How Did Proposition 8 Pass in California?

I think it's a question on the minds of many. In typically conservative states Florida and Arizona, which had similar measures on their ballots, it wasn't such a surprise. But when I think of California, the state's outspoken and progressive LGBTQ community is one of the first things that comes to my mind, leaving me to wonder: What the hell happened last week?

Then I think back to filling out my California absentee ballot nearly a month ago. I spent about an hour on it, but it wasn't because I was mulling over all my decisions. At least 10-15 minutes of that time was spent reading and re-reading Prop 8.

I had been watching the news religiously, had election discussions with friends, I even watched my best friend buy a "No on Prop 8" bumper sticker and took a photo with it. I was so certain I was supposed to vote "no" but when I read my ballot I thought: "should I be marking 'yes'?"

It wasn't because I had a sudden change of heart but because the measure was so poorly written. The statement used a double negative, making me think I was voting the wrong way. It seemed like voting "no" would mean voting against gay marriage. I had to check the California Democratic Party Web site and call my friend with the bumper sticker before I believed that marking "no" was correct.

According to the California Secretary of State Voter's Guide, the first line of the measure read: "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry."

In essence, voting "no" meant "to not eliminate" gay marriage. Who says that? No one. In fact, I've been taught in writing classes that this would be poor English. The ballot should have read "maintains" instead, making it a positive statement rather than a negative one.

Of course there are other reasons the proposition passed -- the typically Catholic Hispanic base and the ads that told parents their kids would be taught gay marriage in school, for starters -- but to me, the inability to effectively communicate the proposition's message is the most unfortunate. It seems like it should be such a simple fix.

Protests on Prop 8 are being held throughout the country this weekend. Show your support.

Comments

[Golfgirl27]

Prop 8 going down was a clear demonstration that CA has to many propositions and the voters do
not understand them and either can't or won't do their research before election day. The side of the argument with the most money and TV advertising will prevail. In this case the Mormans ran ads that tied the approval of same sex marriage to young children being taught about homosexuality in school, and that somehow that would be bad.
Since most grammar schools do not teach about marriage or homosexuality I do not understand why this was so effective but it was. I am sure the kids would have no problem with it, its the parents that cannot accept.

[equalground]

Jerry Brown's wording may trip up Prop. 8

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BADT13NUOH.DTL&feed=rss.matierandross

[Nicotone]

I keep hearing the blame of this prop. passing being attributed to Latinos which is a fallacy. If anyone, who actually knew what they were talking about, they'd know that Latinos voted about 46% for prop. 8 with 48% against, just like Catholics and only 2% less than Whites. The blame belongs to the Mormon Church and its members who funded this measure and ran deceitful adds instigating people's fears and homophobia.

It is illegal for Churches to endorse specific candidates or any legislation and those Churches should have their tax-exemption taken away.

[mattamorr]

I attended a No on Prop 8 rally today in Orange County. Wow! It was a lot of fun and the people are great.
I voiced to the Yes on 8 supporters, who descended on the rally to counter the protest by the van-loads, the same argument you raise and they would hear nothing of it. It is purely a religious position with them and no amount of civil conversation or reason could get through to them.

[Cybersquirt]

"According to the California Secretary of State Voter's Guide, the first line of the measure read: "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry."

In essence, voting "no" meant "to not eliminate" gay marriage. "

Uh, no, it means that voting Yes eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. It's only a No because YOU confused it.

[tellbarackdotorg]

Here is the text as it was presented in my Voter Guide:

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

While some people may be confused, by California proposition standards this one was short and to the point: you either wanted to define marriage as being between a man and woman or you didn't. And the majority went for this definition. Now we have to see how to reverse that vote.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I disagree that it was poorly worded. It said exactly what it was: a proposal to change the state constitution. I can imagine some people might have gotten confused, but that works both ways.

[Emlyn]

it was done that way on purpose.

[oafishcad]

Prop 8 passed because there are more bigots in California than people who aren't. bigots. Blacks, Mormons, Evangelicals, Latinos, Catholics, Republicans, the elderly, all overwhelmingly bigoted in their vote. All thought that the idea of equal protection under the law no longer applies if the minority demanding equality is unpopular. All thought they could force their religious beliefs on those who don't share them. Christian Taliban every one.

[Emlyn]

So what's left? I live in California and my area of Los Angeles County voted overwhelmly against Prop 8. We are liberals here, better educated. The people who voted for Prop 8 were afraid. They all believe that gays have a choice in their lifestyle, not understanding that they are born that way. I voted against it because it was discriminatory. Takes civil rights away from someone. We shall see what the California Supreme Court does.

[libbygirl]

I think alot of people were confused. I found myself explaining my vote of "No on 8" to people who thought that I was voting against gay marriage.

[army193]

I live in Washington State and I remember there was a question on the Yes or No and that voters may have been confused. Well now it must first go to the courts but I would bet if the vote was taken today it would have never passed today.

[M1]

Time to move forward....it passed now what?

[Emlyn]

No, its not time to move on.

[Thabor]

Most of us wouldn't force it into such an awkward construction. Change the "T" to a "D".. "Do not eliminate the rights of same sex couples to marry." It wasn't that difficult...

[NeoObamacrat]

So, prop 8 passed. I wondered all night Nov 4th how California could have passed such a law. It all becomes so clear.
Wording the law in such a way must have made it very difficult to discern it's true meaning. Or, the 'liberal stronghold' is not as liberal as I would have it. Too bad.

[1099]

Give me a break. The plain truth is more people in California were against gay marriage than were for it. While that may come as a suprise to many people it doesn't make it any less true.

[Sxeptomaniac]

That's possible, but not the whole story. The deceptive ads telling people that homosexuality would be pushed on their children in school, unless Prop 8 passed, scared voters who might have otherwise been neutral or somewhat against it, IMO.

[Cybersquirt]

Exactly. No one uses double negatives except people that overthink things. The wording was not the problem. Good news is the margin this time was MUCH smaller.

[pons1595]

The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for thousands of Californians and their families.

"In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)."

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons

[Sxeptomaniac]

While I don't like the way the LDS church inserted itself into California politics, I find this kind of revenge to be a really bad idea. It widens a divide that would be better bridged.

[Cybersquirt]

Oh? And how would you suggest doing that? Asking them nicely?

Go to a pro-life rally sometime. Homosexuals aren't the only group religions are targeting.

[Cybersquirt]

btw, did you read about the church that is not going to give communion to people who voted for Obama? That's cool, it's not affecting my rights, I just thought it was interesting..

[argyle]

The ballot is written that way because you can't propose to maintain the status quo. You have to put on the ballot the action being considered, which always reads as a positive statement. In this case that action was removing a previously established law. Your confusion stems from the fact that rarely do we vote to remove parts of the law.