What happened with CA's Prop 8? Questions that still need answers

It will be the first time in history that a group of citizens lost rights rather than gained them to achieve equality.

Rather than lost rights, it may be that those rights were never there in the first place. When a single judge can overcome the will of the people, then we have all lost our right to decide major social issues.

This time, "We the people" asserted our right not to be cowered into what to think regarding homosexuals.

Once again, it is gays who are politically incorrect.

The judges were doing their job.  Prop. 22 was appealed to the courts and the judges found it to be against the state constitution.  To claim that the judges "overcame the will of the people" is to admit that one doesn't know a thing about what appellate courts do, or how the system works.

Could it be merely that California was clearly in the bag for Obama, and the election really wasn't considered close either. That may have kept many people at home who didn't have a identity politics reason to vote for Obama.

That's just a guess. I think it will help once the numbers settle down some. A lot of these estimates on turnout are still kinda guesses now.

Ok, my bad. I just have to shrug my shoulders then, I have no clue. I don't know enough about California politics to offer any real incite.

Yes, strange indeed. Seems like the No on Prop 8 cats would have been in San Fransisco with get out the vote projects, doesn't it?

They voted rights for animals, chickens for God's sake, but couldn't find it in their hearts to vote for human rights?

I do not know what happened in California, I am so stunned that we have so many bigots, maybe there was a problem with mail in ballots. In the news several days before the election they said that about 30% of voters registered for absentee ballots. Did the postmasters eat them?

They voted rights for animals, chickens for God's sake, but couldn't find it in their hearts to vote for human rights?

That is a great point.  Makes you kind of wonder if the vote was for chickens right to marry and space for homosexuals to lay down and turn around, how it would've come out. 

Terrible.  Terrible, terrible.  Now, a few years ago we voted in some insurance reform which was overturned.  We also voted in a required ID legislation for immigrants (or something to that effect)- also overturned because it was "illegal".  How can illegal measures end up on the ballot??  With this history, though- what are the odds 8 will be overturned?  And why are we even voting if things are just going to be overturned consistently?    (Sigh)

8 will never be overturned......this is the second time for this prop.......... the first time it went down to defeat by a 60- 30 margin and some judge OVERTURNED it.....so now we had prop 8 where the people ALREADY voted on this type of issue.......Sorry but California voted and that's just the way it is.......

8 will never be overturned

Funny.  I didn't know they redefined 'never' to mean "within 8 to 12 years".  Huh.  I guess you learn something new every day!

8 will never be overturned

That's a pretty cavalier attitude to have towards the rights of others.  You're comfortable with the fact that a child of yours or a grandchild may not be able to live their life the way they want to because people they don't even know don't approve of their lifestyle choice?  And at what point does it end?  Today it's homosexuality, tomorrow only the missionary position is acceptable?  You know, I have great respect for people that don't agree with homosexuality yet still respect the fact that everyone deserves equal rights.  At least they are capable of seeing life beyond themselves.

I have no problem with you believing what you want to believe, and I would never wish to restrict your right to believe- but there is no reason that that belief should trample on someone else's rights.  This is no different than restricting the rights of those who have a different skin color than you.

All I did was make a statement...I don't think it will be overturned.....People wanted McCain and he lost and people have to accepyt the fact that the people voted.......Prop 8 in no different........Now if people didn't get off their butts and vote don't come cryin' to me

Just like a president can be impeached, a governor recalled, a proposition that becomes law can be struck down by judges.  It is the job of those judges to hear cases that are appealed and to rule on them.

And we aren't talking about a bunch of wild-eyed radical judges, the judges who ruled that Prop.22 was against the CA constitution were appointed by Republicans.

"funded with religious money"

Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.  Jesus drove out the money changers from the temple, with 'In God We Trust' considered as blasphemy.

LDS donates $20 million, while that money could've been used to help the poor - which, coming from a non-religious person, was a staple of Christ's teachings if I'm not mistaken.

MrCerebellum, the money came from MEMBERS of the church contributing on their own not from the church itself.  And, members give 10% of their income or more to humanitarian efforts around the world.  How about you?

SPIFFIE-I've been reading the exit polls and one thing I have read is that Obama took the overall majority nationwide in Catholic voters. Is there a predominance of Catholics there that might have tipped it even further?  (I live on the east coast so don't know your geographics). Just thought I'd throw something else in there since you mentioned their involvement spearheading it.  Possible outcome of "all of the above". Out here all we have heard on the news since the Judge overturned the popular vote is how peoples rights were violated (not that I agree-that's just how it has played out). As far as the absentee ballots mentioned, every other state that has been mentioned has said it takes 14 days for those results to be counted. Maybe that will make a big difference if it's truly 30%. 

Using "Christian" and "morality" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.  The "Christians" I went to school with and used to go to church with were the most immoral people I've ever known.  They'll talk nice to you to your face (and not always then, either) and then stab you in the back as soon as you've left.  Most of them are more concerned with what you're wearing in church than with what their Gospel teaches.  They're some of the most cruel and vicious people I've ever met.  Most of them disown their own children if they're gay, but if their straight child commits murder, they'll deny to their dying day that they did it and say he's just being misunderstood.  I recently went home for my father's funeral and in the Sunday sermon two days before the funeral, the preacher declared gays to be the enemy.  And the woman who sang for his funeral also turned out to be a bigot. (Unfortunately, I had to tolerate their hate out of respect for my mother and father, who both still love(d) me unconditionally after I came out to them, but continues to attend this church simply because she's gone there for over 50 years.)  But most Christians, especially the extreme rabid right, I have absolutely no use for.

I would agree with that, absolutely.  I would say that I don't believe it to be a blanket statement- there are good, loving Christians, without a doubt.  But, the Church also seems to be haven for very hateful people.  I think they see it as a way where they can screw you 6 days a week, but if they go to Church on Sunday, they are saved and Heaven-bound.  Again, not all- but enough.

If you've ever worked in customer service, you can have 100 great customers in a day- and one arse comes in, and that's all you're left with, thinking about the rest of the day.  Same principle here.  Even if there are 100 wonderful Christians (Or any religion), that one bad apple casts a pall. 

The "Religious Right" is usually typified as being "white". The "white" vote was AGAINST the measure.

Why stand in long lines if your vote will not make any difference?

Because there's more on a ballot that President. Stuff like whether The Gays can marry each other, you know? They tend to support that over there.

The final tally shows that blacks voted FOR Prop 8 70-30. Hispanics 53-47 for Prop 8. Whites 49-51 for Prop. 8. No one seems to be addressing the issue of those claiming prejudice against them expressing a prejudice against another part of the population.

Those are the questions that need to be addressed about the "trouble" with this vote.

There is hate expressed against "religious" people for voting for this ban. It is NOT the white people that passed this proposition.

There are very few of the RR in California as compared to the liberals.

There are very few of the RR in California as compared to the liberals.

I guess you've never been to Orange County, or the Central Valley.

Why because the people it affected  the most didn't get off their butt and vote? So we have to repeal it? Because of Apathetic Californians?

My point is being.............. if people are so hell bent on a propsition that meant so much to them why didn't they vote?  If I was gay and didn't vote....the last thing I would do is tell my friends...People are saying something smells fishy about the counrt? ........Well maybe people wanted the prop to fail so they could protest and have a judge overturn the decision....fishy smells can flow in both directions........ And you just can't vote to remove a groups rights?...........good...... people will never remove my right to bare arms.....works for me

Based on what I've read  with people going ballistic and calling people names........the question bares repeating.........double sheesh

I hope you are right, but some of us who got married are in legal limbo in the meantime. Maybe some of the LDS people can fund my accountant and attorney's fees?

Gay couples start to marry in Connecticut
By John Christoffersen Associated Press Writer / November 11, 2008

Try not to worry, I give to the ACLU with the specific cause of fighting prop 8. Well at least that what I write on the check

Not likely, the people have spoken, move on.

I just don't understand the cavalier attitude.  If you don't agree with homosexuality, fine.  But, understand that this is more than just that- this is about basic human rights where everyone should be operating on equal ground.  Can you imagine if this was about taking away people's guns?  There would be an uproar amongst the conservatives.  At least you could make an argument that guns kill people, I don't recall ever hearing about how a gay marriage killed anyone in-and-of itself.

Anytime anyone's rights or personal liberties are taken away, that's an alarming call for ALL of us.  Prop 8 has to be repealed on the basic principles of human rights.  You can't judiciously exempt one portion of the population from having the same rights as another simply because you do not agree with them.  That's a basic tenet of freedom.

Well I give you your gay rights....give me the right for a monent of silence and let my child say a prayer in school.

Well I guess neither is coercive prop 8 as well

If Prop 8 were a vote against gay weddings happening in your living room without your consent, then I agree with you, I'd vote Yes as well.  But, that's not the case.  This is about a group of people having rights taken away from them- the same rights that everyone else enjoys.  You have every right to not like it, but you have no right to trample on their rights.  Gay people married each other and it had no effect on you whatsoever.  Outside of Ellen DeGeneres, maybe, you never even knew about it.  So, why should you - or anyone- have any right to deny this basic right?  I mean- if you want to disallow gays from marrying, fine- take that right away from everyone.

Fair is fair, anyhow.  So, if this Prop 8 goes into effect, I am coming after your guns.  Why should you be allowed the right to carry firearms when others- outside of your knowledge-  can't even marry each other?  If we want to get into a war of stripping rights away, this is what it's going to come down to.  Tax exemptions for religious organizations can fall, too.

Please take my guns......................... I dare you...................

If prop 8 is unconstitutional why is it put on a ballot to begin with?

Look I could care less what you do with your life and how you choose to live it......now if you want to force things on my children....as a parent.....kiss my ass...................

I'm really sorry about what has happened to your thread here, Spiff...

"If prop 8 is unconstitutional why is it put on a ballot to begin with?"

With the right amount of money and lobbying - anything is possible.

now if you want to force things on my children...

No one is forcing anything on anyone's children.  That was just propaganda spewed by the 'Yes on 8' forces.  Completely untrue.

Look I could care less what you do with your life and how you choose to live it......

Well, thank you.  Thing is, I'm not gay, I just believe that everyone deserves the same basic rights as everyone else.  I am against guns, but I believe in your right to own them.  I just hope that you do so in good conscience.  I do not believe that your rights should be compromised because of my beliefs and vice versa.

tax exempt status

Good point.

What I don't understand is why all these groups that are based outside of California were allowed to donate to an issue that relates solely to California.  Isn't that like a Presidential candidate accepting donations from a citizen of a foreign nation? 

THe LDS sneaks around the financial aspect by creating separate funds outside the church to funnel money through their contributors into it.

I just saw an LDS add on Newsvine. AHHHHH Yuk

It's actually pretty common for items (including politicians) to be funded by, ah, not their constituents. Unfortunately. That's a reform I really want to see.

losta (proposition)

You are an anti-religious bigot.

micrometer

Thank you, I am anti-religion.

I am not a bigot.

I don't fault people for their religious beliefs.

I just don't want them forcing their religious beliefs on me.

It amazes me the intolerance on this site.  You want to blame Mormons who make up 2% of California.  You want to boycott Utah where only 12% of the total members of the LDS Church live.  (A majority of the 13 million members live outside of the U.S.)  I have seen a lot of ignorance in my time, but this is pretty pathetic.  If people want to donate to a cause that they believe in (preserving the definition of marriage), they have every right to do so.  There were many other religious groups that supported Prop. 8 and yet no one is protesting their places of worship.  Mormons have been persecuted for years.  They are the only group of people who had an official extermination order put out against them by the governor of the state of Missouri.  Innocent men, women, and children were brutally murdered by people who claimed to be freedom loving people.  Women were raped, property was burned and stolen.  They are a minority in this country and yet many think it is ok to persecute and malign them just like they claim they have been maligned and persecuted.  Tolerance is a two-way street.  You do little for your cause when you resort to this type of despicable behavior.   

Al-Qaeda and Hamas contribute greatly to humanitarian causes.  Does this excuse their other actions?  Absolutely not.

While I will in no way suggest the LDS church is as destructive and corrupt an institution as these Islamist groups, an organization cannot use charitable donations to mask its unethical practices.

spiffie and Mushinronsha, they did not use church donations.  Members were encouraged to support efforts to preserve traditional marriage.  The encouragement was directed specifically to members in California and STUDENTS and FORMER RESIDENTS who are currently living in Utah.  If you look at the lists made up by the gay community (accuracy is in question) most of the donors came from California and Provo and its surrounding cities, that is where BYU is located where students from California and all over the country and world attend. 

Even after the letter, it was then up to members as to whether or not they wanted to contribute their time or money to this cause.  Some did and some didn't.  There were members of the church who voted against Prop. 8 and they have not been excommunicated.  So, now you compare Mormons to Hamas and Al-Qaeda????  That is extremely offensive and bigoted.  Where is your outrage at the Catholics and other Christian denominations for directly contributing to Prop. 8 passage??? 

My contention is that the gay community feels that they can push the Mormons around because they are a minority group.  Instead of protesting against Californians who actually PASSED the LAW, they turn to groups they can bully including African Americans.  Gay rights protesters have used the 'N' word and other derogatory statements just because exit polls showed that a majority of African Americans voted for Prop. 8.  And now they are threatening and protesting in front of sacred places of worship when only 2% of Mormons live in California and couldn't have had any real impact on the passage of this law. 

Let's say the shoe was on the other foot and Prop. 8 failed.  Do you think the LDS Church or the Catholic Church or African Americans would stand outside city hall and protest gay marriages?  That they would call them derogatory names and spit in their faces?  Would they protest Google and Steven Spielberg movies because they gave millions of dollars to protest Prop. 8???  NO.  So far, the only thing I have seen from the gay community is a justification for religious bigotry and hatred as well as racial bigotry.

Their cause must not be that important if they are wiling to sabotage themselves by stooping to such levels and acting in such a bigoted and ignorant way.

So, now you compare Mormons to Hamas and Al-Qaeda????  That is extremely offensive and bigoted.

No, I am not comparing the Mormon church to any Islamist group.  I explicitly stated, "...I will in no way suggest the LDS church is as destructive and corrupt an institution as these Islamist groups..."

My point is that just because an organization has a charitable front, that does not mean that all the actions of an organization are benign.  This applies to corporations, political movements and, yes, churches.

Where is your outrage at the Catholics and other Christian denominations for directly contributing to Prop. 8 passage???

I assure you there is plenty of outrage to go around.  The Catholic Church and fundamentalist Christian churches should also be criticized.  However, the LDS church did go out of its way to deserve criticism by being a front-runner in this fight.

My contention is that the gay community feels that they can push the Mormons around because they are a minority group. 

I agree.  The LDS church is an easy target because there is in general much antipathy towards the church.  While I am not particularly proud of picking on a historically despised minority, I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the LDS church anymore after their actions.

Gay rights protesters have used the 'N' word and other derogatory statements just because exit polls showed that a majority of African Americans voted for Prop.8.

You're point?  There are idiots on all sides of this.  It's not like (straight) black people have never used the word "faggot" before.  That doesn't mean all black people are homophobes.

And now they are threatening and protesting in front of sacred places of worship when only 2% of Mormons live in California and couldn't have had any real impact on the passage of this law.

When an organization is responsible for raising a significant amount of funds for a campaign, I would say it has a real impact.  This is particularly true when the initiative passed by such a narrow margin.

Do you think the LDS Church or the Catholic Church or African Americans would stand outside city hall and protest gay marriages?  That they would call them derogatory names and spit in their faces?

I have no doubt some of this behavior would be going on if proposition 8 failed to pass.

Their cause must not be that important if they are wiling to sabotage themselves by stooping to such levels and acting in such a bigoted and ignorant way.

You are accusing the gay community of being bigoted?

Matthew 7:5

 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Mushinrosha, I appreciate your respectful debate.  But, I hardly believe that individuals contributing a thousand dollars or even a few thousand dollars to a "PROTECT MARRIAGE" campaign made that big of a difference, especially when the gay rights community had similar donations from Hollywood celebrities and corporations.  It ultimately comes down to voters in the voting booth who choose to vote as they please.

So, why should someone supporting this campaign be tarred and feathered so to speak for standing up for what they believe is morally wrong, or forced to quit their job.  Or, have protesters line the street in front of their places of worship shouting out "Mormon Scum". 

If we want to use the bible as our tool of measurement, I can quote you many scriptures that condemn the practice of homosexuality.  Do we really want to go there?  I don't understand why the gay community doesn't use the attention that they have raised in a more positive way.  It seems to me that they could be more productive with their platform than using this as an excuse for vilifying churches and minority groups. 

If churches stay true to the bible, then they will never promote gay marriage.  It is very possible to love individuals and be kind and supportive of their struggles, but not have to approve of their behavior.  (My cousin died of alcoholism and drug abuse.  While I loved him very much, I couldn't condone his behavior.)  While sexual preference may or may not be a choice, science is still out on this, the way one expresses one's sexuality is.  In my faith, any sex outside of marriage is a sin.  That means that heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex are committing sin as well.  We believe that marriage is instituted by God while the gay rights community believes that marriage is instituted by government.  Who is right?  I believe that God is not government.  Why should my church be vilified for standing up for what it believes is morally right?  Every great empire who has openly engaged in immorality has fallen including Greece and Rome.  States and countries who have adopted very liberal ideologies have seen population decreases.  Vermont is facing losing a congressional seat. 

I believe that in no way should homosexuals be belittled, targeted or discriminated against.  They should have equal opportunities, but changing the definition of marriage and the very foundation of our society is a big deal and there are people who have very strong objections to this.  Gay marriage is a slippery slope to allowing more and more immoral behavior to become acceptable in our society.  If it is accepted in the U.S., more and more fringe groups like polygamists and pedophiles (Man Boy Love) will be advocating for the same rights, it's only a matter of time, and who will deny them?  Prophets in both the Old and New Testament were stoned and thrown out of cities for preaching against immorality.  It seems that this is happening again today. 

But, I hardly believe that by individuals contributing a thousand dollars or even a few thousand dollars to a "PROTECT MARRIAGE" campaign made that big of a difference

The amount of money raised for Proposition 8 from Mormon backers is estimated at over 22 million dollars.  That is a significant amount of money for reaching out to voters.  I doubt the measure would have passed without this involvement since the margin was so narrow.  So, on that note, congratulations.  Your church worked quite effectively in helping Proposition 8 pass.

So, why should someone supporting this campaign be tarred and feathered so to speak for standing up for what they believe is morally wrong, or forced to quit their job.  Or, have protesters line the street in front of their places of worship shouting out "Mormon Scum".

It's perfectly acceptable for consumers to boycott supporters of Proposition 8, just as some were boycotting Apple and Google for opposing it.  In the case in point, the woman has a large gay clientele that feels betrayed by her support of the measure.  If her restaurant suffers financially, I feel that is justified.  Why should people eat at her restaurant if their dollars may be funneled to causes that will restrict their rights?

I think calling people "Mormon Scum" is a tad extreme, but I feel that LDS calls for tolerance are entirely disingenuous as the church clearly doesn't extend that same olive branch to the gay community.  What is unfortunate is that there are truly fair-minded Mormons who are against such propositions and they will be lumped in with the majority of their co-religionists.

If we want to use the bible as our tool of measurement, I can quote you many scriptures that condemn the practice of homosexuality.  Do we really want to go there?

As I don't accept the validity of that book any more than I would any work of ancient literature, I'm afraid that wouldn't be too effective.  But many who claim to follow the words of Jesus could at times try a tad harder.  My point is that it is laughable for churches who clearly do not respect the civil rights of gays to ask for respect from the gay community.

I don't understand why the gay community doesn't use the attention that they have raised in a more positive way.  It seems to me that they could be more productive with their platform than using this as an excuse for vilifying churches and minority groups.

I agree that the message should focus on positivity and granting equal rights.  However, there is a lot of anger directed at those who helped this pass.  These organizations such as the Catholic Church, the Church of LDS, various evangelical churches have brought this on themselves.  Calls for tolerance are empty from those who are trying to restrict (or in CA remove) rights.  Fortunately for the groups that did help this pass, the gay community has never been particularly violent. 

Why should my church be vilified for standing up for what it believes is morally right? 

Your church can teach whatever it wants.  We will not accept, however, involvement in the public sphere that limits our rights. 

Every great empire who has openly engaged in immorality has fallen including Greece and Rome. 

Every ancient nation has fallen for nothing to do with "immorality".  This would be like saying wearing togas cause civilizations to fall.

States and countries who have adopted very liberal ideologies have seen population decreases.

It's arguable whether population decrease is a good thing or a bad thing.  At any rate, allowing same-sex marriages and/or civil unions shouldn't greatly affect birth rates as gay people form a small part of the population anyway.

 If it is accepted in the U.S., more and more fringe groups like polygamists and pedophiles (Man Boy Love) will be advocating for the same rights, it's only a matter of time, and who will deny them?

These are separate issues.  Allowing a man to marry a man leads to a man marrying a boy no more than allowing a man to marry a woman leads to allowing a man marrying a girl.  We are talking about consenting adults here.

Prophets in both the Old and New Testament were stoned and thrown out of cities for preaching against immorality.  It seems that this is happening again today.

No anti-gay activists are getting killed for their views. 

Ultimately, those who supported this measure and similar measures deserve harsh criticism.  This fight was brought to the LGBT community and if anti-gay activists complaign, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Mushinrosha,

The amount of money raised for Proposition 8 from Mormon backers is estimated at over 22 million dollars.  That is a significant amount of money for reaching out to voters.  I doubt the measure would have passed without this involvement since the margin was so narrow. 

According to the latest figures, those who were against Prop. 8 raised $37.6 million, $1.8 million MORE than those supporting Prop. 8 ($35.8 million).  If it were a matter of money spent, you would think that Prop. 8 would have been defeated.  In my mind, both sides had plenty of money to get their point across.  More voters obviously chose to support Prop. and it had more to do with people's moral beliefs than money spent.  No amount of money spent can change a person's mind.

I think calling people "Mormon Scum" is a tad extreme, but I feel that LDS calls for tolerance are entirely disingenuous as the church clearly doesn't extend that same olive branch to the gay community. 

This is not true.  In a statement issued following the approval of Proposition 8, church officials said they do "not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." 

"Just last week, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose 'civil union or domestic partnerships,'" said Equality Utah Chairwoman Stephanie Pappas on Monday. "We are taking the LDS Church at its word."

Allowing a man to marry a man leads to a man marrying a boy no more than allowing a man to marry a woman leads to allowing a man marrying a girl.  We are talking about consenting adults here.

So far we are talking about consenting adults, but my reference to Man Boy Love has to do with this organization among others that are currently trying to abolish consent laws in this country.  These groups are also trying to legalize child pornography.  Their sick assumption is that they are doing children a favor.  One can argue based on current scientific literature that there may or may not be a genetic predisposition for pedophilia.  Therefore, are we currently suppressing their freedom of expression?  I strongly disagree with this argument, but nevertheless, some of these sick pedophiles are using this argument to strike down current laws protecting children and will ultimately use gay marriage as a starting point to advocate more tolerance for their lifestyle.  It is sad that such organizations promoting pedophilia even exist.   

Ultimately, those who supported this measure and similar measures deserve harsh criticism.  This fight was brought tothe LGBT community and if anti-gay activists complaign, they have no one to blame but themselves.

This argument was not brought to the LGBT community, they brought it on themselves by pushing to change the definition of marriage.  Why not just accept civil unions and fight for more rights regarding civil unions?  Why change the definition of marriage?  It was activist judges who overturned the will of Californians who voted for Prop. 22.  They caused a backlash among voters who regardless of the issue felt that their vote was arbitrarily overturned because of one judge's opinion.   

"Activist judges" = judges doing the job they were hired to do even when it means they make a decision that some people don't like. 

Would they still be "activist judges" if they ignored the fact that barring gays from the right to marry is unconstitutional because it creates a "separate but equal" situation that has been outlawed in this country, and ruled in favor of the religious right in spite of the law? 

Or would they be "good, fair judges" then just because they decided the way you wanted them to?

Please explain to me just exactly what the difference is between a judge and an "activist judge".  I'd really like to hear that definition, and please, pay special attention in your reply to what each kind of judge uses as a precedent for the formation of his/her decisions, and whether or not they have the right to interpret the law and the evidence in each case.

Maureen, two definitions of judicial activism.

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as "a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent."

David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School has argued that judicial activism can be narrowly defined as one or more of three possible things:[2]

• overturning laws as unconstitutional
• overturning judicial precedent
• ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution

One case among many of judges going too far: Kelo v. City of New London

If you read the actual decision handed down by the California Supreme Court (4 to 3 decision), they contend that domestic partnerships give gay couples every benefit that married couples currently enjoy.  Therefore, if this is the case, why should marriage which is the state recognizing a religious ceremony be changed when domestic partnerships offer the same rights?  It is the judges' opinion that the word "marriage" denotes a special "sanctioning" of their arbitrary definition of the word "family," but they do not give any proof that this is true.  It is mere conjecture on their part.  They are therefore interpreting the law according to their own bias and political opinion.

I will have to read the actual decision because I think your interpretation of it is flawed.  The reason I believe this is that it would be dishonest for any judge to claim that civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage, since even if that were true within the state of California, it is not true on the national level.  

Civil unions are NOT unversally accepted as being equivalent to marriage outside of the state in which they are issued, and are not considered equivalent to marriage at the federal level either.   For instance, couples who have only a civil union cannot file a joint tax return with the IRS, or be considered a married couple by the Social Security Administration, as well as a myriad of other legal issues that are easily navigated for "married" couples, but NOT for those with a state-sanctioned civil union. 

By the way, a legal marriage is NOT "the state recognizing a religious ceremony" because there is no requirement for a religious ceremony in the marriage laws of this country.   Any couple can be LEGALLY married in a civil ceremony that does not involve religion in any way whatsoever.   The state sanctions the LEGAL ceremony of marriage (which can be obtained at any county clerk or registrar's office, by a judge or justice of the peace, and in some places, even by a notary public) - period.    The religious ceremony is a CHOICE made by the couple, but is NOT a requirement for the marriage to be legal.

Which is why your interpretation of the judges' decision is inaccurate at best.   

If it were a matter of money spent, you would think that Prop. 8 would have been defeated. 

If the campaign that spent the most money automatically won, then the initiative would have been defeated.  Real life is not that simple.  However, one can say that the amount of money spent on a campaign correlates with the success of the campaign.  If the Yes on 8 campaign did not have the significant financial support of the LDS church and members, it would probably have fallen below the margin.

I don't understand why the LDS church and many Mormons don't own up to the fact that they are one of the factors that pushed Proposition 8 over the 50% mark.  One would think that after all that effective organizing they would be bragging about it.

 In a statement issued following the approval of Proposition 8, church officials said they do "not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." "Just last week, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose 'civil union or domestic partnerships,'" said Equality Utah Chairwoman Stephanie Pappas on Monday. "We are taking the LDS Church at its word."

I don't believe this is genuine for one moment.  The LDS church is getting a ton of bad publicity (rightfully so) and this is damage control.  It's very typical for groups to say they are merely opposed to marriage equality and instead support civil unions to turn around and challenge or prevent civil unions.  I also don't believe that Equality Utah believes this either.  They are just trying to sound cordial, so there is rubbish on both sides here.

So far we are talking about consenting adults, but my reference to Man Boy Love has to do with this organization among others that are currently trying to abolish consent laws in this country. 

I do not see how this relates to two adults marrying or forming a civil partnership.  This is a red herring and a ridiculous example of a slippery slope argument.  Has there been a push for legalized pederasty in Massachusetts or Connecticut?  This isn't ancient Greece or feudal Japan; it is 21st century America.

Why not just accept civil unions and fight for more rights regarding civil unions? 

Beats me.  This is what I think we should do.  I think this is a much more achievable goal.  If I were in charge I would push for federal and state civil union bills (perhaps DOMA needs to be overturned first; I'm not sure).  Some states won't come around for a long time on same-sex marriage.  If we had a uniform system of civil unions or domestic partnerships grating the same rights and responsibilities of marriage in place that were respected nationwide, that would be wonderful.

Part of the problem is that there is no national civil union system.  A marriage between two women in Massachusetts is equal to a marriage by a man and a woman in name only.  It is not recognized by 47 other states or the federal government.  If same-sex couples were to participate in the legal institution of marriage, all the rights and responsibilities they need are already there.  I think one possible objection to civil unions and domestic partnerships is the lack of uniformity across the country.  Does a coupe with a marriage in Massachusetts also need a civil union from Vermont and a domestic partnership from California when traveling there?  While I think the most reasonable approach to gaining equal rights (less marriage) is the route of civil unions, the path is going to be a legal nightmare.

Why not just accept civil unions and fight for more rights regarding civil unions?

Not being gay, I can't really speak intelligently for the gay community, but as a human being (Last time I checked anyway), my initial response would be why should they have to accept something different than anyone else?  Marriage isn't an institution that belongs solely to religion.  There are civil services.  No one is asking for LDS to perform the ceremonies- or even recognize them.  They are merely asking for the same rights as everyone else.  No one is asking you to change your beliefs- but they are merely seeking equal rights, not more rights than you have, but equal.  I just fail to wrap my head around any argument that can be made against that.

So far we are talking about consenting adults, but my reference to Man Boy Love has to do with this organization among others that are currently trying to abolish consent laws in this country.

I doubt that you meant for this correlation to be as ugly as it is, but it is a nasty and disgusting reference.  To compare what two consenting adults do in the name of love to the dispicable crimes of another is beneath you.  The underlying message that it's what they "believe to be right" doesn't hold water in that the latter concerns a minor.  If you want to further the correlation, at one point in time it was considered "right" to condemn, harrass and murder Mormons, but just because some believed it to be right didn't make it so. 

The bottom line is that you are free to believe what you want to, practice the religion of your choice- but everyone (EVERYONE) should have equal rights under the law.

Bejeebies and Mushinrosha, if you had read my references, you would see that this group's goal (Man Boy Love) is to make it possible to abolish sexual consent laws meaning that they want to legally be able to have relationships and potentially marry children.  They want to change child abuse laws.  I'm not saying that this will come to pass, I will do everything in my power to prevent it from happening, but 40 years ago, no one thought that gay couples would be able to have civil unions let alone marry. 

Just as the gay community is trying to link themselves with the Civil Rights movement, the pro-pedophile activist groups are trying to link themselves with the LGBT movement.  One of their goals is to have the APA remove it as a mental illness and reclassify it as a sexual preference.  Here is a sampling of several scientists and authors who agree with this position:  

In 1999, Harris Mirkin wrote an article in the Journal of Homosexuality titled “The Patterns of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia.” His position is that pedophilia is a “culture and class specific creation” and it can and should be made legal. He compares the fight for legalization of pedophilia to the civil rights effort of the Black community. Mirkin writes that if the legalization of pedophilia is to succeed, the discussion has to move past moral issues to the rights of children to enjoy sex.  

An article simply titled “Pedophilia” was featured in the Journal of American Medical Associationin 2002. Peter J. Fagen, Ph.D., et al., made the assertion that pedophilia is just another sexual orientation.

Dr. Fred Berlin of the John Hopkins Department of Psychiatry supports that position. In an article that appeared in Behavioral Health Management, Douglas Edwards cites Berlin, stating that Berlin rejects the idea that pedophilia is a conscious choice, but rather a life-long sexual orientation.

Judith Levine published Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sexin 2002. The book featured a forward by former Surgeon General JoycelynElders. Levine writes, “Pedophiles are not generally violent, if there is such a thing as pedophiles at all. More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make.”  The Los Angeles Times gave Levine an award for her book.

There are other instances where pedophilia is minimized, tolerated and ignored. The State of California passed a bill dubbed the Pedophilia Protection Act, removing the requirements of mandatory reporters. This was in reaction to the discovery of Planned Parenthood treating children as young as six for sexually transmitted diseases, yet not reporting it. It seems in California, the protection of Planned Parenthood takes precedent over the protection of children from abuse.

These are just a few examples where health professionals and law makers are trying to justify aberrant behavior.  There is a choice as to whether one engages in behavior related to sexuality or not.  Just because someone has a sexual preference or desire doesn't mean that they must express that behavior.  In the case of pedophilia, individuals are currently treated as mentally ill.  They go through a variety of counseling and behavior modification programs as well as given medications to try to control their behavior.  Forty years ago, weren't homosexuals treated the same way?  What I am trying to say is that over time, anything can become acceptable to society if enough pushing and publicity is linked to it. 

If this is too far fetched an example, let's look at pre-marital sex.  Fifty or sixty years ago, this behavior was frowned upon by society.  If a hollywood celebrity had a child out of wedlock, it was covered up or she was disgraced.  I'm not saying that we should go back to vilifying people who make mistakes, but it is interesting the way morals have become looser and immorality has become more acceptable and in many cases the norm.  

I'm not trying to take anyone's rights away, but I'm not about to stand by and watch the last bastion of civilized society, traditional marriage, be altered especially when the consequences are so grave and there are alternatives such as domestic partnerships and civil unions that can offer the same benefits as marriage.

CYF - you're comparison doesn't work because there is a difference between allowing two consenting adults to enter into a LEGAL contract of marriage with each other, and allowing an adult to force a child into sexual activity.

No matter how you try to twist those two things into a natural progression, it just doesn't work.   NO ONE is going to allow a group of pedophiles to legally abuse children.  It won't happen - not ever. 

But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage, because the marriage issue applies solely to adults who are able to understand the implications of their decision. 

PS - Society may have "frowned upon" premarital sex in the past, but that didn't keep it from happening.  I, like our President Elect, was the product of some unmarried hanky panky between my mother and an idle sailor temporarily ported in her hometown.

Furthermore, sex outside of marriage has been a tradition as old as time.  Everyone from kings to peasants have engaged in un-sanctioned sex throughout the ages - right up to and including the most Puritan stages of American history.  (And the same can be said for homosexual sex as well.)

I forgot to add that I was born in 1961, when out-of-wedlock births were still something that most folks would be ashamed of, and many young women in that predicament were disowned by their families because of it. 

I was lucky to have grandparents that were very accepting, and who loved me regardless of the circumstances of my birth.  They took my mother in and supported both of us for the rest of their lives.   Not many families would do that back then.

CYF- I second everything Maureen said.  I'd also like to add that the comparison doesn't fly because there is no victim in a gay marriage, unlike in pedophilia.  Unless, you're going to count your religious beliefs or Church as a victim, but that doesn't fly either.  There are probably gay couples marrying in Connecticut right now and you neither know of or are hurt by such.

Maureen and bejeebies,

No matter how you try to twist those two things into a natural progression, it just doesn't work.   NO ONE is going to allow a group of pedophiles to legally abuse children.  It won't happen - not ever. 

I hope you are right that we never will allow this as a society, but it is disturbing to see via the articles that I cited that the foundation is being laid for this to become a reality.  That California Law is an open door to shoving child abuse under the rug. 

I'd also like to add that the comparison doesn't fly because there is no victim in a gay marriage, unlike in pedophilia. 

Read the articles, that is exactly what sick minded pedophiles would also have you believe, that there is no victim.

Not to belabor this argument, but children are the innocent victims of gay marriage.  Children deserve to have a loving mother and father. 

Every child has a “fundamental right” to a mom and a dad. Indeed the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically guarantees children this right. Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can as a society to promote more children having a mom and a dad rather than considering denying this fundamental right to an entire swath of our population?

No gay couple can ever replace a mother and father.  Children if allowed to be adopted through foster care or adoption will not have a choice.  Because this isn't a perfect world, children will most likely be teased, questioned, etc. about their parents.  The children will have to carry the burden of the lifestyle choice of the gay parents.  Numerous studies in Norway, Swedenand other Scandinavian countries where registries akin to gay marriage has been allowed for over a decade show that their is a higher divorce rate among gay couples than heterosexual couples.  This means children will be bounced around even more than in traditional families.  So, don't tell me that their aren't victims involved in gay marriage.  Shouldn't we be trying to strengthen traditional families and try to prevent divorce rather than redefine marriage and try to further weaken it?

Maureen, I'm so glad that you had loving grandparents who supported you and your mom.  I firmly believe that no one should be vilified for making mistakes especially when they take responsibility and make the best out of life.

There ARE gay couples marrying in CT right now.  They started tying the knot yesterday, I think (or Wed. - not sure).   There have also been gay couples getting married in Massachusettes for several years now.   In neither case has this had any kind of negative affect on the marriages of heterosexual couples, who, for the most part, don't even know when a gay couple is getting married unless they've been invited to the wedding. 

More importantly, despite the fact that gays have been allowed full marriage rights in three states (with one now in question) has not caused the world to end, or forced "God" to strike us all down as infidels and sinners, or brought on Armageddon, etc.   No churches have closed down because gays are allowed to marry, and no church has been "forced" to perform a gay wedding ceremony.   No heterosexual individual has ever been forced to marry someone of the same gender either. 

It also has not stopped any hetero couples who choose to have a religious marriage ceremony from doing so, or from taking just as much joy from that celebration as they did before the gay marriage issue was ever discussed.

So, CYF, the only way same-sex marriage can be an issue that affects you, your marriage, or your faith, is if YOU allow it to be.   The problem is not with the gay community, or the laws that allow them to legally marry.  The problem is inside your own head.  Period.

CYF:

Please do not use children as some kind of "proof" that gay marriages are a bad thing.  It's a false assumption that is propagated by the churches, but is NOT supported by the reality that there are already millions of gay couples raising children (their own, foster children, or adoptees), with a great deal of success.

Furthermore, you are using an argument that has already been proven false when you claim that the children of gay couples will face undue hardships because of who their parents are.   This is the same argument that was used in the past to justify banning interracial marriages, and it's as wrong now as it was then.

Yes, some biracial children faced some teasing and had to deal with racist comments from their peers.  But they learned to deal with it, and as time has gone by and such families are more common, the instances of this kind of behavior have dwindled to almost nothing.    The same is and will be true for the children of gay parents (who will continue having and raising children whether they are granted the right to marry or not). 

The only merit your argument has is one that I'm sure you didn't intend - and that is the idea that children coming from a home where there are TWO parents who are married are better off, and do better in their educational and social development, than those who come from single-parent homes or broken homes.   Unfortunately for you, this actually supports the idea that allowing gays to marry is a GOOD thing, for them and for their children. 

All children are teased to some extent, some more than others.  Not that I'm advocating it, but it is a fact of life. 

As for the argument that a pedophile would argue that there is no victim, therefore it's "conceivable" that in the future the laws could be overturned.....I'm sure you could find some rapists out there that don't believe there was a victim- so should we ban heterosexual marriages now so that we don't legalize rape in the future??  This whole argument is troubling...

I'd sure take two loving gay parents over a dysfunctional heterosexual family, I can tell you that.  And I believe that child would have a better opportunity in life than one from a broken, dysfunctional home.  That's not to say a gay family couldn't or wouldn't be dysfunctional- but, that's kind of the point of the whole thing- it would be the same as everyone else.  I know it can be hard to open yourself up to new possibilities after you've been taught your whole life that "this is wrong"- but you've probably also been taught on the other hand that "All men are created equal".  A gay marriage, a gay relationship, gay parents- hurt no one.  If God has a problem with it, I trust that God will do something about it when the time comes, that's for neither you nor I to stand in judgment of.  Live and let live.

If God has a problem with it, I trust that God will do something about it when the time comes, that's for neither you nor I to stand in judgment of.  Live and let live.

 Thank you!!   That is exactly where the whole religious argument falls apart the most.  They want to stand in judgment of others, regardless of whether those they are judging even belong to their religion - and despite the fact that the very icon they follow told them "judge not, lest ye be judged". 

So for all those who want to claim that Biblical laws are relevant to this discussion, please remember that, according to your own beliefs, your God is more than capable of eliminating anything he/she/it doesn't agree with, so why not leave it in his/her/its hands and stop trying to do God's job for him/her/it? 

See to your own souls, and let the rest of us (gay or straight) worry about ours. 

Ya I'm Buddhist, I don't believe in the Jesus story. I think the Jews have a different view too.

Bejeebies and Mushinrosha, if you had read my references, you would see that this group's goal (Man Boy Love) is to make it possible to abolish sexual consent laws meaning that they want to legally be able to have relationships and potentially marry children.

You can always tell the conversation has devolved once the pedophilia card is thrown. 

CYF, I am aware of NAMBLA's arguments.  I do not see what this has to do with allowing two consenting adults of the same sex have a marriage or union of some type.  Opposite-sex marriage in America has not led to child marriage, so why would same-sex marriage?  If you want to fight the possibility of child-marriage, fight the ones who are advocating that.  I'll be there with you.

Just as the gay community is trying to link themselves with the Civil Rights movement, the pro-pedophile activist groups are trying to link themselves with the LGBT movement. 

I am not entirely sure what your argument is here.  Are you saying that since pedophiles are trying to use the gay rights movement as a model for their own devices, that the gay rights movement should be thwarted?  I suppose we can then take that one step further and say that the Civil Rights Movement should have been suppressed since it would in the future lead to pedophiles trying to manipulate history for their own ends. 

Once again the link to pedophilia is spurious.

Numerous studies in Norway, Swedenand other Scandinavian countries where registries akin to gay marriage has been allowed for over a decade show that their is a higher divorce rate among gay couples than heterosexual couples.

African Americans have a higher divorce rate than the general population.  I suppose by this reasoning they shouldn't marry or adopt.

Shouldn't we be trying to strengthen traditional families and try to prevent divorce rather than redefine marriage and try to further weaken it?

Banning gay marriage or civil unions does nothing to "strengthen traditional families".  If you want to focus on preventing divorce and improving the relationships of straight couples, that is a worthwile cause.  I wish energy were spent in that direction instead of further marginalizing the gay community.

Trust me; I'm not being mad yet...

If the judges did not decide, we would not have just elected the first black President, as he, like all other African Americans, would still be discriminated against.

It IS the job of the courts to protect the rights of the minority against the bigotry of the majority.  That is the essence of "justice". 

It is also the job of the courts to uphold the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  That means that they must consider that this country was founded on the principle that ALL people are equal, and therefore deserving of equal treatment under the law - no matter how unpopular that view might be to the majority.

This is exactly why supreme court judges are appointed for life and not elected.  So that they can decide a case fairly without fearing reprisals at the voting booth. 

By the way, it's interesting that you chose the word "freedom" for your online handle, yet apparently don't want to allow others to enjoy the same freedom of choice regarding whom they marry that you have. 

If you do not like the way our government and judicial system are set up, you are more than free to find yourself a country with a system that suits your preferences more appropriately, and then move there. 

I don't mind if I make you money SPIFFIE.....where would you like me to stick it?

 judes (sic) decide

Judges decide all the time.  It's part of their job.

Well, supposing a judge or court decided that a group had SUPERIOR rights to other groups.

For example the 1854 Dred Scott decision. In that ruling, the US Supreme court ruled that slaves were property, not persons, and therefore had no more rights than a horse.

We cannot always expect the judiciary to do the right thing. I understand that Prop 101 was overturned by a single judge. One man, with all the same frailities as any other, overruled the will of the people.  That's REAL tyranny.

To Freedom 1

The cost of an activist judiciary is far more expensive than any election process.

The cost of an activist judiciary is far more expensive than any election process.

The problem being the judiciary is supposed to be activist - they just aren't supposed to use it as a platform for a personal agenda.  However most of what people call "activist judges" are just judges doing their duty - and reaching a conclusion that some don't like.

If people don't like the laws as they're judged, they should write better laws, and not fault judges for doing what they're honor-bound to do.

Judges should rule based primarily on law and precedent.  I don't know anything about the CA Constitution, but I do feel that a gay marriage ban violates the 14th Amendment.  You might be able to make a case with the 1st Amendment, given how many of the arguments against gay marriage are religious based, but this would be a much harder argument.  I have a feeling that this issue will be before the US Supreme Court in the next few years.

And before you ask, here's the section of the 14th Amendment I think gay marriage bans violate:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Goood for you ....move their