How Are We Doing?

View P8 Election Results as They Happen!

52.5% and counting…

http://www.kcra.com/california-proposition-8/index.html

42-15423293

Yes on Prop 8 Leading the Way

As the measure, the most divisive and emotionally fraught on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.

“I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn’t we let gay couples get married? And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that’s at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage,” he said.   But in San Francisco at the packed headquarters of the No on 8 campaign party in the Westin St. Francis Hotel, supporters of same-sex marriage refused to despair, saying that they were holding out hope for victory.

“You decided to live your life out loud. You fell in love and you said ‘I do.’ Tonight, we await a verdict,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said, speaking to a roaring crowd. “I’m crossing my fingers.”

Elsewhere in the country, two other gay marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, were well ahead. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.

Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.

The measure’s most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.

“This has been a moral battle,” said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. “We aren’t trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want — it doesn’t change anything that they’re allowed to do already. It’s defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit.”

The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.

Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters, and as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.

Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

The California Supreme Court overturned that measure, Proposition 22, in its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the state Constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples.

“We caused Californians to rethink this issue,” Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.

Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.

But supporters and opponents also did battle on street corners and front lawns, from the pulpits of churches and synagogues and — unusual for a fight over a social issue — in the boardrooms of many of the state’s largest corporations.

Most of the state’s highest-profile political leaders — including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles — along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.

On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.

An early October filing by the “yes” campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state’s campaign finance website crashed.

Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort. Campaign officials said they distributed more than 1.1 million lawn signs for Proposition 8 — although an effort to stage a massive, simultaneous lawn-sign planting in late September failed after a production glitch in China delayed the arrival of hundreds of thousands of signs.

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage, but afraid that saying so would make them seem “discriminatory” or “not cool,” said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.

Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.

“Mom, guess what I learned in school today?” a little girl said in one spot. “I learned how a prince married a prince.”

As the girl’s mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: “Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8.”

Many voters said they had been swayed by that message.

“We thought it would go this way,” Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. “We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.

“And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don’t like talking to pollsters, they don’t like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that’s being reflected in the vote count.”

Snippets from the L.A. Times….read the entire article here:

Is Same Sex Marriage a Civil Right?

Same-sex Marriage vs. Civil Rights

By Jeff Jacoby

Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. But that hasn’t stopped the advocates of same-sex marriage from draping themselves in the glory of the civil rights movement — and smearing the defenders of traditional marriage as the moral equal of segregationists.

In The New York Times last Sunday, cultural critic Frank Rich, quoting a “civil rights lawyer,” beatified the gay and lesbian couples lining up to receive illegal marriage licenses from San Francisco’s new mayor, Gavin Newsom.

“An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing it,” Rich wrote, “much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth’s in North Carolina 44 years ago this month.” Nearby, the Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding veils — and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in.

Rich’s essay — “The Joy of Gay Marriage” — went on to cast the supporters of traditional marriage as hateful zealots. They are “eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible,” he charged. “They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era.”

But it is the marriage radicals like Rich and Newsom who are doing their best to inflame a culture war. And as is so often the case in wartime, truth — in this case, historical truth — has been an early casualty.

For contrary to what Rich seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth’s in Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, all they were looking for was something to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms — the same food at the same counter at the same price.

Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren’t demanding that Woolworth’s prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren’t trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren’t bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.

All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment — approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1868 — had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 — passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed into law by President Grant — had barred discrimination in public accommodations.

But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court’s betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them — that was the great cause of civil rights.

The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the law’s equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.” They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn’t civil rights.

But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.

Last month, as Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state’s leading black clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of civil rights. “Martin Luther King,” one left-wing legislator barked, “is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this.”

But if anything has King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All of us are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. The newly fashionable claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all.  —www.jewishworldreview.com

The Great Civil Rights Movement won because their cause was just!  See Martin Luther King’s Dee Garrett on the difference:

Racism was about EQUALITY.

Same sex marriage is not about equality.

Marriage is about SOCIETY and THE FUTURE and about OUR CHILDREN!

Protect and Restore True Marriage in Calilfornia

Yes on prop 8!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.