Who was threatened most by prop 8?
According to The Field Poll, a California polling company operating since 1947, majorities in favor of banning civil rights…
Conservatives and Mccain supporters were the largest group… ever vigilant in the war on terror ensuring that al queda no longer hates us for our freedom… by surrendering said freedom…

Those without a higher education went 2/3’s for the ban vs. the 2/3’s with a higher education that opposed it… maybe this is why liberals tend to have a pro education agenda?

People over the age of 65 and African Americans also went for the ban in larger numbers than did not… Maybe it’s a longing for simpler times that sparked this

Until 1967, white and black could not a wedded oreo marriage make in 16 states…
This of course means that had the current president elects parents lived in one of those states… among other firsts, he would likely be our first bastard president… although we could debate that semantically in regards to what exactly constitutes a bastard president…

I do not doubt that the vast majority of people who voted for the ban consider themselves tolerant of homosexuality, simply not in the case of marriage…

And it is here that the problem with tolerance is made most clear.
That it is at our will… by tolerance we mean that we allow something only as we see fit to.
When that thing we are allowing – only as we see fit – is the civil rights of another member of our society? We are oppressors operating under the slave owner mentality that we are just in doing so. That it is our right to oppress.

If I seem overly pointed in directing this towards the African American community it is because I am horrified that the connection to past civil rights abuses is so effortlessly ignored in the present by a community that knows so intimately the pain that a majority sanctioned injustice can inflict. That there are old white republicans that harbor such discrimination is not news to me, but it was hoped by me that they were a dieing breed. That they have found the replacements, have passed the torch of bigotry to those they discriminated against for so long, leaves me dumbfounded.

Basic civil rights in America are not privileges to be revoked or limited at the public whim.

There can be no legitimate law written that removes these rights from the fabric of our society and those that try – put themselves in very poor company.

-justin

e.

Its time for all of Gods children to back him and say no to this sin.

My god is too busy with beer and wenches to care who I sleep with or fall in love with. Praise Thor!

Give me one good reason that your gods preferences should be legally valued over mine. If it passes the Lemon test, I’ll convert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test

Its time for all of Gods children to back him and say no to this sin. Or we will all be burning in hell

Assuming that you are right, are you saying that God’s argument against Gay marriage is: “Do as I say or you’ll burn in hell”?

Surely we should all fight such a genocidal God!

If civil partnerships are still allowed in CA, and they offer the same rights and protections as traditional marriage…

They are quite different actually. For example, marriage has no co-habitation requirement, whereas domestic partnerships do. Which means that you have to be living at the same address *before* you enter the partnership.

Persons under 18 cannot enter a domestic partnership. They can marry with a court order.

The putative spouse doctrine doesn’t apply to domestic partnerships.

A marriage certificate can be designated “confidential” to prevent it from being released to the public. No such process exists for domestic partnerships.

Domestic partnerships also discriminate against heterosexuals: different-sex couple cannot enter a domestic partnership unless they are older than 62.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, studies have shown that employers do not treat domestic partnerships the same as marriages when it comes to awarding benefits. For example, my company allows an open time window every year to change your medical benefits; then, during the year, you can only change benefits if a “significant event” occurs in your life, such as marriage or divorce. “Domestic partnerships”, according to my company, aren’t considered significant events (I inquired specifically), so even though I can sign up a domestic partner for benefits, I have to wait until the special time window, which only occurs once a year. There’s also some funny business with how taxes are dealt with: I think that because domestic partnerships aren’t recognized federally, the benefits to the partner are taxed as additional income. Although that’s just the fact that there’s no federal recognition of same-sex anything, not a difference between domestic partnerships and marriage.

There’s also an issue of how courts will now resolve disputes when it comes to spousal benefits. For example, in the case Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, Brigit Koebke argued that her same-sex registered domestic partner was eligible for free games of golf afforded to “spouses” of members of the country club. The California Supreme Court agreed with her – that was *before* Prop. 8 was passed. Now, chances are, the court will disagree, because the new amendment establishes the definition of marriage as specifically distinct from domestic partnership, and if the country club argues that “spouse” is defined as a “party in marriage”, then benefits don’t have to apply.

Finally, beside the heaps of legal trouble, there’s also an issue of how people are treated. This is a cultural issue, but it is affected by the terms used. A study out of New Jersey found that found that “people in civil unions were not treated the same way as married couples by government agencies, employers and others. One of the big issues is that people do not understand what civil unions are and how they differ from marriage.” That’s what the “separate but equal” concept is about — even if you “say” you are awarding two groups the same rights, as long as you keep the *implementation* of those rights distinctly separate, equality doesn’t come.

To let you know where I stand: I am very much in favour of “gay marriage”, but I just want to know exactly what the practical consequences of this amendment are in terms of people’s rights and freedoms.

In this case, civil servants who feel it is unjust to refuse marriage licences to gay couples should issue these licences anyway.

Compare this with Abortion. Abortion would never have been legalized if the law that banned it was not violated on a massive scale.

What happens is that people who have a stake in the issue are a minority, while the majority who do not have a stake in it oppose it because it is a taboo issue. If the minority confronts the majority by fighting for their rights, then the majority will back off because they won’t be prepared to fight for a an issue that is irrelevant to their lives.