Prop 8 in CA as of now is in the lead yet CA voted Obama...

[BrendaQG]

What does this mean for the LGBT community. We often assume democrats are our friends. Yet here we have california voting to ban gay marriage (it seems from the county by county breakdown that the really gay friendly parts of the state have already been counted). We must respect the vote if we are to belive in democracy.

So then what?

Our contry men do not want to give LGBT people the right to marry under the secular law. I think there is an alternate line of attack.

Our country is secular. What business does our government have in defining marraige at all. Let us do away with secular legal marraige, leave that to religion, and let every one have domestic partnership. Such a conclusion could appeal to Atheist (who don't belive in god) and mormons and muslims ( who beive in polgyny) to LGBT people.

The equality arguement has failed. So far as marriage is concerned that is at this point in time a non starter. If CA will vote like that then any state in the union probably will.

[lahabra1976]

Yea that was quite surprising that prop 8 passed. From what it seems is that fear got the best of people. Parents were saying that they voted yes cause they didn't want their children to have to learn about this stuff and what not even if it mean being inpartial or unequal to others. Although most of us know here this isn't true, because of the fear that it could be true is enough to scare people (one ad talked about children taken on a field trip in Massausheuttes to see a gay marriage).

So the equality argument didn't work cause fear is stronger than rationality. For example, if you were to eat lecttuce where there was a 1% chance you would die from it, you wouldn't do it. Although there is a 99% chance you would live, the consequences of being wrong is too great. Perhaps using fear as is ally aginst the proposition would have been better. I mean afterall I think it was fear of global recession and kias that drove many voters to vote for Obama. It is fear that drives people to vote a certain way in the end.

[trish]

I don't know how the voting breaks down among the various demographics in California, but I suspect many of the people who voted for Obama wouldn't ordinarily call themselves democrats. There were quite a few "soft" democrats, independents and "soft" republicans voting for Obama as well and not all these groups are gay friendly. I regret to add neither are blacks and Hispanics generally gay friendly. Obama himself was careful not to make the definition of marriage an issue and made clear that in his religion marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do hope now that the election is over Obama will be more frank and I also hope he will be sympathetic to the rights of gays. But first things first. He has to get us out of Iraq, properly regulate the economy and get us all some health care. The best thing he can do immediately for LGBT is appoint knowledgeable and responsible judges to the federal bench and the supreme court.

[LAGent4ts]

I voted no on 8 and was surprised that there really are 5,387,939 narrow minded registereed voters in California. Really a shame. My 83 year old mother and most of her friends also voted no, their thoughts, live and let live, everyone deserves to seek happiness and if that happiness can be found with marriage, so be it.
Anyway, here is the latest...
This just in from CNN:

Thursday, November 6, 2008 10:56 AM EST
CNN


(CNN)
California voters on Tuesday appear to have approved Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage in the state.

California's secretary of state late Tuesday released semi-official results showing Proposition 8 had passed 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent. CNN has not officially called the result one way or the other.

On Wednesday protesters took to the streets of Los Angeles to voice their opposition to the potential ban. And there are at least three legal challenges to it now pending in court.

Kiran Chetry of CNN's "American Morning" spoke Thursday with the program's legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, about the issue.

Chetry: California's attorney general says that the constitutional amendment is not retroactive, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says he will continue to marry people until someone sues him to stop. So what does Prop 8 mean first of all to people who want to get married in the state of California?

Hostin: Well, we already know in Los Angeles they are no longer issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So in Los Angeles, it's a no go. In San Francisco, as you mentioned, the mayor is saying, "We're still going to be doing it." So for people that aren't married yet, it's really legal limbo.

Chetry: All right. And what about people who from the time that they allowed same-sex marriage, this was in May until November, some 18,000 couples decided they were going to do it. What happens to them? Is their marriage still valid?

Hostin: It's still valid right now. But really they are also in a legal limbo. The bottom line it's all over the place. The law is really unclear here.

Last night, I was poring over these legal papers. I was also discussing this with a lot of law professors, a lot of different lawyers, and everyone is all over the place. Some folks said, you know, the bottom line is when you look at the language of Proposition 8, it is very clear that it was meant to be retroactive and that means that all the marriages will be invalidated.

Then another law professor that I spoke to said that is absolutely fundamentally ridiculous. The bottom line is this is a fundamental right that was given to couples and this is a right that is not going to be given away. I think we're going to see a lot of litigation here, Kiran, and the bottom line is everyone is in a legal, legal limbo.

Chetry: It's very interesting the grounds for which they are challenging. At least in one of these lawsuits they said that it was a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. And that means it would need two-thirds approval of the House in the legislature. So do we think it could go to the state house in California as well as being fought in the courts?

Hostin: I really think this is going to be a legal issue. I think this is going to go before the California Supreme Court. And we already know as you mentioned that there are three cases pending before the California Supreme Court. And what is interesting to note is that it's the very same court that allowed these marriages in the first place.

And so, my guess is that that court is going to weigh in, probably reinstitute the right to marry for same-sex couples and then that's going to be likely based on the U.S. Constitution and our Supreme Court is going to weigh in.

What is I think extremely interesting here is that we now know that we have a president-elect, Obama. He's going to get the opportunity likely to appoint Supreme Court justices. So we don't even know which type of court or the makeup of the court that will hear this. But I think the Supreme Court will likely weigh in on this issue.

Chetry: This was such a hot button issue in the state. More spending on either side, $35 million, $37 million on both sides.

Hostin: Yes.

Chetry: It was the highest funded campaign on any state ballot.

Hostin: That's right.

Chetry: They say it trumped every other campaign except the presidential.

Hostin: People care about this issue. I mean, they're talking about discrimination, equal protection. It's an issue that's a hotbed issue.

We also know, Kiran, that in Arizona and Florida that this ban was implemented. And so, you know, it's all over the place. People care about this issue, and this is an issue that is really present. And I think that it's something that, we, of course, have to watch because we're talking about equal protection, we're talking about discrimination. People care about these issues.

Chetry: Sunny Hostin, great to see you. Thank you.

Hostin: Thanks.

[lahabra1976]

I just read this article this morning and it was claiming that the high turnout of black voters might have been the reason prop 8 won. It mentioned that black people are more likely to attend church and more likely to be against gay marriage. Here is the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008110...edincalifornia

It mentioned the margin for black people was 69 to 31

[BrendaQG]

I don't know how the voting breaks down among the various demographics in California, but I suspect many of the people who voted for Obama wouldn't ordinarily call themselves democrats. There were quite a few "soft" democrats, independents and "soft" republicans voting for Obama as well and not all these groups are gay friendly. I regret to add neither are blacks and Hispanics generally gay friendly. Obama himself was careful not to make the definition of marriage an issue and made clear that in his religion marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do hope now that the election is over Obama will be more frank and I also hope he will be sympathetic to the rights of gays. But first things first. He has to get us out of Iraq, properly regulate the economy and get us all some health care. The best thing he can do immediately for LGBT is appoint knowledgeable and responsible judges to the federal bench and the supreme court.

Amen Trish. Amen.

Furthermore I don't like what I am seeing from so many LGBT activist. Protesting a vote? It's a vote. The most sacred and paramount of all our civil rights. In justice has been done but following that injustice by overturning the will of five million people would not be the right way.

I just hope they come to there senses and star to think how can we humanize ourselves to and convince others that LGBT people deserve equal treatment. (Though honestly to me if a legal status affords the same rights but has a different name it is already equal and all this crap over a fundamentally religious word is misguided from the outset.)

[lochaber]

Personally, I dont think it should have been up for vote in the first place.

Although voting may be sacred to a democracy, one of the principles of our government is majority rule while protecting minority rights

And, thats where this failed, this is an example of an issue where majority rule is stripping minority rights.

This isnt just a measure to determine how to fund a project, or how to zone something, this is about making a whole group of people second class citizens.

The CA supreme court already decided that it was unfair to deny marriage to same-sex couples, and I think its absurd that it even went up for vote...

Using this logic, the south could reinstate slavery (I realize the U.S. Constitution would halt something like this, and its an absurd situation, but I think the analogy fits) so long as they got more people to vote for it then against it.

Also, earlier today I had heard that there was at least one group claiming that this is more of a revision then an ammendment of the constitution, and as such, should require a 2/3rds majority to pass

Regardless, I am really dissappointed that religion has such a stranglehold on people in what is considered one of the most liberal states in the U.S.

[NYBURBS]

This is just another example of people wanting to push their agenda on others. Whether it be taking your property to "redistribute" it, or imposing restrictions on two consenting adults that wish to enter into a contract (which is what marriage is), it is wrong to impose a will on people when their actions do not harm others. I know the usual arguments will spring from my statement, but I hope at least some of you that feel affected by this will pause to consider the potential evils of collectivist ideals (social and economic). There is no reason consenting adult INDIVIDUALS should be restricted in their actions if those actions do not involve violating the rights of others.

PS- The argument that there were many "soft" democrats out voting is bullshit. I saw die hard liberals crawling out of the fucking woodwork in NY for Tuesday's election. I am sure California was much the same. It's simply that the agenda of gay rights is something that even a lot of "liberals" do not identify with. They are uncomfortable on some level with allowing marriage rights and voted accordingly.