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

[OkieIntellectual]

Well I'll be boycotting all California products from now on, yes even movies, until they pull their collective heads out of their butts.

[jalapeno]

The film industry was against Prop 8 so don't boycott films and california, BOYCOTT MARRIOTT

[jonathanu]

No doubt about it... Prop. 8's passage is a slap in the face for GLBT Californians, and a dark day for GLBT Americans in general. It just goes to show you, that there is never a straight line to political change. GLBT Americans fought hard for Obama, yet Obama failed to take a strong stance on marriage equality.

At the same time, while I supported "No on Prop 8" financially, I was frustrated by the lameness of their efforts. They made commercials that spoke theoretically about protecting fairness in the California state constitution, but they didn't talk about what was really at stake. Legal recognition of the institution of marriage protects married couples and their families in many ways: inheritance, legal guardianship, parents rights all included. Prop. 8 denies those legal protections to same-sex spouses and their families.

[madzippy]

I agree they ran a lame campaign. They got complacent with the initial polling and, yes, their ads lacked the emotional impact of the ramifications of passage.

Proponents say they don't like being told what to think. They do. Just depends who is telling them. Justices, no. Mormons, yes.

[milo h minderbinder]

I don't know if it's complacency as much as being outspent due to a giant church with deep pockets.

[brandon102]

I agree that the anti-8 forces, to which my partner & I contributed as best we could, ran one crap campaign. I'm thinking the ads ran about 3 pro- for every 1 anti-8 TV commercial I saw. And the gay-hating ads all posed the specter of "Children being harmed by homosexual existence;" one had some pathetic little urchin in a mom's lap saying 'Billy was taught in school today that it was OK for boys to marry boys.' Well, Billy, it is, but things like that get fundies & Mormons & other present-day Cotton Mathers up in arms. We need to stop tax exemption for religion-based lobying.

And where was Hollywood, both with $$$$$ and on-air talent? They could have turned out many, many ads with A & B list celebs & paid to put them on. But except for a few, you'd never know Cali was the home of the stars. No more Hooray for Hollywood. Closet cases. We need Karl Rove!

[FromAcrossThePacific]

We've been watching the Presidential debate from here in Australia with great interest. Those in the know have also been following the various propositions with great interest.

To those who are understandably disappointed, I believe there is still a lot to be hopeful for. Both Joe Biden and Barack Obama have openly said that they believe in the equality across sexual preferences. Obama's acceptance speech to pretty much all of America openly lays out his beliefs on the matter. I'm sure this is the most open support to the LGBT community ever offered by a President or VP.

Secondly, social change is often slow and gradual. There are centuries of embedded and unquestioned dogma to be challenged. This challenge must come from the grass roots. You are challenging not only traditional religious conservatives, but also a supposedly more liberal misogynistic element of Western culture. It may take a the next generation of Americans who grow up aware LGBTs to buck the trend. However, it won't be won by eroding any possible support using tit-for-tat politics. I urge you NOT to vote against blacks because they voted against you. Instead, you must persevere -- be active, be proud, and make people realise that in the most important ways, you are just like them. You love your family and your partner, and a deep, intimidate, sincere, and spiritual love should never been seen as contrary to human condition

[Pigliacci]

No one has even suggested voting against blacks or tit-for-tat recrimination. And try to remember that African-American LGBT folk feel the sting of this proposition more acutely than anyone else.

[STORMATSEA]

more acutely? How's that?

[FromAcrossThePacific]

People have been saying on this blog that they don't want to vote for blacks. A prevailing thought will also be of how one minority can't recognise the plight of the other. Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple.

[DeniseD]

I am very disappointed with my Californian neighbors. My husband and I voted No on 8, but you should have seen how many Yes on 8 signs there were in our neighborhood. The Mormons and the Knights of Colombus poured lots of money to help get this proposition passed, and I am also disappointed with my fellow Italian Americans.

This proposition is all about discrimination, and I am wondering if it could be contested as Unconsititutional.

[Kassandra]

I am wondering that myself. How is it constitutional in any part of the USA to enshrine bigotry? Except against wimmin, that is, that's always there from the moment of "All MEN were created equal".

We need to try the ERA again sometime soon. Now THAT Constitutional amendment makes sense. Let America lead the way!

[rafael44]

Ask those churches has much money they have donated to help the people in Haiti .

[gaydm]

May I point out that Florida's marriage amendment is deeply flawed, if you read it as written and I quote it

"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized­."

A legal union of "ONLY ONE" man and ONE woman? does this not limit Florida to ONLY ONE marriage?
Seems as if Florida will have to invalidate ALL marriages except for the one granted by the new LAW.

And the no other union that is treated as marriage or equivalent, does that not BAR Florida from granting multiple copies of marriages, plus BAR Florida from both same sex and opposite sex unions as well?

I do believe Florida willbe in legal chaos for a while, at least until they can elect the ONE married couple into office.

[noseysniper]

One thing we have to consider is that whites and hisapnics voted for this bill too. More whites than blacks as well. This is not the time to blame a race for a bill passing. Religious beliefs don't have a color.

[milo h minderbinder]

A majority of whites and a majority of hispanics voted AGAINST this bill.

The only reason it passed was overwhelming support from black voters. While I don't know if "blame" is the right word, there is certainly one part of the electorate more responsible for passing this and it makes me particularly sad that it would happen on the same night when the nation gave them a big step forward.

It's really sad, and I have to wonder if the gay community will want to be less supportive of black candidates and issues after being stabbed in the back like this.

[Pigliacci]

The answer to your last suggestion is "No!" Don't forget that African-American gay people feel this pain even more acutely than their Anglo or Hispanic brothers and sisters.

[HawaiiBill]

I'm curious, where did you find your stats about whites and hispanics voting against the bill? I can't find any such thing this morning, but would be interested to know if it is true.

[Lemeritus]

"...on the same night when the nation gave them a big step forward."

I think we need to be very cautious about using the word "them". Obama's victory gave us all a big step forward and those of us in California who are crushed by the passage of Prop 8 should never let ourselves forget that we fought for the good of all. There is, of course, a sense of being blind-sided, even of being betrayed. But as many have noted here, the fight goes on

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." --John Donne

[madzippy]

California basically let another state decide what their constitution would be. How? The Mormon Church in Utah funded Prop 8.

In 2000, this passed by a margin of 62 - 38. Eight years later, it passed by 52 - 48. So, what do you say? Maybe in 2016?

[Lemeritus]

2016? I say: as long as it takes. One people and the sames rights for all.

[AaronWI]

Interesting that Californians voted to disallow mistreatment of farm animals, but voted in favor of mistreatment of their gay and lesbian residents. Strange logic indeed.

[RandyN]

States where I will not be vacationing: Florida, Arizona, and California.

[jlarue]

Dont punish us for what the religious right has done. It is not over. We have come far and we will overcome prejudice and fear bit by bit. It is one lost battle. The war is not over yet.

[milo h minderbinder]

While I feel bad for those who fought valiantly against Prop 8, I can't blame people for putting economic pressure on the state either.

[Bitsko]

Now let the question be asked., will there ever be a gay president?

[Pigliacci]

There probably already has been.

[Bitsko]

Lots of closets in that white house.

[Pigliacci]

Let's see how firm Californians are in their bigotry. How about an organized effort to boycott the California convention industry? Or California wines? Motion pictures? Tourism? I believe I'll plan my next convention/vacation in Boston, not LA.

If hating your neighbor so much that you'd amend your state Constitution to codify that hate is now what it means to be a Californian, you can just close that tarnished Golden Gate. But, hey, thanks for the memories.

[HellandDamnation]

Let's first remember that Gay Civil Rights were born in California. There has to be a way to get this overturned. Some sort of limitation on how much funding can come from out of state. I mean this is basically one state's electorate (Utah) taking financial control over another state's policy. That has to be made unconstitutional somehow. Also, Utah should be the one we boycott.

[Pigliacci]

Arguably, gay civil rights were born in New York, or Chicago, or even Berlin, but California HAS always been near the forefront of progress, which makes this vote all the more galling and bitterly disappointing.

[madzippy]

Not to sound bigoted, but it was reported in the exit polls that African Americans overwhelmingly by a margin of 69 to 31 supported Prop 8. It appears support for the measure came from the most unlikely source - a group of people who have suffered the most by discrimination.

Intellectually, I know it is ignorance that drives people to discriminate and in time and with education, this too shall pass. But, it gives little solace to my marriage of 3 months, now in limbo at best.

[i approve this message]

From what I understand, Prop 8 is not retroactive.

[madzippy]

That's yet to be determined. The proponents of 8 claim it is.

[Makesense]

There the scapegoating goes again. What percentage of AA live in these states? I am tired of this nonsense. Can someone make sense?

[milo h minderbinder]

If a majority of whites and a majority of hispanics opposed it, how else would you explain it passing mathematically other than the heavy support from black voters?

Whether it's "scapegoating" or not, the numbers seem pretty clear.

[spiffarino]

Facts do not equal bigotry. Any poll of AAs on the issue of gay marriage comes out the same; the majority are firmly against it.

That can change if the dialogue moves to civil rights and away from religion. African-Americans in general are strongly religious. For now, the churches have the final say in creating opinion in the black community. Once the churches change, opinions will too.

[madzippy]

At the risk of further "scapegoating" it was also reported that those who supported Prop 8 tended to be less educated, more religious and older.

[Makesense]

I think what a lot of people who are gay don't understand is that equating civil rights of the 60's with the issue of gay "marriage" is an unfair and offensive way to portray two subjects that are far from similar in meaning and struggle. Nobody is lynching gays because of who they are, nobody tells gays not to use the same bathroom or water fountain. The problem is the blindness of those who feel that opponents of gay "marriage" are bigots and homophobes who do so just to “oppress” gays for “fun”. I am not afraid of any homosexual, and anybody with such a narrow-minded view of heterosexual advocates of traditional marriage can likewise be called a heterophobe.

For all I care, anybody can have sex with anyone or anything they want but redefining marriage as a union between partner A and B is ambiguous because of those of us who want to raise children in the tradition of marriage, which has always and would remain the union of a man and a woman. Let us not advocate something in order to break another that has absolutely no similarity. Same sex couples cannot produce children. It is a kind of relationship that people who have conservative values -- and who would love to see their children have grand children in wed lock and without promiscuity -- cannot bring themselves to promote. I say yes on prop 8, yes on Obama, and yes on civil unions for equal rights.

[Vern58]

As far as i am concerned, "you" can ascribe any "religious" meaning to marriage that "you" want. The issue here is equality under the law- not your "idea" of "traditional marriage"

[Bitsko]

My lovely wife and I have been married for twenty-seven years, and we don't have children. Does that make our marriage null and void?

[Makesense]

no

[RedWhiteandBlueState]

It's ridiculous to argue semantics. "Marriage" is a word. If Civil Union=Marriage than Marriage=Civil Union. A word is a word is a word. If all you Catholics are so damn worried about the use of a word your religion is in DEEP trouble.

"conservative values" my rear end. You mean vitter, delay, craig, bush, cheney, libby, cunningham, abramoff, foley etc... etc,... etc...

I say get over it. And join the 21st century. Because just like we elected Obama yesterday, gay marriage will come, whether you like it or not.

[didge]

Word!

[Pigliacci]

Have you never heard of Matthew Shepherd?

[i approve this message]

"Same sex couples cannot produce children"

Are you saying that couples who don't intend to or are unable to have children should not be married?

[Makesense]

I think what a lot of people who are gay don't understand is that equating civil rights of the 60's with the issue of gay "marriage" is an unfair and offensive way to portray two subjects that are far from similar in meaning and struggle. Nobody is lynching gays because of who they are, nobody tells gays not to use the same bathroom or water fountain. The problem is the blindness of those who feel that opponents of gay "marriage" are bigots and homophobes who do so just to “oppress” gays for “fun”. I am not afraid of any homosexual, and anybody with such a narrow-minded view of heterosexual advocates of tradition marriage can likewise be called a heterophobe.

For all I care, anybody can have sex with anyone or anything they want but redefining marriage as a union between partner A and B is ambiguous because of those of us who want to raise children in the tradition of marriage, which has always and would remain the union of a man and a woman. Let us not advocate something in order to break another that has absolutely no similarity. Same sex couples cannot produce children. It is a kind of relationship that people who have conservative values -- and who would love to see their children have grand children in wed lock and without promiscuity -- cannot bring themselves to promote. I say yes on prop 8, yes on Obama, and yes on civil unions for equal rights.

[Vern58]

As far as i am concerned, "you" can ascribe any "religious" meaning to marriage that "you" want. The issue here is equality under the law- not your "idea" of "traditional marriage"

[MyUserName]

MAKESENSE:
Amen..you make perfect sense

[walk0nwalls]

You, me, alleyway, now.

[madzippy]

Obviously, you've never been the victim of gay bashing. How soon we forget Matthew Shepherd and others who according to you haven't suffered.

And, according to you, the only reason to get married is to have children? If so, why isn't that mentioned in the "traditional" vows? It's not. The purpose of marriage as expressed in the ceremony is to bear witness to the community that you are committing yourself to another person, an demonstration of love. It's not a statement that you're going to bear children with that person. Lots of straight couples don't have children. Does that make their marriage any less valid?

You speak of promiscuity hypocritically. In taking away the right of people to marry and commit themselves to another, don't you promote it?

[OkieIntellectual]

"Nobody is lynching gays because of who they are, [...] Same sex couples cannot produce children."

So amazingly ignorant that the whole of human communication lacks the language to describe it.

[all74]

Ok - as a Canadian I officially cannot understand what the f @ c k is wrong with your country. The religious nutjobs come out against Obama, and the african americans vote for him overwhelmingly. But on gay marriage, the african americans ARE themselves the nutjobs. Are you all insane???? I am a Christian and yet I am somehow able to comprehend that marriage is a CONTRACT and not something that is inherently Christian. This really makes me sick. When will the us TRULY get rid of bigotry?

[DumbDad]

Good point. As Jesus himself pointed out, people were being given in marriage before Noah got in the ark. That's before Abraham, father of the Jews and Arabs; before Moses, giver of the Law; and a long, long time before the first Pope. I'm a Christian too, and I disapprove the message California is sending.

[MyUserName]

There is nothing wrong with the country. It does not make one a relgious nutjob to vote
along lines of moral choice of their faith.
Faith is a substance of the inner core of a human (Christian­)..of things hoped for in Jesus and a conviction of things not seen.
Perhaps as a liberal Christian you choose to adhere to the Jesus you like and ignor the parts you don't.
Jesus said:


Mat 19:4 Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?

[OkieIntellectual]

Clearly you don't understand the principals of both critical thought and religious belief. Your faith and relationship with god is personal, between the two of you. Ok so you don't agree with homosexuality, then don't engage in that behavior. You don't agree with same sex marriage, fine don't get married to someome who is the same sex as you. You DO NOT get to force those faith-based beliefs on the rest of us though.

Additionally, at the end of the day actual marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT assigning joint responsibility and ownership of assets. It has absolutely nothing to do with your faith or your god beyond the ceremony performed in the church. Hey guess what, you could have your preacher pronounce two people man and wife until the cows come home, but until they get the license from the state, which is defacto an implied contract, that ceremony menas nothing in the eyes of the law.

[Bitsko]

I agree. Discrimination for any reason against anyone is a disgrace.

[pineapplegal]

I completely agree!

[DeniseD]

All I can say is that there are a lot of nutjobs living down here. My opinion is that many of us in this country are ignorant because of the dismal quality of education we have. We have a bunch of dumb f@cks walking the streets in the U.S.

Thank God we voted for Obama. I was truly stressed for a while when the results started coming in last night. Now I am relieved.