Why Gay Marriage Was Defeated in California (TIME article)

[Divine Discontent]

Nov. 4 may have been a joyous day for liberals, but it wasn't a great day for lesbians and gays. Three big states - Arizona, California and Florida - voted to change their constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexuals-only institution. The losses cut deep on the gay side. Arizona had rejected just such a constitutional amendment only two years ago. It had been the first and only state to have rebuffed a constitutional ban on marriage equality. In Florida, where the law requires constitutional amendments to win by 60%, a marriage amendment passed with disturbing ease, 62.1% to 37.9%.

And then there was California. Gay strategists working for marriage equality in this election cycle had focused most of their attention on that state. Losing there dims hopes that shimmered brightly just a few weeks ago - hopes that in an Obama America, straight people would be willing to let gay people have the basic right to equality in their personal relationships. It appears not.

The California vote was close but not razor-thin: as of 10 a.m. P.T., with 96.4% of precincts reporting, gays had lost 52.2% to 47.8%. Obama did not suffer the much-discussed "Bradley effect" this year, but it appears that gay people were afflicted by some version of it. As of late October, a Field Poll found that the pro-gay side was winning 49% to 44%, with 7% undecided. But gays could not quite make it to 49% on Election Day, meaning a few people may have been unwilling to tell pollsters that they intended to vote against equal marriage rights.

Gays are used to losing these constitutional amendment battles - as I said, Arizona was the only exception - but gay activists cannot claim they didn't have the money to wage the California fight. According to an analysis of the most recent reports from the California secretary of state, the pro-equality side raised an astonishing $43.6 million, compared with just $29.8 million for those who succeeded in keeping gays from marrying. The money the gay side raised is surprising for two reasons: first, the cash-Hoover known as the Obama campaign was sucking down millions of dollars a day from the nation's liberals. Many gays expected it to be difficult to raise money to fight Proposition 8 and its plan to outlaw same-sex marriage from Democrats eager to give to Obama and to the outside 527 groups supporting him. As recently as August, one of the nation's top gay political givers told me that he expected the gay side to raise no more than $25 million.

<snip from longer article>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia

Obama, hopefully, will work in making strides in stating that civil rights shouldn't be voted upon in elections.....

[Withywindle]

1. Welll.......

I guess it's a teeny bit of a ray of hope that some homophobes are ashamed to admit it.

As they should be, but...

:puke:

[Luminous Animal]

2. A long article when one word will do.

Bigots.

[Divine Discontent]

3. that works!

when you are willing to say 'their marriage causes my marriage grief', you are truly a bigot - and when you are a minority of any type and you're willing to vote to take away other's rights you're a traitor to what has been done in fighting for you. so yeah, bigots sums it up!

[endthewar]

5. But you need those "bigots" to get on your side if you want gay marriage to be legal

That's the stark reality here people. There's too much demonizing of the voter instead of people trying to figure out how to change hearts and minds. The fact remains that most Americans support civil unions for gay people. This tells me that Prop 8 passed not because the voters are truly against gay marriage, but because the anti-gay movement was much better organized and had a better outreach program than the pro-gay marriage movement.

[Chulanowa]

4. There's just something very deep, very WRONG about the majority deciding how the minority may live

Making a minority totally dependent on the support of a majority of the majority to have the same rights as that majority is what's really sick and perverse in this situation. "Us vs. Them" politics at its finest. Find a minority, and use the majority to remove their freedoms, in a vote that the people being voted against have little to no hope of winning

It really make the bile rise in my throat. I don't give a damn who the minority in question is, this is unquestionably, uncounterably wrong.

[Divine Discontent]

6. wow... great post - write that to President Obama - it's really good! eom

[olegramps]

7. Perhaps rather calling same sex partnerships marriage:

The term marriage has traditionally reserved for heterosexual binding relationships. When you examine the history of marriage, especially in regard to Christianity, it was basically an institution designed to protect children and women. In fact, if it was not consummated then it was not considered to be a marriage. Some theologians went so far as to claim that if there were no children that it was not a valid marriage and could be annulled .

Instead of calling homosexual relationships marriage, I believe that they could find more support if they were called something like domestic partnerships and handled under a separate set of laws. I would also support adopting the laws like some European countries in which the legal agreement is controlled solely by the state and religious ministers cannot legally marry people. Our system is rather a ill conceived in that ministers can legally marry people but have no authority when it comes to divorce. This blur rs the fact that marriage is a legal contract. If people want their marriage to be also conducted in the religious congregations then fine. This would I believe assist in resolving same sex relationships.

[GreenEyedLefty]

8. I would submit that marriage was a chattel system

Who were the chattel? Women. Marriage was (and still is, in some quarters) a way to buy and sell women. Protect them? Perhaps, but once married a woman became the property of her husband. The children, too.

I seriously think that the institution of "marriage" as a whole needs to be re-examined.

I am married and would gladly accept a "demotion" to civil union. The name or descriptor doesn't mean anything to me, it's about the relationship. I wish people would get that through their thick skulls.

[Chulanowa]

9. One law for me, another law for thee?

Separate but equal? Sorry, no. Making the GLBTIQ community subject to a different set of laws is inherently inequal, and unconstitutional.

Marriage in the United States is already a 100% state function. Nobody can be legally married without the state's stamp of approval in the form of a marriage license and confirmation by another licensed servant of the state. It's just that, in a nod to tradition, our nation allows clergy to acquire a license in order to give the same confirmation that a county clerk or judge could give. The clergy must still meet state requirements and follow state laws, just like hte people who are getting married must do.

[paparush]

10. The Party of "FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM!!" Rejoices in Rolling Back Civil Rights

[Outlier]

11. Reason article on prop 8

Jane Elliott, Call Your Agent*
Radley Balko | November 5, 2008, 1:28pm

My policy disagreements with Obama aside, last night was of course a historic chapter in America's long and sordid history of race relations. Unfortunately, another civil rights issue—gay marriage—went down to sweeping defeat.

I don't think the government should be in the business of giving its blessing to committed relationships of any kind. But to confer preferred tax and right of contract status on straight marriages but not gay ones simply isn't consistent with the principle of equality under the law.

Sadly, that concept seems to be less clear to black Americans than it does to other races, even as the country today celebrates the symbolic achievement of electing America's first black president.

In California, the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage actually failed among white voters, 51-49. It was the 70 percent support from black voters that put the measure over the top.

Florida's ban would have passed among white voters 60-40. But it passed among blacks 71-29.

The exit polling data isn't yet ccomplete in Arizona, but that state's ban passed with 56 percent of the vote, but with 55 percent from white and Latino voters. So it seems likely that blacks were more enthusiastic about banning gay marriage than other ethnicities in that state, too.

Kind of a sad irony if in helping achieve one civil rights milestone, last night's historical black turnout also helped perpetuate state-sanctioned discrimination against gay couples who wish to marry.

http://reason.com/blog/show/129925.html