Gay Marriage Banned in CA?

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

California Voters Approve Gay Marriage Ban [12:57 p.m.]

For more, go to abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396



what happened here? i thought this would pass handily in CA? ....Ellen's not going to be happy!

f/n: we had a similar amendment on the Fla ballot. it didn't pass, either

~~~~~~~~~~~

that sucks !

I don't have a real problem with them not allowing gay "marriage " as marriage has a standing definition for many years. But my suggestion is to truly seperate church and state.

You get ' married ' in a church

You have a " civil union " otherwise or a "civil marriage " or some such word out of the church.

The states need to allow ANY two elegible people who want to enter into the contract of a civil union to do so. If they were smart they'd also institute non-binding civil unions for people not wishing to deal with community property, thereby clearing the courts of the lengthy divorce proceedings and allowing them to clean up other court business in timely fashion.

Let's stop arguing over the religious nature of marriage in a courtroom. It doesn't belong there.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

my suggestion is to truly seperate church and state.
i'm in total agreement.

i voted no on the Fl ban of gay marriage to express need for separation of church/state mandates.

what will gay couples do now? i understand someone from SanFrancisco is appealing the election result on the State amendment.

coocooitstrue wrote:

my suggestion is to truly seperate church and state.
i'm in total agreement.

i voted no on the Fl ban of gay marriage to express need for separation of church/state mandates.

what will gay couples do now? i understand someone from SanFrancisco is appealing the election result on the State amendment.

If the people of the State are the one's voting on the issue how can it be blamed on religion? It's the will of the people, right? The people voted on the issue.

I have heard many say it's important because if they aren't married then family can come in and push the partner aside and take over in such situations of illness or death.

But, if each partner puts it in writing, leave a will in the case of property, or in the case of illness or death they can name whom ever they want as next of kin. So those excuses don't wash with me.

Personally I don't care if they allow gay marriage. I honestly don't.
They do have a choice of civil union's in many States
(I don't know how many States, could be all for all I know)

It was put to a vote and it didn't pass. There are many gay people that aren't interested in marriage. I know my brother and many of his friends wouldn't get married even if it did pass.

They have no interest in marriage at all. My brother and his partner have always been very careful to put everything in writing should anything happen to either one of them. It doesn't cost very much to have an Attorney prepare a will or whatever they need.

I am more concerned with the State (missed which it was) that voted against gay's being allowed to adopt. How stupid is that? There are so many great gay couples that have adopted several children than no one else wanted and they are wonderful parents. That I don't get at all.

They are arguing over a marriage is male / female by definition.

The basis of that argument is religion.

A binding civil union between two people to share thier wealth and holdings is no different than a business contract and should be entered into by any two people regardless of sex.

All I'm going to say is that all these bans and laws against those who are gay/bisexual/transgender whatever the case maybe irratates me.

sorry, Tish. the article states the protest was peaceful. i don't see anything peaceful about stopping traffic and jumping on police cars to make your point.

i do sympathize with those who feel their rights have been ignored or cast to the wayside, but wish protestors weren't so emotionally driven so as to cause disruption, possible harm to the rest of the surrounding public .. but i guess if they weren't emotional about a cause, there wouldn't be many protests, would there??

Q on your avatar, T: i'm intrigued by it. where was this picture taken?
impressive photo!

You would think gay marriage would be alive and well in California and actually I believe it probably was.

It is very confusing to vote on Question bills.

No to KEEP gay marriage is a difficult concept.
There was a huge amount of money spent on this bill before it went to a vote but I never once heard that addressed. Most of the money came from churchs of course who have deep pockets to kill this kind of thing. Nowhere for the other side to fund thier cause. Mostly you saw a lot of no on 8 and yes on 8 to keep marriage kind of things - very murky for the average voter once they are in the booth and overwhelmed with questions to vote on and a historic presidency to decide.

I'd be willing to bet the majority of people had no idea what 8 really was or how to vote once they were there if they approved of the marriages.

Sad to see one predjudice blown away and another barrier for another group of people put up.

But at the same time maybe its best the bill happened because I think they need to steer clear of ' marriage ' since it rings of religion and is often performed in a church and move towards civil union and maybe that's what will happen in the long run.


~~~

CooCoo-

The photo was taken in Cambodia at Angkor Wat in the fall of 2006.

I think the problem is purely political. The side against gay marriage is well funded by churchs while the side for has little money or political clout.

Its got little to do with what the people of California really think in my opinion.

I think the vote is also effected by naming the winner of the Presidential race before the polls close in California. People simply don't take the time to go vote on the other issues when its already been announced who will be President. They need to fix that somehow.