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]

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

[shireenj]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Clammyb]

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]

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]

Very interesting take, thank you.

[MourningDood]

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

[shireenj]

perfect, perfect ... wish I had written this .... thanks! From a VERY white Aussie *aka shouldbe a redneck, but are not so stupid .... seriously, again, thanks!!!

[CSP]

USA=Dumbf*ckistan

[karmatt77]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[deliriousgod]

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.

[handgrenadejumper]

whoa whoa whoa.. you mean to tell me that black americans believe the same thing a the majority of this country and people are now giving them a hard time? ..

hmm.. go figure.

[CSP]

We made no such assumptions. As many black gays know, the black community is a bit behind the eight ball when it comes to BOTH WOMEN"S AND GAY EQUALITY. But don't go praising their family values--just as Bill Cosby AND OBAMA.Black men actually need to start living up to their responsibilities as fathers--an area that GAY MEN ARE much better at. CHEW ON THAT FACT.

[tshelton]

There is a simple answer to this which we now must adopt. If we as citizens can't agree to extend the same rights and protections to all of our citizens in a certain arena, then we must agree that those rights and protections are a part of our citizen's private activities and not ones that the State should regulate and control. Yes, the government should get out of the marriage business. Let's leave marriage to the churches where each religious sect can decide upon its own religiously motivated criteria for marriage. States can provide, to all citizens equally, rights and protections for domestic partnership. Calling it marriage or not is something you do as a private citizen.

[solarguy12]

....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]

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]

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

[CncrndCtzns]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[deliriousgod]

unless the president abolishes Gavery and introduces Human Rights legislation to outlaw amendments like this to State constitutions

[HillbillyBob]

The system of district to supreme courts part in this is to prevent the Tyranny of the majority, because the founding fathers understood that joe the plumber et al could get carried away. ala the witch hunts, the red scare, Joe McCarthy and his UnAmerican committee. the rightwing nutjobs behind this nonsense.