Yeah, similar votes passed in Arizona and Florida I believe. Arkansas passed an initiative to ban unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.
I have a very dear friend who is a lesbian, lives in LA and was married to her partner last year. I'm sad for her.
It has nothing to do with hate. If you want a civil union between same sexes, then present it as a civil union, not a marriage. Leave marriage out of it.
I'm also very upset about what Arkansas passed too. They would rather a child go unadopted then let them live with a unmarried couple where they could be loved and care for. Its freaking disgusting they would rather let them rot away in the system.
What difference does it make? Would you have supported only "civil unions" for interracial couples before it was widely accepted?
Everyone would have had that option. Nobody who fears gay marriage would have had to: (A) marry a gay person, (B) preside over a gay marriage, (C) speak or show any support for a gay marriage, or (D) join a church or any other community group that supports gay marriage. Basically, you would have had to acknowledge equality and mind your own business. Ah well, for now, us straight people can continue making a mockery of the institution anyway.
one of my best friends, a single woman, adopted a kid from Ft. Smith last year. her priest (gay) is now head of Grace Cathedral in SF. both voted Obama.
You're not going to get a unanimous agreement on this topic. There are those that feel marriage is defined between a man and a woman, mostly based on religious terms. Gays feel like they should retain the rights as a hetrosexual couple, which there is an option. Its called a civil union. Obviously it isn't enough, as they want "equal rights". Pretty much if you feel marriage defines a man and a woman only, you're considered an intolerant hateful person. Personally, I feel that a marriage bonds two people through (your religion/god), a wedding is to celebrate, and a civil union is for the state to recognize it, whether it be hetro or homo. IMO, marriage needs to be removed from the courthouse altogether.
I voted against the initiative for the same reasons you listed. There is already so much people have to go through to adopt or foster children and there is already a shortage of people willing to take on this responsibility. I see nothing good that can come from this idiotic passing except a worse system than we have in place now.
edit: I guess you can't get "married" in a courthouse? so what if there was a church who will "marry" you? the state won't recognize it, but it will recognize a civil union?
Certainly, to some extent. But Democrats voted 64-36 against it, while Republicans voted 82-18 for it. So while there are subsets of Dems that voted for it, the vast majority of the Republican Party voted for it.
If it's a religious argument, THE STATE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Period. Let church's decide who can and cannot get married in their buildings. If it bothers you that $RELIGIOUSFACTION will marry gay people, don't be a member of that $RELIGIOUSFACTION.
Actually I received calls from the Obama campaign and a call with a recording of Obama's own voice saying he was against prop 8. I also recieved a robocall from Bill Clinton urging me to vote against prop 8. To say it didn't pass because of anything Obama did is to not know the situation here in CA. Try again basso.
that would be cool with me in the interest of equality. You could shut down people getting marriage license and give everyone civil unions.
not quite. if you donated to the Obama campaign, funded or worked on their GOTV efforts in CA, you brought out the vote that passed Prop 8. whether you like it or not, you own this result. let me be clear, i'm not happy with either result, Obama winning or Prop 8 passing (in fact, there's precious little i am happy about today, an idiot get's reelected in PA, a criminal in AK, a criminal incompetent in LA, and a good man goes down in ME), but i am enjoying the disonance on this issue. this is the change you voted for.