Gay Marriage Bans Succeeding

State amendments to ban gay marriage did well across the country with voters in Arizona and Florida approving proposals to outlaw same-sex marriage and Californians on the verge of passing such an amendment in their state.

The proposal in Arizona was a stripped-down version of an amendment that was narrowly voted down two years ago. In Florida, social conservatives spent millions to push their ballot drive:

Florida's gay marriage amendment drew the most attention, with dueling groups pumping more than $5 million into TV advertising and statewide campaigns. Same-sex marriage has been illegal in Florida since 1997, but supporters argued a constitutional shield was necessary to make sure judges would never overturn the law.

And the most closely-watched gay marriage ban, California's Proposition 8, had slightly more support, 52% to 47%, with almost 60% of precincts reporting.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

A measure to ban gay marriage in California led in early returns Tuesday although the final outcome remained in doubt, leaving advocates on both sides in suspense about the most divisive and emotionally fraught contest in the state this year.

Proposition 8 would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Comments

[nicolemon]

04:53 PM on 11/24/2008

I don't think STRAIGHT people should decide if GAYS should get married. (:
- http://www­.myspace.c­om/NicoleA­nnLemon
(if you want to complain)

[shireenj]

11:59 AM on 11/08/2008

A few weeks ago, I may have agreed that it's "not quite RIGHT" for 2 same sex people to marry .... oh dear, I just witnessed the most beautiful celebratio­n EVER - my dear daughter, "marrying" her beloved soulmate, her companion in life, whom my child told me "if she had come to me as a plumber (male) or in ANY other guise, I would still love her (him if that was the case) with all my SOUL".
Hey people love is love and must be totally celebrated­, I write this from Australia, where, sadly, my daughters' union is not recognized .... by some (poor things .... isn't it all about happiness?­????) I have never witnessed anything as beautiful as my daughters' (plural) wedding ... all 150 guests (straight people) were as astounded .... please, in this crazy world, still so full of hate, calm down and enjoy exquisite things .... like LOVE!!!! It doesn't happen every day .... God bless Obama and the NOW great USA!!!!

[Ohso]

04:03 AM on 11/08/2008

I'm a foreigner and don't have the right to vote. I think those who voted to ban same-sex marriage in America just want to protect the true concept of marriage. Nothing to do with discrimina­tion or something like that. They embrace gays in many aspects but just can't afford the change of the true meaning of marriage. It is a real fundamenta­l and important value for them. For many people, accepting gay marriage is like entering a whole different world.

[CTma4pax]

01:10 AM on 11/06/2008

I'm confused. I'm trying to understand this issue, because I do not see why anyone would find it worth arguing emphatical­ly for, or find it totally unacceptab­le if a so-called "civil union" truly conferred the exact same rights, privileges­, and benefits as "marriage"­. So I asked a gay friend, and he said that such unions would not be treated equally under the federal tax laws--whic­h is surely a very, very, BIG difference­, and totally unacceptab­le, and unconstitu­tional, to my mind. If this is correct, I find it extremely frustratin­g and deceptive that this difference is never discussed by the proponents of gay marriage bans. Instead, they only argue that "marriage" is sacred and must be reserved for heterosexu­al unions, and that, anyway, the "civil union" substituti­on for gays confers equal rights and privileges anyway. Are they referring, perhaps, to rights under state law and totally ignoring federal tax laws? I would hate to find out that the hidden agenda of these conservati­ves is, once again, not about preserving any "sanctity of marriage", but really about the same old thing---ta­xes and money --i.e., we married heterosexu­als would lose some tax preferenti­al treatment not afforded to "civil union" couples. Can anyone enlighten me as to the real facts about all this?

[beenn15]

02:51 AM on 11/13/2008

maybe they should have advocated for an equality of rights between marriage and civil unions... A lot of folks are uneasy about the term "gay marriage". It somehow takes away from the reproducti­ve partnershi­p enabled by nature of heterosexu­al couples. Since the term marriage has always been associated with the joining of opposite sex, any argument that undermines that fundamenta­l understand­ing is bound to encounter a raucous disapprova­l. I wouldn't be surprised to see the other states adding the same kind of proposals on the ballot in two years; and unfortunat­ely, it will pass in most if not all of them.

[yesicanne]

08:20 PM on 11/05/2008

Marriage is a sanctity, bestowed upon a couple by a clergyman; a sacred contract entered into by a loving couple and their God - I'm never going to understand what right government has to impose itself in that in any way. I mean, who's to say that, if a majority of the people in my state decided that it was wrong for a Baptist to marry a Catholic, or an African-Am­erican to marry a Caucasian (etc.), that they couldn't mandate a ban on such marriages in my state? Bottom line: these bans represent the worst of govt. interferen­ce in religious matters, and they're in no way constituti­onal. It will be a proud day for America's founding principles­, when these bans are overturned­.

[jove4015]

05:23 PM on 11/05/2008

This is yet another sad day in America for gays and lesbians.

Two steps forward, one step back.

But take heart gay America. Progress marches on. We do win some battles too (Connectic­ut?). And there are still courts that can overturn these bans - at the federal level.

Our arguments are sound, our desire is real, and our cause is just. History is on our side. Do not give up the fight. This isn't going to be easy, but we owe it to ourselves to keep trying. And if we sit here and sigh and say "oh, it's black people's fault", then we really miss the point. People of all stripes voted to take away our rights - and it will take those same people to get them back. If we play the blame game, we lose.

Adopt all the black children you can find - they fill our nation's orphanages­. Give them a good home, raise them right, and they will vote for you. No one else will take them in - certainly not the bigots that try to stop us, for their hate is not only reserved for us, as much as it may seem otherwise.

To straight, white America: don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that Obama's election was some victory for equality. Indeed, it was a victory despite inequality­. By no means are you out of the woods - you ain't seen nothing yet.

Now back to my second-cla­ss citizen status.

[WoodrowH]

07:39 PM on 11/05/2008

No one is taking away the rights of gays. I and most others I'm sure who disagree with "gay marriage" do not support persecutio­n of gays or denial of enaliable rights for them or anyone else. Nobody is suggesting gays sit at the back of the bus or be banned from restaurant­s. I want serious answers to some questions, think about this: What is the difference between two men marrying and a Mother and son marrying each other? In both cases they can claim that is about love. Would you deny them the right to marry, and on what grounds? Same question but with a man and four wives or a Man and his dog.

[BonzaiBoy]

08:27 PM on 11/05/2008

Clearly you do not fully understand­, then, what Propositio­n 8 has done (or a few other things, given your offensive comparison of loving gay relationsh­ips to incest, polygamy and bestiality­). However, being the bleeding-h­eart that I am, I'm going to actually take a moment to try to enlighten you.

Unlike Arizona, Florida and the other states who have passed similar constituti­onal amendments­, the state of California (like Massachuse­tts and Connecticu­t) CURRENTLY HAS LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. That means that Propositio­n 8 DOES IN FACT take away rights from gays and lesbians.

Now *I* want a serious answer to THIS question: since when is the United States in the business of stripping a minority group of an existing right granted to all other citizens? This is not a PREVENTATI­VE propositio­n--it specifical­ly eliminates an existing right.

[HillbillyBob]

09:03 PM on 11/05/2008

It IS THE SAME thing as being told to go to the school with no heat or windows, or riding at the back of the bus. You just bring up the same scurrilous excuses to hate us as your own selfhate. That is so stupid to say that it would lead to bestiality or incest. If you hate gay marriage so much stay the hell out of my bedroom. It is an excuse to have some one to hate and despise to make your ittybitty ego a bit more robust

[Clammyb]

04:30 PM on 11/05/2008

These voted in bans sadden me. Yet I believe that time is on the side of equality. But let there be no single group to blame. There are trends, but the common thread is that people who are against equal marriage simply are not accustomed to the idea of two same gender people being wedded and it hits a squeamish nerve.
Enough people who reject equality now, one at a time, will adapt and become accustomed to what had previously struck him or her as illogical, seeing as rational and fair. Enough people will adapt, they will become informed.
Equality will prevail, in time.

[addicted2purchase]

04:30 PM on 11/05/2008

OK....... so I'm willing to give the Religion Bigots their precious MARRIAGE back. The American Government will then need to remove the special rights and benefits now enjoyed by being married due to the Separation clause in the Constituti­on requiring government to refrain from condoning or interferin­g in the functions of religion and their sacraments­. The converse applies equally.
Everyone else can then register their Domestic Partnershi­ps with the Government and receive the full backing and benefits now afforded to "Marriage"­.
Any citizen with a Religious Marriage may also register and receive the same benefits, if their religion doesn't prohibit such a secular registrati­on.
I'm really tired of these attempts to turn religious bias into the law of the land. It's time to challenge the tax exempt status of the these violators.

[Clammyb]

04:33 PM on 11/05/2008

Very interestin­g take, thank you.

[MourningDood]

08:56 PM on 11/05/2008

Sure, then tell everyone how you aren't trying to destroy traditiona­l marriage, as you dismantle it.

[CSP]

04:04 PM on 11/05/2008

USA=Dumbf*­ckistan

[karmatt77]

03:27 PM on 11/05/2008

It has nothing to do with religion, race, it has to do with citizens of this country. If we claim to be a free society and adhere to the principle it is ridiculous to exclude gays. How can one man take the freedom of another and everyone just stands and says make it so. Traitorous­.

[shireenj]

12:16 PM on 11/08/2008

wow! I truly agree .... as the mummy of a daughter who just got married to her soulmate ... yes .... that's right ... 'tis all we want .... here in Australia, EQUAL RIGHTS! For ALL!!!! Thanks for posting this!

[towens]

03:25 PM on 11/05/2008

I don't consider myself bigoted toward gays and I do not care what they do in their sex lives. If the majority of Americans felt that the term "marriage" was appropriat­e for their unions, I certainly would not object to that. However, the fact is that the majority does not feel this way and because of this, we have a societal rift that diminishes us as a country. As long as our laws afford gays EVERY SINGLE RIGHT that straights enjoy, I can't argue against denying them the term "marriage.­" As long as a "civil union" recognitio­n gives them the exact legal protection­s and rights as straights, I say that's good enough for me. If, then, In their discourse with other people, they still want to call themselves "husband and wife" or "spouse" or "partner" or even "married," I would never argue over it. It's only their equal rights I am concerned with.

[tshelton]

06:45 PM on 11/05/2008

Great - let the government call it civil union then and never marriage. The State shouldn't do something for one citizen and not for another citizen.

[CncrndCtzns]

02:40 PM on 11/05/2008

The Gay community is much in error if they assumed African Americans would support their cause. They also fail to see any connection between Gay "rights" and the Civil Rights Movement and many are offended by the gay communitys attempts to affiliate with or claim solidarity with the civil rights movement. Some African American leaders supported a "NO" vote on Prop 8 but African Americans ignored these leaders and voted their own values.
In spite of the turmoil in black areas most AA's are extremely Pro-family and they see a family as a man, a woman and children; or even a single parent with children. African-Am­ericans are traditiona­lists in their view of marriage and family. Blacks may be very tolerant and not inclined to persecute or otherwise harass or do anything to gays; but they do not favor sanctionin­g "marriage" between two men or two women.

[milo h minderbinder]

02:47 PM on 11/05/2008

Sorry, but anyone who voted for Prop 8 is by definition NOT "very tolerant".

[deliriousgod]

03:01 PM on 11/05/2008

you don't have blacks to kick around any more, so who you gonna kick around if not gays? New pecking order for the American Chicken.

[solarguy12]

02:37 PM on 11/05/2008

....and liberty and justice for some! Shame on you California­, Florida and Arkansas. All you haters need to mind your own business and accept that people are who they are! Laws based on hatered and inequallit­y are fundamenta­lly UNAMERICAN­!!!

[milo h minderbinder]

02:31 PM on 11/05/2008

Well, it certainly is obvious that this will be the one issue the bitter sore losers will cling to. We've even got the tired talking points bashing our new president even though they have nothing to do with the topic.

Deal with it, your new president is Barack Obama.

[theyareallcrooks]

02:19 AM on 11/06/2008

Obama's opposition to gay marriage was one of the reasons I proudly voted for Ralph Nader.

[CncrndCtzns]

02:20 PM on 11/05/2008

This is supposed to be a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. The means whereby the PEOPLE express their will is by voting; and, the people of the State of California have now twice voted on this issue and both times they voted to recognize marriage as an act between a man and a woman. The issue was submitted, in a lawful manner, to a vote of the THE PEOPLE; ss is their right, The PEOPLE HAVE VOTED AND MADE THEIR DECISION, NOT A GROUP OF JUDGES. Wether we agree with it or not it has been voted on and should be entered into the State Constituti­on. The effect of the vote is not retroactiv­e; therefore any "marriages­" already performed will not be affected. If the opponents of this Amendment want to change the Constituio­n then they should organize a petition and submit it to the voters for another decision.

[milo h minderbinder]

02:23 PM on 11/05/2008

I don't agree that people should be able to infringe on the civil rights of others, regardless of voting.

It's called the tyranny of the majority.

Would you be OK with it if people voted to take away YOUR right to get married? Or vote? Or any other right?

[yngie]

02:45 PM on 11/05/2008

Perhaps the majority doesn't want the rights of the minority to infringe on their rights. I personally don't have an issue with gay unions. However, I don't want it taught to my children in school. That's exactly what happened in Massachuse­tts. When my children are taught that it's ok for same-sex marriages, it goes against what I believe. Not only that, because it is legal, you can't even opt your children out of that, it's illegal. No thank you!

[CSP]

02:38 PM on 11/05/2008

You are wrong. That is why women have the right to vote (men were not allowed to vote about it, loser), and blacks have civil rights. As Al Sharpton said regarding gay marriage: "If my civil rights were up to a majority vote, I'd still be a slave." We have a constituti­on--read it, Concerned. Your "interpret­ation" is actually more akin to the laws in "LORD OF THE FLIES."