Los Angeles Times reports:
A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California was passed by voters in Tuesday's election, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.
As Proposition 8, the most divisive and emotionally fraught issue on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.
"We caused Californians to rethink this issue," Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
In San Francisco on Tuesday night at the packed headquarters of the "No on 8" campaign party in the Westin St. Francis Hotel, supporters heard from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose decision to issue same-sex wedding licenses in his city led to the court ruling that made gay marriage briefly legal in the state. .
"You decided to live your life out loud. You fell in love and you said, 'I do.' Tonight, we await a verdict," Newsom said, speaking to a roaring crowd before final returns were in.
Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.
Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.
The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.
"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."[...]
The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.
A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California was passed by voters in Tuesday's election, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.
As Proposition 8, the most divisive and emotionally fraught issue on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.
"We caused Californians to rethink this issue," Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
In San Francisco on Tuesday night at the packed headquarters of the "No on 8" campaign party in the Westin St. Francis Hotel, supporters heard from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose decision to issue same-sex wedding licenses in his city led to the court ruling that made gay marriage briefly legal in the state. .
"You decided to live your life out loud. You fell in love and you said, 'I do.' Tonight, we await a verdict," Newsom said, speaking to a roaring crowd before final returns were in.
Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.
Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.
The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.
"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."[...]
The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.
The hypocrisy of the gay marriage movement is incredible.
ReplyDeleteAny two people can marry because that's what a marriage is to them.
Why two? Why not three? Or four?
Oh, that would be polygamy and that would be wrong.
Riiiiiiigghhtt....
"The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal."
ReplyDeleteThat's right! Let the people decide. Enough of activist judges and legislation by the courts. One is playing fast and loose using loose interpretation of definition of marriage being anything but between a man and a woman. This has always been understanding of the word. Adding to this would take an act of legislation. According to the logic of judicial activism someone should be able to be legally married to his/her dog.
garnelironheart said...
ReplyDelete"Oh, that would be polygamy and that would be wrong.
Riiiiiiigghhtt...."
I know it is just criminal! If one cheats on his wife this is legally ok. If a married man gets another woman pregnant this is all fine in the eyes of the law. Now if this same married man marries that second pregnant woman he is a felon.