CAVALA: Proposition 8 – why did it prevail?

The grassroots/field emphasis makes sense if the "yes" vote was propelled by what gay activists call "the ick factor" -- an irrational repulsion from gay existence. We do actually meet it, so we think it is important. And tactically exposing folks to gay people can play a positive role insofar as that is what going on.

If the "yes" vote was a product of more generalized anxiety about the uncertainties surrounding contemporary marriage and "rights" -- in this I think you are likely correct -- then broader messaging might help. Mostly I think time is on the side of LGBT equality and will play itself out.

What absolutely makes my frontal lobe throb is the manner in which liberal thinkers feel compelled to analyze the results of the Prop 8 experiment in terms of "What was it you didn't understand, because clearly you remain ignorant if we have not succeeded in having our way." What is it that you did not understand about "We do not want gay marriage in our state!"? You seem to feel that if the voting public does not agree with you, that we are somehow deficient in either the data presented or our ability to analytically process it. It's not that complicated. We simply said no. Twice. And it does not matter how you package it, or whether you feed it from "the top down" or the grass roots up, it is a matter of the majority of the voters in this state not wanting to sanction gay marriage. Hopefully, we have enough strength in our convictions to not allow ourselves to be reversed by a more crafty presentation. Please, stop this continual repackaging of issues that have been laid to rest.

Janinsanfran does not get what a "civil right" is. When some folks have them, pretty soon, everyone wants them.

Intelligence and fairness are on our side, which is why we keep on trying and will someday win. Misinformation (which Yes on 8 promulgated) will ultimately fail on a national scale.

The American Psychiatric Association has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work, or to contribute to society.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed civil marriage for same sex couples because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors.

When America's premier child and mental health associations and every one of their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is no ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their children.

We have to realize: 3% of every generation, of every culture, in every state, of every country will grow up and realize that they are gay.
The question that we need to ask ourselves is: what are we doing to make our world a safer and more welcoming place for ALL CHILDREN?

The ignorance or outright lies in this commentary are staggering. Obviously, the writer has never looked at the California 540 income tax form. Registered Domestic Partners are treated exactly like Married couples for income tax purposes.

In fact, Registered Domestic Partners are given every benefit and right granted by California to married couples.

In addition, there is nothing in California law or the Constitution that denies a Gay person the right to marry! A Gay's complaint, "But I don't want to marry as marriage is defined" is neither discriminatory nor bigoted. It is a personal choice based upon a personal preference - and that choice and preference by less than 10 % of the people of California does not give them a Constitution right to redefine the historic institution of marriage to suit themselves!

The institution of marriage is an intelligent quid pro quo through which the State of California receives the major benefit that parents responsibly care for their offspring. The State's encouragement of marriage is not a free lunch, it is a calculated promotion of marriage between a man and a woman that yields incredible economic benefit to the state in return for the State's small investment.

Do stop the lies, distortions, and misinformation.

JJH

Here is the bottom line: Californians believe that being gay is a behavior and choice, and therefore it is subject to a vote.

For those people who voted Yes on prop 8, can you explain to me why people with Down Syndrome can marry? What about two gay Down Syndrome persons marry?

http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/component/content/article/35-general/162-6-can-men-a-women-with-downs-syndrome-get-married-and-have-children.html

Here is the bottom line: Californians believe that being gay is a behavior and choice, and therefore it is subject to a vote.

For those people who voted Yes on prop 8, can you explain to me why people with Down Syndrome can marry? What about two gay Down Syndrome persons marry?

http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/component/content/article/35-general/162-6-can-men-a-women-with-downs-syndrome-get-married-and-have-children.html

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.