Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Same-sex Marriage Bans Pass in CA, AZ, FL

Posted by Joe Shaulis, Jurist Legal News and Research at 2:46 PM on November 5, 2008.


In bitter contrast to the election of the first African-American president, prejudice prevails on LGBT rights.
marriageban

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

A constitutional amendment effectively banning same-sex marriage appeared to pass in California with most of the vote counted Wednesday, while voters in Arizona and Florida Tuesday approved similar measures. In California, Proposition 8, which was placed on the ballot by citizen initiative, amends the state constitution to provide that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." As of 11:30 AM PST Wednesday, the unofficial results for Proposition 8 (with 24,584 of 25,423 polls reporting) were:

Yes - 5,235,486 - 52.2%
No - 4,800,656 - 47.8%

Under the California Constitution the amendment takes effect the day after the vote approving it. It will effectively overturn May's decision by the California Supreme Court striking down a ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution. The measure has generated more than $60 million in contributions to committees representing both sides of the issue -- a figure believed to be a U.S. record. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

Voters in Arizona and Florida Tuesday favored similar proposals by wider margins. Two years ago, voters made Arizona the first state to defeat a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. More than half the states have already adopted constitutional amendments limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, while most of the remainder have defined marriage by statute. Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only U.S. states that validate same-sex marriages, in light of decisions by their highest courts.

Another measure affecting same-sex couples appeared on the ballot in Arkansas, where voters appeared to approve overwhelmingly an initiative prohibiting gays, lesbians and other unmarried cohabiting couples from becoming either foster parents or adoptive parents.

Digg!

Tagged as: california, same-sex marriage, arizona, proposition 8


Is It Cruel and Unusual to Sentence Teens to Die In Prison?
The Supreme Court is hearing two cases today that will affect the fate of more than 2,500 people sentenced to life without parole as teenagers.
Post by Liliana Segura. November 9, 2009.
Students Who Exposed 30-Year-Old Wrongful Conviction Being Targeted By Chicago DA
It's shocking that the state would rather keep an innocent man behind bars than admit a mistake.
Post by Ari Berman. November 9, 2009.
The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Where's the liberal cover-up?
Post by Steve M.. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Huh?
Posted by: moflard on Nov 5, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could anyone please explain to me why people are so het up over this issue, 'cause I just don't get it.

The Christian church only really got involved in marriage around a thousand years ago, and then only with the powerful and rich to act as guarantor and ensure it's own access to the riches of women left out by modified inheritance rules. If the church was happy enough to leave well enough alone during the time the Holy Fathers were still alive why all this religious fuss now? (And no attacks on Catholics here please - every Christian was Catholic or Greek Orthodox back then).

And it gets worse - early (3rd - 6th Century C.E.) graves in Greece (some actually inside churches) reveal that same sex couples were an accepted part of the communities who actually TRANSLATED the Bible all these protesters rely on. They were accepted by the people who sat in on the Ecumenical Councils that decided the basis of the modern understanding of Christianity. Some of these people held serious positions within the Church as well.

I just don't understand why two men or two women, affirming their love for each other, wanting the responsibilities marriage entails, is a threat to an institution that's basically made up anyway. An institution that rests on a religion that, in it's earliest (and hence more 'pure') days, had no problem with homosexual couples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Huh? Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Huh? Posted by: moflard
» RE: Huh? Posted by: Xynyx
» Hmmmm... Posted by: moflard
» RE: Huh? Posted by: Jim
Maybe I'm missing something...
Posted by: Xynyx on Nov 5, 2008 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm missing something... but I thought it was generally considered unconstitutional to have conflicting provisions IN a constitution.

Why would this amendment not simply be shot down immediately?

It's very clear that, among other things, this amendment violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In case anyone doesn't know this already, the US Constitution trumps state constitutions... all day, every day.

Secondly, it appears to violate the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (again, read that as TRUMP):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If there are churches that choose to provide marriage ceremonies for same-gendered couples, this California amendment stands in violation because it prohibits such churches (or congregations, etc.) from exercising their beliefs in that fashion.


This should be a done deal. Wrap it up already... or get some constitutional scholar on here to tell me how my logic is flawed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are married couples grandfathered?
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 5, 2008 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happens to the people who were married during the time it was legal? The state can't annul them, can it? It would be like charging a woman for having an abortion before an anti-abortion bill was passed.

So the state has to recognize those gay couples who are already married, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Things
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 5, 2008 2:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After Colorado citizens, years ago, passed the infamous "Amendment 2", my state (called "the hate state" then) was boycotted until the Supreme Court overturned the amendment.

Maybe a boycott should be in store for states that voted in favor of homophobic bigotry.
Come to think of it, Colorado a couple years ago also banned gay marriage and civil unions. Maybe we should be boycotted again, along with the other states which ban gay-marriage.

Another thing:
Okay, now that gay marriage is illegal, I say we should outlaw all STRAIGHT marriage and annul all straight marriages that already exist. Think that is radical and mean-spirited? Well, I bet that is how the gays feel.

Proposition 8 wouldn't have won if it didn't have the big backing from out-of-state Christian extremists.

Fuck you, you BIGOTS who voted to take away basic rights from people! There is a place in Hell for all of you, you ANTI-CHRISTIAN hypocrites!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two Things Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Two Things Posted by: QQOblivion
» RE: Two Things Posted by: JSquercia
» Unfortunately Posted by: moflard
Newt Gingrich Speaks to Protect Marriage???
Posted by: cynyk on Nov 5, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not a resident of California but the other night I was watching some national news commentary about the proposed Propostion 8. The program showed an ad in which former Congressman spoke in favor of Prop 8 "to defend and protect marriage". I almost puked.
This craven hypocrite abandoned two families. In both cases his wives were suffering serious medical problems when he left them. How dare he presume to be a spokesperson for the sanctity of marriage!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and in Arkansas?
Posted by: warrior woman on Nov 6, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please note that unmarried couples may not foster or adopt children.

I am opposed to all prejudice based on race, sex, religion.

What the Christian Right is doing is battle. Remember the Sarah Palin "prayer warriors"? They have a stealth campaign going on across the US to change our constitutions, both state and federal, to coincide with their bible.

Alternet, it's your job to expose this stuff much earlier than you did. I knew about CA and CO's votes, didn't about AZ and AK. We need to educate people. That's the only way to make this go away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and in Arkansas? Posted by: ForestDinizen
Obama lovers, Democrats and the Gays
Posted by: George DeCarlo on Nov 6, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
California is another example of what I have consistently explained, not all traditionally disenfranchised groups care about Gays and Lesbians. And as groups, Blacks, Latinos and some Democrats and Obama lovers cast their votes of hatred against us. I make it quite clear to anyone that wants to be close to me as a friend, if you do not support my having Full Equal Rights you are not my friend. The groups above are not that to me.

As a relative from the Philippines just told me about our first (possibly?) non-"natural born" president elect, his persona reminds her of the snake-in-the-grass dictator Marcos' personality. Of course there is the exception that Marcos left the Gays and Lesbians alone while the restored democracy under Aquino started to oppress Gays by closing bars.

George

--
George DeCarlo, CH
Consulting Hypnotist
908-342-1275 (cell)

End heterosexual oppression of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals - support full equal rights!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go here to help with the backlash
Posted by: brer on Nov 6, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY PROP 8 WILL BE FOUND ILLEGAL
Posted by: Fog on Nov 6, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

The gist of the lawsuit to nullify Prop Hate

In summary:

Prop 8 puts the California constitution in conflict with itself. California can not restrict issuance of benefits without violating the existing equal protection clause. That would require a REVISION of the Constitution, which the AMENDMENT would not accomplish.

Further, the revision requires 2/3 of legislation, not the 50% + 1 majority of the public.

Further, "the constitutional requirement of separation of powers... does not permit the use of the Proposition format to remove and/or circumvent the judiciary in determining the interpretation of what is or is not a fundamental liberty right and who is and who is not protected by the equal protection clause."

Silly Rabbits, ignorance is for kids.

Shame on you. Shame on 8. Shame on bigotry, ignorance and hate.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom for marriage!!
Posted by: Jakarta99 on Nov 7, 2008 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all about two consenting adults being free to live as they please. It is about keeping the government out of personnel lives if it is not hurting anyone. It is about redefining marriage. That is exactly why a person should be able to marry his dog. why is there so much hate for people who feel love for they're dog and they're dog feels love for them and all they want is to be married. This is prejudice and hate from the religious nuts!! And why can't a man marry his cow? WHY? it is hurting no one if I marry my cow. What hate and prejudice we have in this country against people who want to marry they're mothers or fathers who want to marry they're adult daughters, they are both consenting adults why can't people just understand they have a different life style. WHY SO MUCH HATE!!!! I JUST WANT TO MARRY MY DAMN COW!!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU RELIGIOUS NUTS UNDERSTAND I LOVE MY COW!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can still take action against prop. 8!
Posted by: CA NOW on Nov 13, 2008 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you live in California, you can tell your state legislators to pledge their vote against Prop. 8, should the California Supreme Court determine it to be a revision to the Constitution. The legal case against Prop. 8 is better than a lot of the stories out there are admitting. Here's some of the legal background.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]