. If you saw a HAIR of difference, you had to vote YES.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 11/05/2008

Actually, as a heterosexual woman who plans to eventually marry her boyfriend of 6 years, I would much rather be referred to as a party on my license than as a bride. The word "bride" has very negative connotations for many women. It's origins are in the word "bru," which means "to cook, brew, make broth" (OED). Many modern women feel that this patriarchal word is sexist and limiting. Thus, it is, in a sense, a "bad" word. "Party" is a much better, and equalizing, term.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 11/05/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 90 fans permalink

With any luck, this will be challenged and brought down as inconsistent with other, more durable portions of our constitution.

Either that, or we'll be back with another proposition, count on it. This is not over by a long shot.

For the record, I am NOT LGBT, however, when one of us is not free, we are all oppressed.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 11/05/2008
- johnnyjust I'm a Fan of johnnyjust 6 fans permalink

Blame religion if it makes you feel better, but anyone with some intelligence can see the point about equal protection brought up by americandusk. If homosexuals can marry, why can't anyone marry anyone? And why limit it to two? How about three, or twenty, or a few hundred? Sound stupid? I dunno, I have lots of love to go around.

Why can't I marry my daughter? Or my sister? A German brother and sister wanted to marry. Those enlightened Europeans will probably let them.

All the KY in the world couldn't make that slope more slippery.

As a biblical aside: I know all the scholars on PuffPost are way ahead of me, but just so I know you know, Jesus speaks very clearly about divorce, adultery, evolution, marriage and gay marriage in Matthew 19. For he who has ears, of course. Use a Q-tip before reading.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 PM on 11/05/2008
- JohnJames I'm a Fan of JohnJames 120 fans permalink

Those Q-tips are just for ears. Why did you stick them so far up your nose? Didn't you know that can cause brain damage?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 PM on 11/05/2008
- Minako I'm a Fan of Minako 44 fans permalink
photo

A marriage is a legal partnership between two consenting adults. Therefore you cannot have a marriage with more than 2 people.

Marriage is a way of bringing somebody into your family, legally. Therefore there is no NEED to marry your daughter or your sister.

Marriage is a legal partnership between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Therefore children and animals do not come into the conversation.

This is not a slippery slope to anyone except bigots and homophobes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 PM on 11/05/2008
- JohnJames I'm a Fan of JohnJames 120 fans permalink

You have to keep in mind that some of these cretins really are capable of falling in love with their nearest relatives or with barnyard animals so this "slippery slope" seems very real to them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 PM on 11/05/2008

Interesting - this argument is similar to the ones used against African Americans when they tried to get citizenship and the vote in the late 1800s. People argued that Africans were beasts and that next we would have to give animals and other "sub-humans" the right. Obviously, this argument is spurious, but I can see that it is being transposed onto your marriage argument. Perhaps you should consider where your argument has been before you use it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 11/05/2008

This is the same sort of "logic" that one would use against topics like women getting the vote in 1920. If women get to vote, what's to stop children and infants and dogs from voting?

Please tell me that you can see that your logic is faulty in this case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 11/05/2008
photo

"Thou shalt not bear false witness!" Here's the breakdown on what the Bible actually says about homosexuality, "johnny(un)just:"

http://www.guerrillascholar.com/cogito/?p=78

That German brother and sister that you cite? The brother was sent *back* to Liepzig Prison for a *second* 17-month sentence for violating Germany's strict laws against incest. They had a child BTW, and that child was taken by the authorities and placed in foster care. While the brother was serving his *second* prison sentence, sister left him for a new boyfriend, and at last report was pregnant by her new beau.

Stupid? Stupid is as stupid does, like blindly supporting "the party of conservative Christian family values:"

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

"Party of conservative Christian family values" o if one means the locals in THE HILLS HAVE EYES, but that's about it.

Willful ignorance is not a family value, nor is hypocritical authoritarianism a Christian virtue.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 11/06/2008
- Amunaka I'm a Fan of Amunaka 107 fans permalink
photo

What the hell is with huffpo ...why are my posts being deleted.....things sure have changed out here not even worth logging on ....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 PM on 11/05/2008

I bet more people voted for prop 8 than you guys think. I would feel worse if domestic partnerships didn't already guarantee the same rights for same sex couples as marriage. You all haven't lost anything, except the "right" to call yourselves married. In terms of benefits, you're the same.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 11/05/2008

This whole thread is ridiculous. All these No on 8 people just have their heads in the sand, and i have YET to read a well thought out argument against prop 8.

So, if gay people are allowed to get married, then why should our law stop polygamy? I mean, they deserve "equal protection" too, like all these people are spouting like they know something.

Lets go further, since we've agreed that homosexual marriage and polygamy are entertaining the same arguments for why they should be recognized. Naturally, a woman will be able to have more than one husband, too. Can't discriminate right? So 10 people can all be intermarried now! Awesome, how does a divorce work? Parental rights? Finances? Can a whole town be married?

Ridiculous? It is. That is why there are rules, and gay people need to respect the rule of the majority to insure structure and order. Otherwise it is ridiculous. Be happy with civil unions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 11/05/2008
- BonzaiBoy I'm a Fan of BonzaiBoy 2 fans permalink

"All these No on 8 people just have their heads in the sand, and i have YET to read a well thought out argument against prop 8."

With 1480 other comments, perhaps the issue isn't that no one can provide a well-thought-out argument against Prop 8, but rather that you just don't get it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 PM on 11/05/2008
- Pearlswan I'm a Fan of Pearlswan 38 fans permalink
photo

Straw man argument. No one is asking for the law to allow polygamy. So, who cares? This is about equal opportunity and equal protection for a minority. That is what the US Constitution guarantees to all Americans. United we stand. Divided we fall. This is the new America. Our time will come.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 11/05/2008

I recall quite a lot of turmoil in state where polygamy goes without enforcement. Straw man, give me a break. Way to side-step the entire reason humans create systems of order. What are you being protected from exactly? How does a civil union, instead of marriage, attack and hurt you? I'm really curious. What robber is coming into your house that you need protection from?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 11/05/2008

Why should they be happy with a "lesser" right? You seem to assume that heterosexuals can corner the market on marriage. I ask, why SHOULDN'T gays be allowed to marry? Provide one genuine reason that it might lead to other forms of marriage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 11/05/2008

Yo i just answered your question. that whole post was why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. polygamy is something some communities have pushed, so i don't see how that isn't legitimate.

all this over "love"? well... why SHOULDN'T gays make their own religion to "marry"? Jeez, they just can't be happy with themselves until ALL of humanity is forced to approve eh? I mean, straight people could start a new ritual tomorrow between a man and woman and call it Yugenamo, and next year all the homosexuals will want in on it. You don't like the rules of this sandbox? Find your own.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 11/05/2008
- johnnyjust I'm a Fan of johnnyjust 6 fans permalink

So true. I want to marry my daughter and my cat. Where's my equal protection?

The idiocy has to end somewhere. Let's end it where it began thousands of years ago. One man, one woman. Oooo, how hateful we are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 11/05/2008

Don't flatter yourself. Your cat has better options.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM on 11/05/2008
- Minako I'm a Fan of Minako 44 fans permalink
photo

Your daughter is already a part of your family, therefore there is no reason for you to marry her. Also, if she is underage, she is not a consenting adult, and therefore cannot legally consent to marriage.

Cats and other animals are not legal or consenting because they cannot consent to marriage, therefore, legally, you cannot marry your cat.

STRAWMAN.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM on 11/05/2008

The main issue here is that your cat cannot consent to be married. Neither can a minor or a child. This is pretty obvious. Also, you don't hear people clamoring to marry animals or objects; this is because people tend not to fall in love with these things. I find your comparison of a loving relationship between people to that of an animal to be offensive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 PM on 11/05/2008

I agree and we should put a Proposition on the ballot that bans polygamy and all organizations that endorse that behavior and by next election we will hopefully be able to ban the Mormon Church and march those Later Day Saints straight out of California.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 11/05/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

Uh, yea, mormons don't endorse polygamy. You might have missed that story...it occured about 120 years ago.

The polls out of CA indicated that it was primarily the black voters that turned the tide on this issue. They seem to be the only group that clearly favored the proposition. White voters narrowly rejected and it seems they said asians and latino's were split. Got tht from a news story on NPR.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 11/05/2008
photo

despite all the joy the election of Obama brought worldwide, denying human beings their basic right to marry the person they love and want to spent their life with is medieval and unworthy of a free nation. The US: back to the dark past... shame! Egalite, fraternite, liberte.... a long way to go for America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 PM on 11/05/2008

Can I vote on your god . . . ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 PM on 11/05/2008
photo

You guys need a Clarity Act, or something. How can something pass if it only gets 52% of the vote? It should have a clear majority in order to pass.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 PM on 11/05/2008

But if it doesn't pass it is legal? So you can vote laws into the system by the XOR argument? We propose law "M", but since there was no majority, the law is now opposite "M"?

Think again sonny.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 11/05/2008

Somebody please help me feel better. I have spent the entire day crying, so depressed I can barely function. The joy of last night replaced by pain so deep I just want to crawl into a hole and never come out. I am a strong person, but tonight I am at my weakest point and having a breakdown and just want to take a handful of drugs and never come back.

My partner lives in Europe and we are cruelly separated by the US government. Because of federal law and DOMA, I can not sponsor her for a green card like straight people are able to do when they marry foreign partners. Thus she can not legally live here with me. There is absolutely no legal way that we can be together in the United States unless we break the law.

Tell me straight people who supported Prop 8. How you would you feel if you finally found happiness and your own government kept you separated from that person? And you had to have a relationship through telephones and webcams? You said goodnight to the person you love every night by looking at them on a computer screen? And all the extra money that you earned went for airplanes and travel expenses just so you could see that person. And when you tried to visit each other, American customs agents hassled you and interrogated you like a terrorist about why you were going to a certain country so many times?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 PM on 11/05/2008
- Minako I'm a Fan of Minako 44 fans permalink
photo

Oh honey. Don't you dare do anything rash.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 11/05/2008

I'm soooo sorry. I wish I could make you feel better. But know you have my sincere apologies for the Jebus freaks that voted yesterday. I'm Christian and as I spoke with my cousin in N.Y. she and I were both saying we don't understand not being in support of families >>FULL STOP

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 11/05/2008
- JohnJames I'm a Fan of JohnJames 120 fans permalink

My heart goes out to you. Please hang in there. Badger our government and your partner's. Maybe there's some circuitous way to resolve this. If not, try some liberal third governments like Spain, Canada or the Netherlands where you might be able to go together to live. Don't give up. What an outrage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM on 11/05/2008
- Pearlswan I'm a Fan of Pearlswan 38 fans permalink
photo

Keep hope alive. It will never happen if you are not here to make it happen. You are not alone. Remember, we just elected Change We Can Believe In. We need all hands on deck to make this New America happen. Keep breathing and take a long walk. Get invigorated. When the day comes, your union will taste the triumph. One step at a time. WE SHALL OVERCOME!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 PM on 11/05/2008

Mr. Change You Can believe in is against same sex marriage and has publicly declared many time providing cover for those of his supporters in CA and FLA that voted him in to vote for bigotry as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 11/05/2008
- bob72 I'm a Fan of bob72 6 fans permalink
photo

I have been crying for you and everyone that knows true love. I am straight, so I am not discriminated against as you are. But just the thought that I couldn't be with the love of my life and my best friend in the world hurts more than I can take.

The day I married was the best day of my life and my marriage has been the best thing I've ever done in my life. I don't know what I would do if it was ripped away by ignorant, hateful and fearful bigots.

I am so sorry you have to go through this. Hopefully we can get this over-turned. I am so sorry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 11/05/2008

Not to be crude, but we are really just a matter of so many funerals before gays receive their due right to marry. Polls showed that older voters were far more likely to vote in favor of banning same sex marriage and young people were FAR more in favor of equal rights for gay people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 11/05/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next › Last » (40 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect