In Florida we had the same thing, called "No. 2" and it had a 60%+ vote towards banning gay marriage.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Marriage licenses should not be issued or withheld based on the gender of your partner. That's discrimination.

In this sentence, replace the word "gender" with the following:

1. age
2. blood lines
3. mental status
4. species
5. pre-existing marital status
6. actual existence

You see, we have these things called social norms. They are the rules that we, as a group, use to define what is acceptable behavior, beliefs, and values within our society. Some social norms, such as aversion to murder, rape, and robbery are universally accepted. Some others, such as homosexuality, may be tolerated in the face of general disapproval if the belief and behavior does not infringe or harm others in the group, or challenge more strongly accepted norms.

Items 1-6 are against our social norms, and have been codified into law. Homosexual marriage was also against our social norms at the time that these laws were written. Challenges to these laws failed, and the public obviously disapproves of changing the norm. When you "undefine" the definition of marriage as being a legal union between and man and a woman, you open up the possibility that items 1-6 may be open for re-interpretation.

The definition of marriage as a social norm has existed for thousands of years. If a small minority of persons want to change the social norm based upon homosexual preference and behavior, it puts the legitimacy of the norm at risk. I'm not surprised the voters in CA voted they way they did. Traditions and social norms are important.

If gays want to live like married people, invent a new term, establish a new social norm, and get on with it. I've always thought that's what a "civil union" was supposed to be.

I'm slightly confused. I thought California recently passed something that allowed gay marriages? Then a few celebrities had publicized weddings to their same-sex partners? Or was it just a city thing now trumped by the state law? What just happened? Sorry for my ignorance. Just a couple months ago (if that even), there were threads about California legalizing gay marriages (I thought)? My memory must be wrong somewhere.

And, now since Prop 8 passed, what happens to all the gay couples that got married during the time in California when it was legal?

That kind of concerns me. Do they let the marriages stand or to they invalidate all of them....which, by the way, would be so wrong and so unfair in so many ways.

The original initiative passed against gay marriage was struck down as un-Constitutional by the State Supreme Court. This was a new bill, a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I supported it and voted for it.

I echo the sentiments of kinglizard in asking, what about civil unions? I believe in equal rights for alternative lifestyles. Separate, but equal. I think the same rights associated with traditional marriage, outside of parental rights, should be afforded to same sex couples. Again, procreation is not something that should take place outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. That may be the next issue that comes to the table, as a matter of fact.

What more can be said. The people of California have spoken AGAIN!.
Let's hope another judge does not disrespect the people again.

For all of you pro gay marriage folks, perhaps you should just focus on legal unions from now on. The average people accept the concept of a legal union/partnership and stop calling people bigots if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Separate, but equal.

You did your opinion a great disservice by using that phrase. It was the rallying call of segregation and apartheid, expect that to be used against your views.

I was starting to think we were making progress by electing a black president... but hearing that california has banned gay marriage just shows me we still need a lot of work.

i live here in california, and i cant understand how that would happen. there are so many people here who accept gays. why vote for them to not get married? if they want to, let them. I dont understand why that should be anyone else's choice, and to make that for them... how very horrible.

Originally posted by TheRooster
Like Stinkhorn said, it's a sexual preference. If that had passed, marrying farm animals would have been next.

Comming from the poster whos name is TheRooster. Says it all doesn't it?

[edit on 11/5/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by TheRooster
Like Stinkhorn said, it's a sexual preference. If that had passed, marrying farm animals would have been next.

You know you are correct, its not a step backward, its acually seeing right and wrong and saying hey that is wrong. Its sexual deviance. Just like child porn.