November 5, 2008

Californians ban same-sex marriage.

Proposition 8 passes.
With more than 95% of the vote counted, the measure leads 52.1% to 47.9%.

165 comments:

Titusjustvoted said...

Sad.

Any time voters can vote against a minority the minority loses.

If in the 60's the southern states could of voted against interracial marriage they would of.

SteveR said...

The office pools on how long until this is overturned by the CA Sumpreme Court start today.

mcg said...

Any time voters can vote against a minority the minority loses.

Tautology of the century!

mcg said...

The office pools on how long until this is overturned by the CA Sumpreme Court start today.

The only way it can be overturned is on procedural grounds. Other than that, their hands are tied: the Constitution dictates the limits of their power.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccullough said...

This is what happens when judges get too far ahead of the populace on social issues that neither the state nor federal constitution addresses.

former law student said...

As far as I know, the provisional and absentee ballots have yet to be counted. But the No on 8 forces made a mistake by declaring those who opposed same-sex marriage were simple bigots rather than just people not prepared to accept a fundamental change in the definition of marriage.

The No on 8 people, in my opinion, should have made the case that voters were sure to know loving gay couples whose relationship was identical to that of married straight people, so why deprive their friends and coworkers of the title of marriage? Yet the No on 8 forces did not depict a single gay couple in their advertising. They let the "protectMarriage" people define the issue, first showing pro-SSM SF mayor Gavin Newsom as an arrogant twit who defied the statute, and then by reminding parents that their kids would have to learn about same-sex couples as part of marriage and family education.

bill said...

California: loves the Obama and free-range chickens. Not so much with the homosexuals. It's all almost interesting.

mcg said...

Yet the No on 8 forces did not depict a single gay couple in their advertising.

Sure they did. In the same advertisement where they depicted a couple of Mormons ransacking that gay couple's home.

rdkraus said...

Any time voters can vote against a minority the minority loses.

I thought Obama won.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

In the same advertisement where they depicted a couple of Mormons ransacking that gay couple's home.

I missed that one. Did they ride their mountain bikes through the front door? Did the resulting carnage knock their bike helmets off their heads, rip their white shirts, or put their neckties askew?

mcg said...

They let the "protectMarriage" people define the issue, first showing pro-SSM SF mayor Gavin Newsom as an arrogant twit who defied the statute,

If the No on 8 folks want a single scapegoat---and given the closeness of the vote, one is enough---Gavin Newsom is the one, and specifically this video clip.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

rcocean: There were tons and tons of pro prop 8 ads playing all the time. They had a huge amount of money and led a very dishonest campaign.

By the way, CNN still hasn't called it yet.

rcocean said...

Chris,

I deleted my comment because I meant the opposite. The Pro-Gay marriage (anti prop 8) didn't seem to mount much of campaign.

Sorry.

SteveR said...

mcg: perhaps you are right but judges have been known to "interpret" the consitution in new ways.

mcg said...

FLS: Here's the ad.

peter hoh said...

I have always been skeptical about the effort to win marriage equity through the courts. I know it's frustrating for people who want to see it happen now. It will happen, but the court wins prompt backlash. this is the almost win.

The next win ought to be legislative or electoral.

blogless said...

"California: loves the Obama and free-range chickens. Not so much with the homosexuals. It's all almost interesting."

Hey! I voted for those free-range chickens!

As to Prop 8, from what I've read, L.A. County sent it over the top. Unfortunately, a lot of traditional, church-going blacks and hispanics supported it - it wasn't just older or more conservative voters.

Sad, because I don't know if this means that this attitude is going to stay this way for the foreseeable future.

mcg said...

Here's the exit poll breakdown:

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. (Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.)

chuck b. said...

I got [same-sex] married on Friday (our mortgage closed escrow on Oct 31 in 2003; we've celebrated it as the anniversary of our commitment ever since). I teared up during the vows and blurted out "I do!" before the Justice was finished reading them. Afterwards, we went to Big Sur. It didn't feel like I was threatening anyone or anything.

It will be interesting to see what happens next... How will California tolerate my being married? The incongruity would seem intolerable.

Zeb Quinn said...

Here's the dirty little secret. Obama voters weren't necessarily "No on 8" voters. Not like-minded at all. Do a poll of the black and hispanic cohorts for instance, and I'm guessing you'll find very little support for gay marriage there, at least a lot less than their support for Obama.

mcg said...

Wow, I just did some interesting math.

Those exit poll numbers don't add up---when you reassemble them, you get the amendment losing 49-51.

If you assume the Latino and black votes are accurate, you need a 51.3%-48.7% "yes" vote among whites and Asians to get to the current percentage of 52.1%.

So if you read any stories about Prop 8 blaming blacks and latinos for this, be *very* skeptical.

mcg said...

Zeb: I guess you missed my first post. There really is no doubt that black Obama voters voted for Prop 8 in overwhelming numbers. There's no way to get from 70-30 to 49-51 taking out black conservative votes, there aren't enough of 'em.

former law student said...

mcg, thanks, I never saw that one. It seems designed to piss people off -- not the way to persuade the undecided.

laura said...

What a shame.

mcg said...

I think it is a flaw in the California constitution that a majority is all that is required to amend it. The bar ought to be set higher; in Florida, for instance, the required number was 60%. They reached it.

But while the bar is low, one might as well use it. It is hardly unprecedented for consecutive elections to have a proposition on the same issue. Heck, parental notification has been on the ballot how many times now?

A new, reversing proposition could certainly be put on the next ballot. And if a proper campaign is waged, the result could very well be different.

John Stodder said...

I'm depressed to realize how many Obama voters this thing must've gotten.

I always planned to oppose it, but it didn't dawn on me until the last week or so why the stakes were even higher than they first appeared.

What this measure really has done is to write fear- and hate-based discrimination against a group of people into the state's ridiculous phone-book of a Constitution.

That's frightening, and what makes it even more frightening is that victims of past discrimination did the deed.

Over at National Review's site, Maggie Gallagher is acting all Boss-Tweed-like over her "victories" against gay marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. And yet she still can't make a coherent case for her position. "I don't like it, and that's that," should not be sufficient grounds for making public policy.

I can't really blame the No on 8 campaign. From what I saw, they did a good job, and I think FLS actually mischaracterizes the campaign they waged. It didn't call anyone a bigot. It was calm and reasonable. The Samuel Jackson ad was excellent, and obviously targeted to the right audience. It just didn't make enough of a difference.

I'd like to think a lot of people voted for this thing as a protest against judicial arrogance. I would get that. But on second thought, you have to figure those same people would've voted against gay marriage regardless of how it was presented to them.

Yeah, Gavin Newsome is a tool, and the Yes on 8 folks made excellent use of his obnoxious gloating. But overall, Yes on 8 was a disgraceful campaign, built on the lie that school children would be "forced" to "learn gay marriage in school." If that's what those jerks were so worried about, why didn't they just write an amendment to ban the teaching of gay marriage in school? It was their damn initiative!

Obama's time will come and go. He'll be great or he'll be terrible or something in between, and in four years we'll fight about it all again. But this obscenity is going to sit in the state's constitution for a long time.

John Stodder said...

If in the 60's the southern states could of voted against interracial marriage they would of.

They didn't need to. Banning interracial marriage was already the law in many states, including California til the 40s, I believe. The US Supremes didn't strike it down til 1967.

American Liberal Elite said...

"This is what happens when judges get too far ahead of the populace on social issues that neither the state nor federal constitution addresses."

More like this is what happens when the Mormons pump gazillions into passing the amendment and Gavin Nuisance turns annoying all the way up to eleven while advocating its defeat.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Democrats and specially black democrats are sooooooo socially liberal...riiiiiight....

Zachary Paul Sire said...

But overall, Yes on 8 was a disgraceful campaign, built on the lie that school children would be "forced" to "learn gay marriage in school." If that's what those jerks were so worried about, why didn't they just write an amendment to ban the teaching of gay marriage in school? It was their damn initiative!

Great point.

Can anyone (Ann?) tell me what, if anything, can be done legally to remove the amendment!?

The one bright spot is that in 2000, California's Prop 22 passed with over 60% of the vote, compared to the estimated 52% that appear to have favored Prop 8. This means that in only 8 years, 8% of voters have evolved. The trends and the demographics are moving strongly in favor of equality. It's only a matter of time before the youth vote (which strongly opposed Prop 8 by 63-37 based on exit polls) becomes the majority vote and old people, to be blunt, die.

mcg said...

Can anyone (Ann?) tell me what, if anything, can be done legally to remove the amendment!?

Pass another one.

MadisonMan said...

It diminishes the Constitution to use it to restrict freedom. A Consitution should restrict the Government.

mcg said...

That's a nice platitude, and while I agree with it, the problem here is that this amendment is a response to the overreach of government---more specifically, the California Supreme Court.

Palladian said...

"I'm depressed to realize how many Obama voters this thing must've gotten."

Yes, shocking that some of those sainted Disciples of Obama might actually not be perfect.

"Can anyone (Ann?) tell me what, if anything, can be done legally to remove the amendment!?"

Again trying to strike down the will of the People, the same Wise People who elevated Obama to his Throne in the Kingdom of DC. Apparently you only like the idea of democratic process when things go your way.

"becomes the majority vote and old people, to be blunt, die."

But with the waves of new Catholic immigrants flooding your state, soon to be full citizens, they'll more than make up for any "typical white people" that die off.

Palladian said...

"Pass another one."

No no no! The thing to do when "The People" do things you don't like is to get some people in robes to strike it down! Obviously this democratic process stuff is messy and nasty and unreliable!

My sarcasm is aimed at people on either side of the ideological divide, by the way.

sonicfrog said...

I am soooo out of touch with the majority in my state. I voted against the chickens and for the homo's. Now chickens have more rights than homosexuals.

mcg said...

Are you saying I can marry a chicken in California now? Or are you saying I can lock a homosexual in a cage without violating the law if it's too small?

EDH said...

CONTEST

Who gets named for the "effect" of racial minorities who might tell pollsters one thing and vote another on conservative social issues?

My submission: The Jerry Lewis Effect!

Zeb Quinn said...

mcg: I read your post, I'm highly skeptical of exit polls generally for several reasons, and they're not scientific in any event. Everything I've ever read on the subject indicates a lesser tolerance for homosexuality among blacks and to an extent among hispanics too, than there is among whites. So I'm not necessarily accepting those figures.

I also agree with the other poster the California court will find a way to strike it down. They'll just do it. Grounds? If they need grounds, they'll find the grounds. They've more than telegraphed that punch. In that judiciary we are talking about a set of people who have zero respect for ballot measures and propositions enacted by the voters.

former law student said...

It diminishes the Constitution to use it to restrict freedom.

True. Fortunately Prohibition was repealed a dozen years later.

m00se said...

What prop 8 passing proved is that the country (in the form of the most liberal state) is not lurching to the left.

Prop 8 passing buttresses the point that people voted for Obama and the Dems as a reaction against Bush and the GOP rather than due to the attractiveness of Democrats and their policies.

The US is still a very much center right country with occasional forays into the center left inspired by particularly daunting issues (voting rights, welfare reform, etc.).

It was enlightening to see Sully's whining in contrast about this massively trivial issue in comparison to Juan William's commentary regading how America, in the space of less than 75 years has moved the status of one of the most reviled minorities (not my opinion, rather historical fact) to electing a black man to the presidency of the US.

Frankly, Sully's comparison (in past columns) of gay marriage to Rosa Parks, for instance, denigrates the the acheivements of african americans in this country...

Trumpit said...

"The only way it can be overturned is on procedural grounds. Other than that, their hands are tied: the Constitution dictates the limits of their power."

The U.S. Supreme Ct. can overturn it, or the voters of California can change there minds and undo what they did. Or the state can break off into the ocean and sink to the bottom of the sea.

mcg, do you have to comment 10x in every thread? You are dumb and bore me to death. Get your own blog of hate and division. You repulsive monster.

Palladian said...

"Are you saying I can marry a chicken in California now? Or are you saying I can lock a homosexual in a cage without violating the law if it's too small?"

Some homosexuals would rather like that.

And I don't think you can marry a chicken in California, regardless of Prop 8. Unless the "chicken" is over 18, then I think they're more properly called "twinks".

sonicfrog said...

In all seriousness, the passage of Prop 8 can be laid directly at the feet of Obama. He sent a very mixed signal to his flock. He said he does not approve of gay marriage, and then went into verbal deliberations on why he didn't think that amending the constitution via proposition was the correct way to go about defending marriage.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

He did not make a firm stand against prop 8, and when masses hear him say he's "not in favor of gay marriage", every thing else after that is gobldy-gook. It's like talking to your dog - "Spot, Bad Dog, blah, blah, blah...

Palladian said...

I've decided to comment a lot, torture a chicken and not marry my boyfriend, just to upset Trumpit.

Trumpit said...

50,000,000 people voted for McCain after what the Republicans put the country through for the last 8 years. Tells you how rotten and ignorant about 1/2 this country is.

mcg said...

mcg, do you have to comment 10x in every thread? You are dumb and bore me to death.

A finer anti-barometer I could not find.

Daryl said...

Can anyone (Ann?) tell me what, if anything, can be done legally to remove the amendment!?

1 - pass a new amendment via ballot initiatve. This is the proper way to proceed. I expect within 12 years, such an amendment will pass.

2 - (MAYBE) pass a new amendment via the legislature/governor. I don't know if it's possible to overcome a proposition-amendment in this manner. That would make voters angry.

3 - Cal. State Courts could strike it down. That question would ultimately by reviewed by the Cal. Supreme Court.

If this happens, there would be attempts to recall the Cal. Supreme Court justices. Ronald George is an arrogant git for ruling that gay marriage is mandated by our State Constitution, but he isn't about to risk his job security by standing up for the gays. At most, the judges would draw straws to see who get to be the righteous dissenters, to make sure there isn't a majority for striking down this amendment.

4 - Federal Courts could strike it down. That question would ultimately be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the least likely, in the near future, because so many other states refuse to recognize gay marriage.

MayBee said...

It diminishes the Constitution to use it to restrict freedom. A Consitution should restrict the Government.

Marriage is restricted. Not everybody is allowed to get married, and the minute everybody is allowed to get married, the idea of marriage goes away.
Marriage also restricts individual rights by holding people to be contractually obligated to another person. Especially in CA, which is a joint property state.
Once you get married, the government can keep you from legally leaving the other person without paying him anything.

I was against Prop 8, and I'm surprised and saddened to see it pass. But Prop 8 opponents mis-stepped by taking the "Don't take rights away from anybody" approach. That is exactly what many voters fear- that just anybody will be allowed to get married.

They were also misguided to use the California teacher's unions to argue on their behalf. That only works if people assume teachers always have the child's best interests in mind. That just isn't the case right now.

Palladian said...

"He sent a very mixed signal to his flock. He said he does not approve of gay marriage, and then went into verbal deliberations on why he didn't think that amending the constitution via proposition was the correct way to go about defending marriage."

That's the Obama "strategy". Every gay person that I knew who was voting for him justified it by saying "Oh, he's just lying about opposing gay marriage and lying about being religious. He has to in order to get votes from stupid people."

Apparently his lying also got him a lot of votes from "smart" people too.

Palladian said...

"They were also misguided to use the California teacher's unions to argue on their behalf. That only works if people assume teachers always have the child's best interests in mind"

Teacher's unions always have the Democratic party's best interests in mind.

mcg said...

50,000,000 people voted for McCain after what the Republicans put the country through for the last 8 years. Tells you how rotten and ignorant about 1/2 this country is.

That's all well and good, except we're talking about California. You know, primo Obama country? 61-37 Obama/McCain? Nah, there are plenty of Obama-loving scapegoats for you to hump this time around.

Daryl said...

In all seriousness, the passage of Prop 8 can be laid directly at the feet of Obama.

Yup. He said flat-out that marriage is between a man and a woman. Joe Biden backed him up during the VP debate.

He sent a very mixed signal to his flock. He said he does not approve of gay marriage, and then went into verbal deliberations on why he didn't think that amending the constitution via proposition was the correct way to go about defending marriage.

Duh. He sent NOTHING BUT mixed messages. The man flip flopped on just about 90% of the issues. No one has any idea where he stands on the issues, or which of his contradictory promises he intends to keep.

sonicfrog said...

That's the Obama "strategy". Every gay person that I knew who was voting for him justified it by saying "Oh, he's just lying about opposing gay marriage and lying about being religious.

Funny, I was going to write something similar, and forgot to. I'm inclined not to believe Democrats when they say they are against gay marriage. On the flip side, I am inclined not to believe Republicans when they say they want to balance the budget. Thank you George Bush.

LutherM said...

Regarding the exit polls for PROP 8,"blacks supported it 70-30", which makes it slightly less popular than Barack.
In spite of the fact that I detest both the California Supreme Court, and Gavin Newsome, if I lived in California, I would have voted against PROP 8.
(AND for chickens, and FOR McCAIN).

TMink said...

Palladian, I get teased about TMink being close to twink all the time. Only by people who do not know that I am a fat old man though!

They tell me to change my screen name to something with bear in it.

8)

Trey

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Apparently you only like the idea of democratic process when things go your way.

On the contrary, my self-hating little friend. The democratic process can and often is disrupted, inadvertently, by lies and ignorance. Might I remind you that it was once the "will" of the people to own slaves. Marginalizing my opinion by calling me partisan doesn't take away the fact that a blatant corruption of the constitution has occurred. Wrong is wrong.

And seeing as you've already professed your belief that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, you embarrassingly contradict yourself by heralding "the people" for giving the state the power to dictate who is not allowed to married.

Fail.

mcg said...

Sonicfrog I think you discern accurately on both counts.

Maxine Weiss said...

6 of the 7 California Supreme Justices are all REPUBLICAN.

Over half of those REPUBLICAN judges are WOMEN.

Republican Women......who made the historic decision in May.

Get it ?

There would have seemed to be a natural alliance between Gays, Women, and Republicans, .....that was completely ignored by the No on Prop 8 people who spent their time in West Hollywood putting Palin in a Noose .

---Nice way of thanking the Female Republican Judges !!!

As a matter of fact, the big losers in this entire election are Republicans, Women, Gays, and Jews.

mcg said...

Might I remind you that it was once the "will" of the people to own slaves.

Yes, and that matter was corrected by constitutional amendment, not by some activist judges. Well, by war too, of course. But ultimately, legally, a constitutional amendment was required to codify that very important change.

Host with the Most said...

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
If the state wants to recognize all relationships as equal, but then promote one particular one above the others, that's more than fair.

Hooray for Prop 8!!!

And by the way - the thing that put it up over the top was the fact that gay marriage would have to be taught as being equal to traditional marriage in public schools - the law here says so. If the the No side had been honest - had embraced that fact and explained why it would be fair to teach it instead of lying about it - they would have had a real chance.

Apparently many liberals hate such over-the-top lying. Californians still remember the lies from the other side in 200 when the "No on Knight" side claimed that the proposition's author was settling a score with his gay son. That kind of lying shit doesn't win sympathy.

The amendment to change it again will surely come up - but there is already money promised from traditional marriage supporters. This isn't over. But marriage-diluters won't win in the next 8 years.

Live with it.

Sigivald said...

John Stodder: Oregon passed a similar amendment in 2004, Prop. 36.

I saw at least one car with both a Kerry sticker, and a Yes On 36 sticker.

That people want Democrats in power does not mean therefore that they think marriage-qua-marriage should be extended to gay people (especially in the Ca. case, by judicial fiat rather than by legistlative or ideally popular process).

More succinctly, there is not One Block Of Beliefs all Democrat voters must subscribe to, any more than that proposition is true of Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

(Full disclosure: I voted no on the Oregon version, myself, mostly because I don't want to amend the Constitution for anything of the sort, and because I'd prefer the State get out of the marriage business.

I'm also perfectly happy to know call the married lesbian couple I know... "married".

But I also understand the "marriage is an old institution with a scope that shouldn't be redefined because of the whims of the current generation" argument, and I'm sympathetic to it, while not especially supporting it.

Framing the issue as solely one of "equal rights" and "progressives vs. bigoted haters" does both the cause and the truth a disservice.

People really aren't all lying* when they claim their motives are related to the nature of the institution and not bigotry and hate.

* Though probably some number are.)

mcg said...

And seeing as you've already professed your belief that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, you embarrassingly contradict yourself by heralding "the people" for giving the state the power to dictate who is not allowed to married.

Nonsense. There is no contradiction. It is one thing to talk about how you think government should function, and another to talk about how it should get there.

Yes, the majority can at times be tyrannical. But no more so than a handful of judges.

Quayle said...

The fact is that in the past 35 years, "rights" have been appearing out of thin air in America.

But a small majority finally takes a stand to turn back on one very fundemental issue, and people are claiming "restriction", and "abuse" and "hate."

But it wasn't abuse to suddenly find a right?

The constitution was framed to protect inalianable rights that came from God.

But where do the new rights come from that the courts have suddenly realized exist?

If not from God, but from man, then I guess man is rightfully free to take them away also with some kind of a majority vote.

sonicfrog said...

Now, what are the next moves for the oppressed, and why can't you do blockquotes in blogspot comments?

Spread Eagle said...

This result is no surprise, so nobody should be "blamed" for it. It just can't be said the pro people were too mean or Obama said this or that. As an issue on the ballot, put out there for the folks to vote on, it always comes out this way, whenever and wherever.

sonicfrog said...

And by the way - the thing that put it up over the top was the fact that gay marriage would have to be taught as being equal to traditional marriage in public schools - the law here says so.

A flat out lie. Read this.

Maxine Weiss said...

Look at how it did in LA County:

The Hispanic community, particularly young Hispanics, are rabidly opposed to Gay rights. That'll never change.

Blacks don't care about anybody else's civil rights but their own.

The irony is that upper-class (and educated !) Whites in Ventura and Orange County might have been receptive.....especially if the issue was framed in terms of Busybody Legislation.....

But they didn't do that. The No on Prop 8 people tried to frame it in terms of Civil Rights, trying to appeal to Blacks and Mexicans who couldn't care less about anybody else but their own.

In California, liberal social Republicans are your friends....particularly female Republicans in Ventura and Orange Counties.

You shouldn't go around putting them in nooses !!!!!

Trumpit said...

If the "people" try to enact legislation that violates minority rights then it should be the dudes and dudettes in black robes to fix the hate and intolerance of the bigoted pseudo-religious riff-raff that divide and enslave people. Fuck the "people". Imagine that there was proposition that said that only people of the same race can marry. You bigoted assholes would be laughed out of court.

Revenant said...

It diminishes the Constitution to use it to restrict freedom. A Consitution should restrict the Government.

But that's exactly what Proposition 8 did. It didn't restrict individual freedom -- any gay couple that wishes to get married may do so. What the proposition did was restrict the government from recognizing those marriages as legitimate.

I voted against Proposition 8, but the claim that it limits people's freedom was always a dishonest one. The legitimate argument against it was that the state will be a better place if gay married couples enjoy the same rights as heterosexual ones. Framing it as a "rights" issue was a mistake, because (a) nobody has a "right" to have the state recognize their marriages and (b) more importantly, the majority of people don't think gay people have a right to recognition of their marriages.

Baron Zemo said...

My dear gay friends, you must realize that your black and Latin friends hate gay people. Much more so than even conservative white men who are often gay. They also hate and fear Jewish people. Yet both jews and gays voted as one for Obama.

Good luck. You will need it.

Palladian said...

"Imagine that there was proposition that said that only people of the same race can marry."

I was once harshly rebuked by a black woman for suggesting a correlation between black civil rights and gay civil rights. If you weren't a paranoid schizophrenic, I'd suggest that you be careful making those comparisons.

mcg said...

If the "people" try to enact legislation that violates minority rights then it should be the dudes and dudettes in black robes to fix the hate and intolerance of the bigoted pseudo-religious riff-raff that divide and enslave people. Fuck the "people".

Where do you think those judges come from, dumbass? You think the Great Liberal Deity just drops them into their courtroom chairs from the Great Liberal Heaven?

Those "people" you'd like to see fucked are the ones who elect the politicians who appoint the judges. (Or heck, in some jurisdictions, they elect the judges.)

One way or another, the people have their say. It's just a matter of when and how.

Zeb Quinn said...

And something else: Rush Limbaugh was just talking about this very thing, and he cited pols saying blacks in Florida went 71-29 for the gay marriage ban on the ballot there, and meanwhile in CA the black vote supposedly went 70-30 the opposite way. Reconcile that.

mcg said...

Zeb---I think you've read something backwards. Blacks supposedly supported the amendment in California, too. I wondered why a couple of the things you said earlier were out of whack!

Trumpit said...

Palladian,

I have no problem with your marrying a black woman or a black man. I suggest Condie Rice or Colin Powell if they'll have you. How about Michael Jackson or Usher? Or the late Sammy Davis if you are into necrophilia. Are you?

Maxine Weiss said...

"must realize that your black and Latin friends hate gay people. Much more so than even conservative white men who are often gay. "

_______________________________

Bingo.

But that's why I believe Women, Gays, and Republicans are a natural alliance and much more compatible and powerful..... than Gays wasting their time in the black and Mexican communties trying to gain support from people that will always be hostile to them.

MayBee said...

If the "people" try to enact legislation that violates minority rights then it should be the dudes and dudettes in black robes to fix the hate and intolerance of the bigoted pseudo-religious riff-raff that divide and enslave people.

Didn't "the people" just vote to take more of the minority's money and give it to the majority?

I agree with revenant's comment.

Zeb Quinn said...

mcg: You are right. My bad.

Maybe we are saying the same thing, no?

Fletch said...

John Stoddard-

What this measure really has done is to write fear- and hate-based discrimination against a group of people into the state's ridiculous phone-book of a Constitution.

My objection is not based upon "hate" or "fear", but completely against the "money grab" it represents.

I am a (never married/ never will marry) 44 yr old male.

Why should I be required to 'marry' for someone to be able to receive the SS 'survivor' benefits I am currently paying for?

I pay the exact same rate of SS tax as people who are married. I have no "male blood relatives" who ever even lived to be 55 years of age- which likely means my 29 yrs and counting FICA contributions are going to net myself and my heirs (nieces, nephews, and cousins) absolutely nothing.

Why should married people be taxed at lower rates than I on similar incomes?

There is no such thing as a "marriage penalty"- any couple can choose "married, filing seperately"- and pay the exact same rates as I do on their incomes.

Why should a "marriage" license change how the law is applied - such as the "spousal exclusion"?

I hate all of these examples (and the other numerous benefits of 'marriage') even when they apply to heteros- why should I vote to expand them when it will only cost me more?

I would suggest that the population of 'heteros who never marry' is larger than the gay population- when are the courts going to find these inequities against singles 'unconstitutional'?

Fletch said...

It diminishes the Constitution to use it to restrict freedom.

Repeal the 16th Amendment!

Host with the Most said...

sonicfrog,

I think you need to learn to read.

When the law clearly says:

What state law does require is that districts that offer sex education “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.”

Fact: 96% of the school districts in California teach sex education

The fact that it is not fully enforced now does not mean for one second that the day some gay activist gets a hair up her pussy about it, that it will not be enforced across the state.
These people will try anything.


So, now that you know what the majority of Californians were able to clearly see, you can be an honest person too.

But why start now, eh?

Host with the Most said...

Fletch,

All of your questions have the same answer -

Because society has an interest in promoting marriage for the sake of stable family raising. Every culture that respects the traditional family and encourages that relationship above others thrives. Every culture that weakens that relationship (easy acceptance of divorce, removal of stigmas for adultery and out of wedlock births) eventually split and fails. There have been no exceptions to that fact in the entire history of humanity. And the US will not escape that fact either.

The number one indicator of almost certain poverty for a teenage girl in America today is having a child out of wedlock. And that fact will not change under Obama.

Society used to recognize the seriousness of it. But we are as a whole affluent beyond the dreams of just 2 mere generations back. And sadly, we begin to de-value the very things that got us to such an affluent state.

In other words: we are reaping what we sowed.

And it's going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

sonicfrog said...
I am soooo out of touch with the majority in my state. I voted against the chickens and for the homo's. Now chickens have more rights than homosexuals.


Chickens can get married now?

Host with the Most said...

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Trooper York said...

Chickens can get married now?

Well RH Hardin will tell you it's a lot more fun if you just live in sin.

Duscany said...

When judges substitute their own sexual preferences for the will of the majority or suddenly discover brand new "rights" in the constitution's "penumbra", they shouldn't be surprised that every once in a while the people will rise up and smite them back.

Seven Machos said...

Way to go, moron judge(s). You could have left well enough alone, could have let the legislature or the executive address this in its own good time, could have let the expressed will of the electorate takes it course.

But no. Not you. You have to go and find a right in the state constitution. Except that it wasn't there, you dipshit, and now there is no way for this thing to develop and evolve of the people, for the people, by the people. In the same way that you cut off debate to create a right, opponents reacted and now that right is banned. For a long time.

Real cool, asshole. Way to fucking go. I hope you are happy with what you wrought. I hope you are happy that you got to hand down your edict. A lot of fucking good it did.

Oh well, perhaps your idiocy will serve as a lesson to other judges and fascist types like yourself who want to ram radical cultural change through with no delicacy or gradation whatsoever.

Sloanasaurus said...

Oddly, I agree with Former Law Student on this one. This Amendment passing is the result of liberals going to far to fast. They should have started slowly, maybe with civil unions so that the majority got more comfortable with gay marriage before attempting legislation. Instead politicians and activists on the court tried to jam it down their throats and there was a backlash.

The constitutional amendment will be hard to get rid of.

The abortion lobby makes the same mistake. Instead of trying to pass laws banning abortion, they should try to pass compromise laws such as saying life begins at 3 months. These sorts of compromises would probably pass as referendums causing a serious and real challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Seven Machos said...

Sloan -- One hundred percent agreed.

blake said...

Sloan--

We already have civil unions in CA.

I'm not entirely sure what 8 would have changed.

Except, despite what sonicfrog attempts to refute on his blog, it would have applied anti-discrimination law to same-sex marriages. That, without question, would result in schools teaching about gay marriage.

blake said...

We also have palimony so, you know, again, I'm not sure WTF 8 would have granted, right-wise, if not absolute equal footing for gay marriages next to straight marriages, whether in schools or adoptions or what-have-you.

I'd, of course, resolve this by getting government out of marriages, schools, and child welfare.

Seven Machos said...

Proposition 8 "would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Therefore, the state manifestly does not recognize same-sex marriages, or bestow any of the assumptions and rights (and responsibilities) upon gay couples.

Harwood said...

Californians ban same-sex marriage.

Good for them!!!

Maxine Weiss said...

In California, parents have the right to opt-out, any sex-ed classes for their children.

Every single parent in California knows that.

dick said...

What I find so interesting about this is that the "no on prop 8" people have already filed a suit to take this to court and reverse what the people voted. These same people when it comes to prop 4 about parental notification on abortion, which was voted down, claim that now those who want to force parental notification should realize that the voters have spoken and just accept it. Strange that when voters speak one way you have to take it to court but when the voters speak another way you have to accept it. Hypocrisy in action!

Revenant said...

Sure, Maxine. But "gay marriage will be promoted in schools, but your kids won't have to listen to it" isn't as reassuring as "gay marriage won't be promoted in schools". So opponents of Prop 8 went with the latter claim, even though it isn't true.

I disagree strongly with the Pro-8 folks, but on the whole they were the more honest -- if mistaken -- group.

chuck b. said...

"What I find so interesting about this is that the "no on prop 8" people have already filed a suit to take this to court and reverse what the people voted."

Marriage creates property rights, and now that the state constitution will say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" the property rights created by 17000 same-sex marriages must be addressed one way or another. What will the courts do with 17000 property rights? Take them away? W/ or w/out compensation? Who should resolve the matter--the courts, or the new state legislature?


And, prop 4 failed in numerous counties that voted for 8 by large majorities. So the overlap is not as strong as you claim.

chuck b. said...

Also, I'm not following the gays-shouldn't-coalition-with-blacks-and-latinos. There are probably more blacks in So Cal than No Cal, but the Bay Area, and all the coastal communities have tons of latins. I don't think they all voted for 8.

8 passed most dramatically in places where exposure to gays is most minimal.

dick said...

I was not talking about the overlap in general. I was talking about the comments in the SacBee and the San Jose Mercury about the vote against parental notification. It was explicitly stated by many of the commenters that the supporters of Prop 4 should not try to force their anti-abortion nonsense on the people since the people voted against it. They should just suck it up and accept it.

Same issue of the paper and some of the same commenters noted that it was right and proper for the Prop 8 protesters to take this to the courts.

No doubt there was some overlap if not total but there was a reason for my posting and I checked before I did.

chuck b. said...

Well, like I said, marriage creates rights that now need to be clarified. Why shouldn't it be done in the courts?

Maxine Weiss said...

Blacks and Latinos predominantly belong to cultures and religions that see homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice," "abberration," or "sinful behavior." Activists and advocates have been advising NOT to couch gay rights as a civil rights issue to the Black community because it offends the Black community to have their push for rights equated (in their minds) to allowing sinners egal recognition of their abberant behavior. "----LATimes


__________________________


...Which is exactly why I wouldn't have framed the issue in terms of Civil Rights/Slavery. I would have made it more of a Busybody-type, looking in people's bedrooms sort of issue.

---More of a Libertarian argument about Gov. trying to overregulate behavior etc....which is exactly why I think there could have been common ground with Libertarian/Republican/OrangeCounty voters.

But the No on Prop 8 folks insisted on taking their argument to the Latino and Black Community and pushing the Civil Rights/Slavery agenda.

Waste of time.

Seven Machos said...

Courts don't create rights. Rights are legislative. Therefore, legislatures create them. By the way, if you disagree that rights are legislative, fine. Put something else in. Whatever. But rights are certainly not judicial. They don't spring up from the minds of lawyers and get enacted -- or not -- based on the whim of a few.

Whatever the case, same-sex marriage in California is probably fucked for decades thanks to some idiot fucking judge or group of judges. Leftists are such tools sometimes.

chuck b. said...

"Courts don't create rights."

I said marriage creates rights.

chuck b. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

P.S. -- If someone was foolish enough to go back through the years of threads about gay marriage at Althouse, you'd see that my position has been absolutely vindicated here: you can't push radical change on a free citizenry too fast. Sorry. It never works.

Seven Machos said...

Chuck -- Marriage does not create rights. Marriage is not an actor. Marriage can't "do" anything.

Legislatures decree that things called marriage come with rights attached to them. That's very different, and I know you can grasp the difference.

It is up to the legislature to make the law and to change the law. Courts are manifestly not cut out for making or changing law. Further, in a democracy, it is fundamentally and egregiously wrong for them to attempt to do so.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Whatever power the courts may have was usurped. Dimwitted judges who don't understand society are responsible for the law that results because it only has resulted as backlash.

bagoh20 said...

I have many gay friends in long term loving relationships both men and women. While torn, I voted against gay marriage. Gay couples have virtually all the rights as married now or will soon. Marriage is an institution mostly based in religion. I think it unwise to mix it's meaning by confusing it with the legal right associated. Just give Legal Unions equal rights. Marriage is something different. In addition, I don't see how we can logically discriminate against 3 or 4 person marriages or a man marrying his daughter if we expand it with this step. We need to draw a line somewhere and I prefer the one we have followed for 5,000 yrs. Our generation is so arrogant with this change addiction.

chuck b. said...

But the No on Prop 8 folks insisted on taking their argument to the Latino and Black Community and pushing the Civil Rights/Slavery agenda.

Waste of time

***

I agree with that, but the main thrust of your argument was that gays should hook up with Republicans instead, was it not?

I don't see how the California Republican party automatically makes a better match for gays than the ethnics, the most homophobic of whom historically do not bother to vote. You're assuming the turn out in this election is the turn out in all future elections. I don't think that's a given.

If it is, it would be intesting to see where the white Republican vote in California goes!

Maxine Weiss said...

"Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. About seven in 10 blacks voted in favor of the ban, while Latinos also supported it and whites were split."----AP

_____________________________


Hey Christopher: According tot the above----Whites are your friends, particularly white Republicans !!!!

You know, the potential supporters that the No on 8 folks ignored ....

chuck b. said...

Marriage does not create rights. Marriage is not an actor. Marriage can't "do" anything.

***

Of course marriage "does" things. If marriage didn't "do" things fewer people would bother to do it. For starters, why do you think Anna Nicole Smith married the Texas oilman?

chuck b. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

Chuck -- You miss the point completely. It is legislated that marriage is associated with certain rights. Therefore, it is the purview of the legislature to expand or otherwise change those associated rights, and the beneficiaries of those rights.

More importantly, the legislature serves as a direct link to the people who are governed, whereas the court does not.

Courts have no business making law where law has already been made. Their role is very narrow and clear: apply the law to disagreements.

mcg said...

Hmm, there's that implication whites didn't support the proposition. But the exit polls do not coincide with the final tally, and to make them so, you pretty much have to concede that whites supported it as well.

Sure, they were "split", but the Latino vote was close too, so it is fair to say they were "split" as well.

Seven Machos said...

Why does your skin color matter here?

mcg said...

Obviously, it is cultural differences, not specifically racial ones, that influence thinking on this issue and similar issues. But given that our society is still largely segregated, race is an indicator.

Maxine Weiss said...

The Latino vote was not split at all .

LA County is something like 75% Mexican, and Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic, and I mean robotic Catholic. Not a rugged individualist in the bunch.

That leaves Conservative Whites---the most educated and wealthy of whom are in Orange County and in Ventura Counties. That's were the best chances were.

There was not a big push in Orange or Ventura Counties. I know this to be true.

The anti-Prop 8 forces went spinning their wheels into the Barrio and Ghetto screaming about Civil Rights. It didn't play.

Isn't it funny that Blacks are completely controlled by the Democratic Party, but when it comes to social and religious issues.....very conservative. ...In California.

mcg said...

The Latino vote was not split at all.

You don't call a 55-45 vote "split"?

chuck b. said...

Steven, that's fine--I get it.

But did the Calif. Sup. Ct. not see a marriage right a few months ago? "Like it or not!"

If you think the legislature to clear things up that's fine w/ me. Someone will need to.

"Courts have no business making law where law has already been made. Their role is very narrow and clear: apply the law to disagreements"

Yes, and now there is a disagreement.

chuck b. said...

LA County went againt abortion notification just slightly more than it went for traditional marriage. There must be some rugged individualists.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Therefore, the state manifestly does not recognize same-sex marriages, or bestow any of the assumptions and rights (and responsibilities) upon gay couples

Not true. Civil unions which existed before the Ca Supreme Court meddled and which STILL exist, give the same rights (that the State can confer) as those that married people have. No one has lost any rights.

chuck b. said...

I got married without first becoming a domestic partner. I'm not spontaneously converting to DP. The gov't--legislature? courts? I don't care--will need to make that happen. The courts won't spontaneously do it. Someone has to ask them before they ever do anything. That's the point I've been squaring off with Steven about without just saying so.

Father Martin Fox said...

The issue is not so much about "rights" because the rights that flow from a legally recognized marriage are not, in the main, at issue:

> Visitation, inheritance and power-of-attorney. I think not 1% of Californians would object to gay couples having these rights, by whatever mechanism gets them there, if that's what is really sought.

> Social Security. That's not a valid issue, because Social Security is sui generis, even if it masquerades as "insurance" or "pension," when it isn't really. You don't have a Social Security "account" the way you have an IRA or 401k. With those, once again, not 1% would object to homosexual persons saying, I want my partner to have a share. Fine.

> Adoption. Yes, this is an issue; but it flows from the main issue, which is simply truth about terms:

What is marriage? Who defines what marriage is?

While I can live better with the legislature redefining marriage (because I have better recourse to that), I don't accept the legitimacy of that. What a thing is must be grounded in truth and reality, unless you hold that it is an artificial construct which can be remade as the civil society pleases.

And the fact is, the heterosexuality essence of marriage is a natural reality that arises somewhere in the uncharted history of human existence. It is not the creation of government or religion.

Now here's the thing. To the extent the pro-gay-marriage folks have conceded monogamy as part of the essence of marriage, they have conceded crucial ground; because while the heterosexual nature of marriage is a naturally arising reality, monogamy is a religious aspect--it comes from Christianity and to some degree, Judaism. And if you concede Christianity as a key shaper of our laws' understanding of marriage, then the move to gay marriage is raw power, redefining an implicitly Christian society's understanding of an essentially Christian institution.

But if they were honest and said, "it's time to jettison Christian concepts from our law," not only would that not go over so well, wouldn't that create a problem in justifying the claims by polygamists for their claim of rights?

For that matter, who says marriage-as-government-created-construct has to be about sex at all? Why can't two relatives be "married" without any sexual/romantic element. Who are you to deny their "rights" simply because they choose not to connect whatever sexual relationships they may have, with whatever enduring legal relationships they find meaningful and important, and want the state to recognize?

chuck b. said...

Oh, it's seven not steven. All this time... sorry.

former law student said...

In California, parents have the right to opt-out, any sex-ed classes for their children.

Every single parent in California knows that.


The plaintiff used the stigma that attaches to the weird kid who opts out of a class, as part of its rationale to prohibit voluntary religious classes held in public schools during the school day, in McCollum vs. Board of Education.

Maxine Weiss said...

The "No on 8" ads used Loving v. Virginia, the interracial marriage case. They equated gay marriage to interracial marriage to try and persuade black voters to vote against Prop 8.

They blanketed the Ghetto with those sorts of incendiary billboards, which only serve to inflame the issue, not garner support.

And now they just can't understand why a civil rights argument didn't work with groups that one would think would be most sensitive to that argument.

As I've been saying over and over again.......Blacks couldn't care less about anyone else.

Same thing with Mexicans.

You expect empathy from these people ? You think a Black President's gonna help you out ???

chuck b. said...

"Blacks couldn't care less about anyone else.

Same thing with Mexicans."


Right now, I don't blame them.

Also, I voted for the other guy.

Synova said...

Parental notification for abortion for young girls who HAVE BEEN RAPED BY DEFINITION does not seem at all radical.

Have we all taken leave of our senses? If school teachers and doctors are required by law to report suspected child abuse to the police how can we possibly justify not *only* not reporting a pregnant minor to police but not telling her parents or guardian and then, if that's not enough, allowing her to undertake a medical procedure without parental consent when there is NO other case where medical procedures, or medication can be given to minors without parent's knowledge and consent.

Do you know what this is?

It's someone making a choice and decision that teenagers having abortions is far FAR better than not, deciding that those babies should never be born and seeing a way to help that happen.

It's disgusting.

sonicfrog said...

HWTM originally said:

And by the way - the thing that put it up over the top was the fact that gay marriage would have to be taught as being equal to traditional marriage in public schools - the law here says so.

Then you said:

What state law does require is that districts that offer sex education “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.”

teach respect for marriage and committed relationships... How HORRIBLE!!! There is nothing in the Ca ed code that says the school HAS to teach about gay marriage, period.

I guess you didn't read the link.

A) The CA education code does not require the schools to implement sex education classes, it is not mandatory. It is an opt in by the district, NOT MANDATORY.

B) For those districts that do choose to feature the heath curriculum, there is an opt out clause:

51240. (a) If any part of a school’s instruction in health
conflicts with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian of a pupil, the pupil, upon written request of the parent or guardian, shall be excused from the part of the instruction that conflicts with the religious training and beliefs.


The decision about whether to offer comprehensive sex education is left up to individual school districts.

Districts have great latitude on how they approach the subject.

The Los Angeles Unified School District offers ninth-graders a “Life Skills” class that deals with a variety of issues, including personal identity and relationships. A district spokeswoman said marriage is not a specific part of that curriculum but could come up as part of classroom discussion.

And in Fresno, where I live, and will teach if the state has any money left to pay me;

…district policy is that teachers do not address the subject of gay marriage in the classroom; students who ask about it are told to raise the issue with their families, according to district officials.

So sorry if you blindly buy into you sides propaganda and don't bother to do the research. But your side has already blown it, because now, with the notoriety this prop has gotten, instead of being able to say, "they're married" and be done with it, there will inevitably be much more discussion trying to justify why gays are excluded from the marriage list. And, assuming your interpretation was correct, we already have to teach respect for committed homosexual relationships. So your screwed either way.

mcg said...

A) The CA education code does not require the schools to implement sex education classes, it is not mandatory. It is an opt in by the district, NOT MANDATORY.

To be fair, I think the point is that the law does not permit a "pick and choose" approach: that is, if you want to teach sex ed at all, you have to teach about marriage. There is a non-zero intersection between people who do not agree with gay marriage but agree with comprehensive sex ed.

blake said...

young girls who HAVE BEEN RAPED BY DEFINITION

I think the assumption is that they haven't, right? If two sixteen-year-olds have sex is that rape? What about a 14-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy?

blake said...

sonic--

You're arguing an abstract. Obviously the CTA is eager to teach about the wonderfulness of gay marriage.

They were the #1 contributor to the "No on 8" campaign, or so I'm told. Certainly their fingers were all over the ads.

Also, I didn't see any "Yes on 8" ads until the last week. The "No" setup began during the Olympics with those gawdawful LetFreedomRing ads.

Just in the abstract, I'm always pleased to see the person with the most money lose.

Revenant said...

Saying "schools wouldn't be forced to promote gay marriage, because they could avoid doing so by refusing to teach sex education at all" is disingenuous. It also isn't the argument opponents of proposition 8 actually used.

Synova said...

"What about a 14-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy?"

Um... sure... no reason to investigate *that*.

Host with the Most said...

sonicfrog,

The thought of you as a teacher is literally frightening. Your last post shows that your lack an understanding of what you are reading is matched only by your complete acceptance of the propaganda you're fed.

You 've got the wrong country. Your kind of blind teaching belongs in Cuba or China. They will even welcome you in Iran if you like.

Now, sonicfrog, pay close attention and learn something:

First, read what mcg said directly above. That's the reality of what happens when a district chooses to teach sex education at all. Think about it. Slowly. Don't come back here until you "get it".

Second, 96% of districts in California already teach sex education. Which means (you can get this sonicfrog, you really can . . . )that virtually every district has to teach respect for marriage. By law. Today. Now.

Third, this means that if gay marriage were still the law, then it would have to be taught. No ifs ands or buts. The fact that any district may not enforce an interpretation that says gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage doesn't matter. It would only be a matter of time before some activist brings down the "gay marriage" law onto districts. Shit, look at the lawsuits filed today before the counting of absentees was even done.

The biggest offense sonicfrog, is the way so many gays handle every issue so in your face. Reminds me of the end of the world predictions if "Brokeback Mountain" didn't win Best Picture. Whine, Whine, whine, attack, attack, attack. How did that workout this time again? Add to it the lies about this issue, and frankly, I know many people sympathetic to gay marriage who were so turned off by the "No on 8" ads and lies that numerous of them probably voted Yes because of it.

By the way, my wife and 2 of my daughters teach in the California Public Schools, where this has already been going on.

So please - if you want to have the shit kicked out of your ignorance again, please come back for more.

Fletch said...

Host with the most-

Because society has an interest in promoting marriage for the sake of stable family raising.

That's my point... We're doing it wrong!

Maybe we could try something else?

Consider marriages like my parent's. It was already "over" before I was 5- yet they lived together until I was 12 (for the children), then they 'separated'- yet never actually divorced before my father died when I was 17. (divorce lawyers are expensive- unless the state is paying...)

The number one indicator of almost certain poverty for a teenage girl in America today is having a child out of wedlock.

My mother's first child (my half-sister Nikki) was born "out of wedlock" 1 1/2 years before mom had ever met my father.

(hint: No Welfare, no WIC, no S-CHIP, no AFDC, no Medicaid, no EITC, no Dept of Education, no Gov't ordered child support, etc.)

And no poverty in my family.

Host with the Most said...

Just in the abstract, I'm always pleased to see the person with the most money lose.

Then Obama winning with a 6:1 money advantage has to make this the saddest day of your life . . .

Donn said...

Synova:
Have we all taken leave of our senses? If school teachers and doctors are required by law to report suspected child abuse to the police...

How ANY parent, and I say this as the father of six kids, could vote no on Prop 4, needs their heads examined. And no, the whole "some teens can't talk to their parents" is NOT an answer!

Host with the Most said...

Fletch -

I'm not arguing society's right to change whatever structure it wants.

But, despite wonderful exceptions such as yours, the 5000 years of evidence is already in on this one: Stable families of a married father and mother raising their children leads to the strongest possible society in every measure.

Seven Machos said...

Fletch -- The fact that your parents had a failed marriage is not a reason to radically change the institution of marriage.

I recently lost gobs of money in the stock market. Should we do away with it? I imagine that, in the last week, a court convicted an innocent man? Should we do away with them? Etc.

Host with the Most said...

And to
Christopher Althouse Cohen:

"Yes on 8" ran a completely honest campaign. There was nothing in their ads that was not true.

Nothing.

Sorry, I know you feel strongly about this. But your feelings do not change facts. The "No on 8 side" played dishonest and loose, and did themselves no service by trying to win dishonestly.

To those of us who supported 8, the opposition' disingenuousness will carry us forward for several years. We will always be available for the next time this comes up to show the dishonesty of the "No on 8" ads, and follow up with a "there they go again".

Should have stuck to the basic argument.

blake said...

Um... sure... no reason to investigate *that*.

You were saying it was rape, I was suggesting that it wasn't. I'm not sure of the laws; it could very well be that all those 17-year-olds having sex together are raping each other.

But only in the legal sense of the word.

blake said...

Donn--

I forget how I voted on four, but I'm unconvinced it needs to be an area of state involvement.

Donn said...

Blake:
I forget how I voted on four, but I'm unconvinced it needs to be an area of state involvement.

Okay, so you think it's okay for your own daughter (if you have one) to have an abortion without your knowledge?

elHombre said...

Well, it used to be if you wanted to discourage or protest behavior you thought was absurd or sinful, or both, you could ridicule or condemn it.

If you do that now, you get arrested, expelled or lose your tax exemption for committing a hate crime. So, the next best thing must be a constitutional amendment. Although with an Obama judiciary, that probably won't count for much either. Thought police and civilian defense force rule!

blake said...

I've never felt the argument by "You just don't understand" was a very powerful one.

But, yes, I have daughter(s).

If one of them gets pregnant and feels she can't come to us, but instead must sneak off to an abortion clinic, well, then, I've failed in ways that government interference isn't going to help matters.

If it makes you feel better, that's my barometer: Will the government make things better or worse. The answer is almost always "worse".

If my daughter is old enough to get pregnant without my knowledge, and old enough to arrange an abortion without my knowledge, and estranged enough to want to hide this stuff from me, then she's probably old enough to find someone to do it without notifying me, even if in a back alley.

blake said...

Oh, HwtM, as for being sad over Obama winning with the huge money:

It sucks; it particularly sucks that they just cheated to get the money.

Donn said...

Blake,

I understand your position, but I totally disagree. Often teens, think back to when you were a teen, will take (what they consider is) the easy way out. My ex-wife talked to quite a few pregnant teens (when my oldest daughter was a teen), and most had abortions.

Would you want your child to be given any medical care without your knowledge? For heaven's sake, they can't even be given an aspirin in school without my permission, and you think it's okay they get an abortion? The logic baffles my mind.

By they way, when I was in high school in the 70s, one of the basketball player's girlfriend had an abortion without her parents knowledge, and was rushed to the hospital with life-threatening complications by bewildered and unknowledgeable parents. Why didn't they tell the parents? Simple, they didn't want to "get into trouble."

blogless said...

"You were saying it was rape, I was suggesting that it wasn't. I'm not sure of the laws; it could very well be that all those 17-year-olds having sex together are raping each other.

But only in the legal sense of the word"

Here's the law on this - two 17 year-olds having consensual sex is not rape. Different states have different ages of consent - but if one person is below that age, and the other person is above it, then it's statutory rape. The penalty (misdemeanor or felony) often depends on the age difference. (i.e. 19 year old and 17 year old can be a misdemeanor, 20 year old with that same 17 year old can be a felony.)

Revenant said...

Okay, so you think it's okay for your own daughter (if you have one) to have an abortion without your knowledge?

Not everybody thinks that "that should be illegal" naturally follows from "that's not ok". I don't think it is ok for kids to lie to their parents, but I don't think it ought to be illegal. I don't think it is ok for kids to have sex, but I don't think it ought to be illegal. Etc, etc.

I have to ask the question: how the heck is this kid (a) getting to the abortion clinic with (b) the money to pay for an abortion? When I was in high school I'd have been hard pressed to afford a BOOK about abortion, much less pay for one for a girlfriend.

blake said...

Often teens, think back to when you were a teen, will take (what they consider is) the easy way out.

Tragically, I really didn't get into any kind of trouble as a kid.

My ex-wife talked to quite a few pregnant teens (when my oldest daughter was a teen), and most had abortions.

No doubt. There's a pervasive message of abortion being a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem of pregnancy.

Would you want your child to be given any medical care without your knowledge?

I wouldn't.

For heaven's sake, they can't even be given an aspirin in school without my permission,

Not only can't they be given an aspirin, they can be expelled for carrying aspirin.

But then, if you didn't want your child treated like a combination of zoo animal/criminal, why send them to a state run school in the first place? (I have mentioned I'm an extremist, right?)

and you think it's okay they get an abortion? The logic baffles my mind.

I don't think it's okay. I think it's tragic. I think the state getting involved is likely to lead to greater tragedy.

Why didn't they tell the parents? Simple, they didn't want to "get into trouble."

One of the great challenges of parenting is balancing discipline with openness. I know parents who are arbitrarily harsh, and their kids will do anything--anything--to stay out of trouble. (Contra Synova and Revenant in an earlier thread, I've seen these children be very well taught to be dishonest.) I hope that when their kids get into trouble, they're at least comfortable coming to some adult when they feel they can't go to their parents.

But if their shame is so strong, then why wouldn't mandatory notification just lead to abortions in unsafe conditions?

Maxine Weiss said...

Question: Why do people put things on the ballot that are unconstitutional and subject to being overturned ?

Answer: That's the folly of the whole Initiative/Referendum process ! There's nothing you can't put on the ballot, if you've got enough signatures, whether it's constitutional or not....

Synova said...

If one of them gets pregnant and feels she can't come to us, but instead must sneak off to an abortion clinic, well, then, I've failed in ways that government interference isn't going to help matters.

Because, you know, teens are never *embarassed* by anything or shy about their bodies or maybe not wanting to tell parents they are having sex. They also never want to *disappoint* their parents.

Why is it so impossible for people who presumably *know* teenagers and even *were* a teenager once to get this idea that the only reason a teen aged girl who found out she was pregnant wouldn't tell her parents is because the parents are horrid people and the teenager estranged?

Heck, when I was a teenager if I'd been violently raped I would have hid it from my parents and my mother, even then, was one of my closest friends... but she was my *mother* and I understood that my pain hurt HER and would hurt my father. More than anything possible in the whole world I'd have done anything to protect them from the sort of hurt they'd have felt. I'd have far far rather dealt with it on my own, no matter how painful and horrible, if I could protect *them*.

I would have been *wrong*... but that was my reasoning. (And I *did* think about crap like that.)

So sure... go on believing that the ONLY reason a teenage girl doesn't tell her parents she's pregnant is because she has no relationship with them.

Synova said...

Otherwise, you know... just go for the idea that any other adult has the right to talk your child into just about anything without your agreement or input because the "state" shouldn't interfere and parents who don't know their kids have obviously failed.

Duscany said...

Titusjustvoted: "If in the 60's the southern states could of voted against interracial marriage they would of."

That's nothing. If San Francisco could lower the age of consent for sodomy to 12 it would.

blake said...

Syn,

I'm not disagreeing with you, though I am disagreeing with your assessment that I think there's only one possible reason this might happen.

What I'm saying that if they're so embarrassed to tell you, why do you think notification will change that? Why wouldn't they be so embarrassed that they then go to "a friend" to handle it?

I'm speculating, of course. Until I see some numbers, I'm going to come down on the side of less regulation.

sonicfrog said...

sonicfrog,

The thought of you as a teacher is literally frightening. Your last post shows that your lack an understanding of what you are reading is matched only by your complete acceptance of the propaganda you're fed.

You 've got the wrong country. Your kind of blind teaching belongs in Cuba or China. They will even welcome you in Iran if you like.


You know, I can always tell when the other side of an argument is riding strictly on emotion and not on rational or personal experience when, instead of responding to a challenge of thoughts and ideas with more thoughts and ideas, they respond with the tried and true "Jane You Ignorant Slut" routine. It's the Hannity "Ad Hom" approach. It's a great debating technique for those undisciplined to fall for. Try it with someone else. Won't happen here.

Many school districts have to wrestle with this issue and they take various approaches. As I stated in my last post, Fresno Unified chooses not to discuss it at all, and defers the subject of gay marriage to the discretion of the parent. Same with Clovis Unified, and many of the other districts in the San Joaquin area.

Here is the big bug in the CA education system -lawsuits. It's the thing that sends shivers down the spine of every administrator in the districts. The rule one of my advisors told me (she was an ed lawyer for thirty years) - If there is a controversial subject, the best approach is to deflect or get the students off the topic as fast as you can. You're more than likely to get sued for covering a subject than you are for not covering it.

Now, I don't know where your wife and daughters work, but if they teaching in some of the more liberal districts, I'm sure they have seen some pretty nasty crap that no rational person would accept. I would love to hear some of the stories and examples. But please don't project their experiences on the whole education system.

Back to the character assassination.

You 've got the wrong country. Your kind of blind teaching belongs in Cuba or China. They will even welcome you in Iran if you like.

The above comment is laughable and beyond the pale. What exactly did I say that would be teachable in any of those countries? Anyone who knows me would absolutely split their sides at that bromide. You don't know me, you could not possibly have any idea who I am or what my ideology is or how I teach based of the few bits I've posted here.

Please notice I have not personally insulted you in any way - it's not my style, and besides, it's kind of childish. I would ask for an apology, but who the hell cares. I'm not Alexander Hamilton, ready to duel at the slightest provocation. This is a blog, and this kind of inaneness is par for the course.

Lets end this here, and be done with it.

PS. I definitely would not be welcomed in Iran.

sonicfrog said...

Oh, and PPS. "Brokeback Mountain" SUCKED. And not in a good way.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I thought that California was full of very progressive people. How they vote for Hope! and Change! and not want gays to be joined in holy matrimony.

Are progressives all talk and no action? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

sonicfrog said...

My last word on the subject.

The spirit of the law in question, the teachable moment, as it were, is to promote the healthier lifestyle choice of marriage and committed relationships over a life of going out every night, finding a "hook up", and f'ing your little brains out, thus not only exposing yourself to STD's and HIV, but also denying the emotional health a more stable reshionship brings.

Will there be some teachers who will take the law out of context and use it to "Promote" gay marriage. Of course they will. Will a few districts actively promote it. Yep. I'm sure they already do in San Francisco and a few other.

The law in question was written long before gay marriage was ever considered a possibility. Using it as a tool to actively promote gay marriage is wrong and against the letter and the spirit of the law. For the "Yes on Prop 8" crowd to twist the meaning of the law to suggest that teachers are required to design lesson plans devoted to giving the finger to religious parents and teaching gay marriage is not only false, but is against the intent of the code, and yes, a lie.

sonicfrog said...

Just proof read the last comment. This is why I don't type up lesson plans in the wee hours of the morning.

Host with the Most said...

sonicfrog,

You were doing great until you wrote your last paragraph.

Why do you insist on seeking to defend yourself when there is no defense?

Do you not understand the meanings of words?

A lie is an intentional statement of something that is not true, told with the intent to decieve. You don't get to make up your own definition and then use it when everyone else believes that it's something different.




We've been over this. The evidence is completely on the side of the pro-8 cause. The anti-8 side is the side that willfully told lies. When they were caught with their pants down, they did, sadly, what you are insisting on doing: seeking to tell unrealistic assessments of what is actually already taking place.

A piece of advice, sonicfrog: Cut your losses. Believe me, all you are doing now is licking your wounds. Your continued effort to reassure yourself and others that you were right in wasting your time in disingenuosness will allow your opponents to use that against you the next time.

"Gay marriage supporters - if they couldn't be honest with Californians the last time, why can you trust them now?

sonicfrog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.