California voters approve gay-marriage ban

[Encryptus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/...allot_measures


LOS ANGELES – Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard, and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.

The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

But California, the nation's most populous state, had been the big prize. Spending for and against Proposition 8 reached $74 million, the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history and the most expensive campaign this year outside the race for the White House. Activists on both sides of the issue saw the measure as critical to building momentum for their causes.

[Tyk]

Props for the effort put forth to do this.

[Ron]

That is great news & I am glad for it, but I have one question, couldn't the US Supreme Court overturn that as being unfair to gays?

[ILG]

Halleluiah.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Ron

That is great news & I am glad for it, but I have one question, couldn't the US Supreme Court overturn that as being unfair to gays?

Anything is possible, but chance is close to zero at the moment. The Supremes have largely tried to avoid the issue by claiming it is a state right to regulate.

However with the current change in regimen, a couple liberal appointments to the court, who knows?

This also assumes someone with a modicum of intelligence checked the legal verbiage before putting it on the ballot.

[A_PoMo]

Lawsuits have already been filed by already married gay couples.

The question is, are they not married now?

This is FAR from over.

What's to stop the opposition from mounting their own initiative to reverse this one? Everytime this sort of thing comes up the margins are getting narrower and narrower in favor of gay marriage. The trend is going toward that and it seems inevitable. Anti-gay marriage people may have won this battle, but they're prob lose the cultural war on this issue.

[Tyk]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Lawsuits have already been filed by already married gay couples.

The question is, are they not married now?

This is FAR from over.

Far from over indeed... This is but a few steps forward.

Eventually though, it will be lawful if not more protected than regular marriage. Fight it while we can I guess

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Lawsuits have already been filed by already married gay couples.

The question is, are they not married now?

This is FAR from over.

What's to stop the opposition from mounting their own initiative to reverse this one? Everytime this sort of thing comes up the margins are getting narrower and narrower in favor of gay marriage. The trend is going toward that and it seems inevitable. Anti-gay marriage people may have won this battle, but they're prob lose the cultural war on this issue.

You know...I think it only fair that gay married couples go through the divorce process, child support, and alimony...rather than just move out

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Ron

That is great news & I am glad for it, but I have one question, couldn't the US Supreme Court overturn that as being unfair to gays?

In my opinion,
gay marriage
and
multiple marriage (as in polygamy)
would both be upheld by the Supreme Court if they ever got that far.

Both are imposition of the moral and/or religious teaching of one group upon all groups.

[Sam]

John McCain and others voted against a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The thinking is that something like that should be defined at an individual state level. However, wouldn't that cause problems in that a marriage would have legal status in one state but if the people moved to another state they would not be legally married? Shouldn't something like this be uniform across all the states?