Tide turning on gay marriage measure?
October 8th, 2008, 10:31 am · 224 Comments · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent
In Sacramento, it’s been taken as a forgone conclusion that Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California, would fail. But there’s some evidence public sentiment could be changing.
A new poll this week by the CBS affiliate in San Francisco finds that likely California voters favor the proposition by a five-point margin — 47 percent to 42 percent. That’s a 10 point swing from a poll just two weeks earlier that showed support trailing 44 percent to 49 percent against.
To take our poll click below.
The CBS affiliate suggests that the swing could be attributed to new pro-Prop. 8 ads that show San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying same-sex marriage is here “whether you like it or not.” But it also notes the new poll has a margin of error of 3.6 percent and that “the pollster continued to label the race too close to call — just as it did eleven days ago.”
That, however, hasn’t stopped Prop. 8 supporters from taking credit. In a statement released to the media, Yes on Prop. 8 co-manager Frank Schubert said, “We are thrilled with the new polling data. It confirms what we have heard from thousands of supporters. The ad that is running is powerful and provocative. Not only does it show the arrogance of those who would impose same-sex marriage on California whether we like it or not, but it also shows that voters are beginning to understand there are consequences to all Californians if same-sex marriage is legalized.”
Tough talk, that’s for sure. We’ll see if its true in a month.
RELATED PROP.8 COVERAGE
- Mary J. Blige, Melissa Etheridge rock out against Prop. 8
- OC residents give $6.2 million to support Prop. 8
- Guess who’s tearing down the other side’s Prop. 8 signs?
- Prop. 8 failure would be followed by thousands of gay nuptials
- Field Poll finds opposition to gay marriage ban
MORE ELECTION COVERAGE (complete coverage here)
TOPICS: President | Congress | Ballot measures | Prop. 8
LOCAL RACES: North County | Central County | South County | Schools
MORE: Recent election videos | Voter guide
October 8th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Its the rights that goes along with marriage that is the issue. As long as guys can say, I do, and gain the same rights as a Hetro couples receive when they marry, you can call it something else beside marriage. But, it is a union of two people who want to live as one. Equal rights for all is the bottom line.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Brian,
I take issue with your poll question “Should Gay Marriage be legal in California?” Marriage between same gender couples is legal. From my perspective the question that should be asked is “Should existing legal marriages between same sex couples be voided?
October 8th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Prop 8 isn’t about removing rights from anyone. It’s about preventing elitist judges from imposing laws that they have no right to impose on.
Prop 22 was voted and passed. Because the judges, years later, overruled prop 22 illegally, Prop 8 was established as an amendment so that it will not happen again.
Yes, I believe gay couples should receive the benefits that straight couples get. But marriage is sacred. The opponents of prop 8 want more than just equality for all… and that’s why voting no on prop 8 is so dangerous. I’m all for equal government benefits. But I’m not for the redefinition of marriage.
I’m not for the state telling someone that they have to provide services against their will (1. Pharmacists providing abortion contraceptives even if they don’t believe in it. 2. A doctor being forced to provide in vitro fertilzation (an optional medical procedure) to a non-traditional couple.) When the government tells you to leave your religion at the door and do your job. That is wrong. The first amendment allows the freedom of religion.
Prop 8 is more than an equality issue, and that’s why I support it.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Chris Prevatt from over at the great site, theliberabloc.com, raises a fair point about gay marriage already being legal and about Prop. 8 voiding that current right. He’s 100 percent correct. I worded the poll that way for simplicity’s sake. I think the average reader would understand the basic issue regardless of whether we used Chris’ or my wording, but its very fair to acknowledge that there is a difference between creating a new right and taking a right away. I don’t know that I would have written it differently, but it’s a fair point and Chris was right to bring it up.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Warren: You can’t have “separate but equal” to call one a marriage and one a union leaves a huge loophole for people to continue to discriminate against the gay community.
Kyle: It is perfectly legal for Judges to make rulings on the state law. California state law says that there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. Prop 22 was discrimination therefore it was struck down. Civil rights are just that “rights”. The population should not be allowed to vote on who should be allow civil rights and who can be “full” citizens of this state and country.
If civil rights were left up to popular vote then the only people that would be voting today would be white men. It took judges to open the schools to minorities, it took judges to get minorities the right to vote, it took judges to make it legal for interracial marriage, and it took judges to over turn the 1934 law that allowed women to be legally paid less then a man doing the same job.
Civil rights are not determined by majority rule.
No on Hate, No on 8
October 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Absolutely I believe gay marriages should be legal. If two people (homosexual or hetero) wish to be together as a married couple, why not?
I am a happily married man to a woman for 13 years and I positively agree that these marriages should be legal. If they want to be with eachother as married people, do it. If you don’t like it, turn your head!
October 8th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
anal intercourse on the wedding night.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Brian Joseph as, it seems, many others (Obama called healthcare a “right” when it’s a commodity) just don’t understand what “rights” are. A right is not something a judge makes up. It is something that is given by God (”inalienable rights”). If a judge constructs something out of thin air, the people have the right to correct that judge, because, in this case, they had already spoken about marriage years before.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
only 6 responses after 7 hours on this topic?
Something must be wrong
October 8th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
The Yes On 8 commercial is pathetic in the amount of misleading claims it contains. I’m happy that Pepperdine University blew a gasket and had their name removed.
The “activist judges in San Francisco” line in the ad is sadly hilarious. For those that don’t know, the State Supreme Court is based here in San Francisco. I wonder if they’d use the phrase “activist judges in Santa Ana” were the court based there. I doubt they would since using “San Francisco” has more effect in inciting fear on those who don’t take the time to study an issue and rely on a five-second soundbite to make a decision.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Holy crap!!!!!!!!!!! what is this world coming to.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
8 is about removing rights. This issue was brought before the courts and it was ruled according to the law. The same was done in Massachusetts. Keep in mind that the State of California nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have not slipped into the ocean as a result.
People that still cling to Prop 22 need to wake up and realize that times have changed since that election. I’m sure there are people out there who still blow a gasket over the fact that interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court in 1948.
The cries of activist and elitist judges heard today over Gay marriage were the same cries heard in 1948. California didn’t fall in the ocean as a result of the 1948 ruling nor did the country when the Supreme Court struck down all remaining miscegenation laws in 1967.
Touting the sacredness of heterosexual marriage when the divorce rate is over 50% is comical. The divorce rate alone tells me that, as a society, marriage is not treated as sacred. Who knows, maybe gay marriages might cause an overall drop in the divorce rate, but only time will tell.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Kyle Says:
I’m not for the state telling someone that they have to provide services against their will (1. Pharmacists providing abortion contraceptives even if they don’t believe in it. 2. A doctor being forced to provide in vitro fertilzation (an optional medical procedure) to a non-traditional couple.) When the government tells you to leave your religion at the door and do your job. That is wrong. The first amendment allows the freedom of religion.
———————————————-
1) No one forces you or any body else to work in the public sector.
Get another job that doesn’t require it. Problem solved.
2) Freedom of religion ONLY means you won’t be thrown in jail for practicing your religious views for YOUR personal behavior. Period.
Once you force it on others, you’re infringing on their equal rights.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
The voters have already stated they do not want gay marriage. That is why the measure passed and became law in the first place. Whatever the voters approve, some court will come along and overturn what the people demand and pass during elections.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
dumbed down Says: “anal intercourse on the wedding night.”
Does that apply to the lesbian marriages as well? If so, interesting!
IMO marriage is an overrated institution anyway. I have one word for anyone who gets married, gay or straight, and that word is “Sucker!”
Q: Why do husbands always die first?
A: Because they want to!
October 8th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
A real marriage is between a Man and Woman only
October 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The makeup of the electorate has changed since the 2000 elections. A lot of people have died and a lot of people have reached voting age.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I WANNA MARRY MY DOG!! WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS???
October 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Marriage is between one man and one woman, that is what God has intended. If God wanted man and man, or woman and woman, God would not have created Eve from Adams rib. Only Man and Woman can create life, not one of the same sex. Im all for civil union ceremony, or a legal binding agreement, but not to marriage.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I will fight to overturn the Court’s reckless decision to allow gay marriage in California. This absolutely wrong. Listen homosexuals should be tolerated and respected but they should not force their lifestyle on our long held religous and societal beliefs of what marriage is - that being a union between a man and a woman. Maybe the civil union thing is okay because that has no religous implications but homosexuals should not be wed in the eyes of God.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Leave your extremist and restrictive religious views out of the lives of others!
A soul is a soul - regardless of gender. Its a shame that it is mostly so-called Christians that promote this hatred towards people who want equal rights like hetro couples.
The god and jesus I have read about, would not condone such bigotry. Let people live their own lives and you focus on your own.
Shame on you bigots who would support this oppressive proposition.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Kyle,
First, those judges weren’t being “elitist”. They wrote their opinion based on the state’s Constitution. It is illegal for the state to provide services or offer benefits to one segment of the population while denying it to another. Calling it marriage for some and a “domestic partnership” for others is reprehensible. I would hope that this country learned a thing or two from Jim Crow.
Secondly, we are talking about CIVIL marriages. The kind performed at city hall- NOT in churches! No minister, priest, or rabbi will ever be required to act in a way that violates the tenets of his or her religion. Yes, pharmacists are sometimes required to dispense medications that they may have moral issues with and doctors cannot turn away patients based solely on moral issues, but that is because they are public businesses operating in the realm of social service. They are bound by the laws of the state which demand that they do not discriminate.
I’ll tell you what - if a church had a medical clinic with doctors and pharmacists on staff for their parishioners, the state would NEVER require them to dispense birth control, perform abortions, or provide any other service that went against their faith. See how the separation of church and state works? It goes both ways.
Seriously, please reconsider your position. It’s based on conflated arguments and half-truths. All we’re talking about is allowing two, committed, loving people to legally marry. We’re talking about letting love win! I can’t think of a singularly more Christian thing than that.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Why do you guys care that two consensual adults enter a legal contract? How is marriage sacred again?
I think all these divorces destroy that claim.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact I am voting for someone else’s freedoms. This system is screwed up.
Church and state are separate. I’m not religious and yet I’m allowed to get married. And I will for the tax breaks, benefits, and wedding gifts, but not for God, or for it ever to be in a disgusting church.
Marriage is for everyone, not just the religious. I would hate to be married in a state where marriage is redefined by the church, triumphed by bigotry, and discriminating to fellow tax payers based on their gender.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
This question has been asked before but I have yet to see a reasonable answer to it. If marriage is defined as that between two consenting adults, does anyone not worry (whether gay or straight) that at some point when society “progresses” along, that it will then be 3 consenting adults? On what basis does one “deny” the “right” of consenting adults to marry two other adults and so on? Ignoring whether we think gay marriage is right or wrong, what about plural marriages? How do we constitutionally deny other adults that right?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
8 has my vote
October 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Kyle, Didn’t they decide it wasn’t constitutional?
What right do people have to try to void the constitution.
The constitution define how it is to be modified, and that wasn’t followed.
(Or the folks who pushed the original bill didn’t do their homework well enough to figure out what they needed to do to begin with)
Call it what it is, address it, and get into that… Be honest about what you’re doing and saying.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Hey Tim Liao:
Marriage, in the secular sense, has NOTHING to do with God.
There’s a reason your marriage in a Church is not considered valid until the State paperwork is completed…
Secular marriage and Religious marriage are separate institutions. They just happened to be called the same thing.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
We don’t know enough about homosexuality to institutionalize it. If gay sex is “natural”, gay men should not suffer from fecal incontinence. We need more evidence that gays are a human subspecies and that gay sex is more than just a sexual preference.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Folks, what part of “Equal Justice Under Law” (the inscription on the Supreme Court of the US building ) don’t you understand? If marriage is sacred, then make it illegal to get divorced. If marriage is only for pro-creation, then any couple who doesn’t bear children in (insert a number) of years should be annulled. Is that what the supporters believe? We are talking about government’s recognition - not religious. If same sex couples are denied the right to marry, then the GOVERNMENT shouldn’t recognize ANY marriages. Let the churches do religious ceremonies, and have government only conduct civil unions for any couple so inclined to have government recognition. NO on Prop 8.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I (heart) Janna.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Yes on Prop 8. That’s all I’m going to say
October 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Marriage as it is defined by Western societies that have been strongly intertwined with the church - for centuries has a moral definition of what marriage is. That definition allows for non-religious men and women to wed but it does not allow homosexuals to wed. If you want to state that it is 2008, so therefore times have changed and we should allow for two consenting homosexual adults to form a union in a society where the separation of church and state is the foundation then go right ahead. Go right ahead but do not call this marriage.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Being gay is gay. Homosexuality, as any psychiatrist will tell you, is abnormal. For society to condon abnormal behavior and place it on par with heterosexuality is just goofy, especially on the level of marriage. But that’s democracy for you.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
The state of California has defined marriage as being between a man
and a woman for over one hundred years. The people of California
re-affirmed that definition through their vote. Four people overturned
that definition. Four people took it upon themselves to redefine what
the majority of this state does not want.
Prop 8 is not about equality, nor is it about civil rights.
However, one right that is being trodden down in the mud is my right as
a voter and resident of this state by these four judges.
Prop 8 needs to be passed and these four judges need to be removed.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I have linked to this post from “The sky is not falling vs your vote” http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/marriage/why8.html#sky
* The sky will not fall … if we are at war 100 years in Iraq - We are at war today, people can buy gas, go to work, buy food and watch a movie.
* The sky will not fall … if we do not drill for oil - gas stations are open.
* The sky will not fall … if the housing market bursts - It has and the sky is still there.
* The sky will not fall … if we don’t cure AIDs.
* The sky will not fall … when you die.
* The sky will not fall … if Gays get married - No it has not but devaluation of other people’s rights has taken place; Children will suffer if it is allowed to stand; The ACLU will use the court ruling and the fact people are “legally” married to change marriage across the country … more
October 9th, 2008 at 8:50 am
NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THAT IF THIS PASSES - WE PARENTS WHO HAVE OUR CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WILL HAVE TO TEACH THEM ABOUT “GAY MARRIAGE”! THIS SICKENS ME. I DON’T WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS ABNORMAL “RIGHT” TO MY KIDS. PLEASE LET THEM KEEP THEIR INNOCENCE!
October 9th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Sherman
>The state of California has defined marriage as being between a man
and a woman for over one hundred years.
Where did they define this?
I believe the Constitutional and legal definitions don’t actually spell it out.
Which is the whole point of needing an amendment to allow the previously voted law to take effect.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:05 am
What part of “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” do you people not understand. This isn’t about those four judges - if you want to blame someone, blame Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et. al. You can vote on a discriminatory proposition every election for the next 40 years - it won’t stand.
Go ahead and pass your hateful, astonishingly un-Christian proposition. We’re less than a month away from a Democratic President, who will surely be appointing at least one new justice to the Supreme Court. This issue can then be decided there, once and for all.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:11 am
As a married man, the value I place on my marriage has nothing to do with outside factors. The value of my marriage is the dependent on the respect that I give it so if gays couples marry it doesn’t affect me personally so as a believer in personal rights I believe it is a human right to marry any person you want.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
We have far bigger problems that require our attention than whether or not two people who love and care deeply about each other should be deprived of their right to marry. Marriage is a stabilizing institution, allowing for commitment to raising families, being anchored in their communities, maintaining homes, paying taxes, and contributing to the overall wholesomeness - yes, I said wholesomeness - of the fabric of our society. God did not create our species to remain stuck in the ideas and conditions of two thousand years ago, or we’d still be there. We were created to continue to develop, and hopefully for the greater good of our kind.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Obama President, Gay marriage, etc. It will not be long before all Hell will break loose, and these people will be wondering what they did wrong. Just as in the time of Noah.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Gay marriage—NO WAY—Unions between two people were intended by our Creator to populate the earth. The last class on Biology I took stated it is impossible to two escences of the same gender to add to the population of the species. That said, these same people advocate that if they are lucky enough to be born, then they should allow for the killing of babies at or before birth.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:34 am
This poll is a scam. People are just refreshing the page and voting over and over.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
You all say “Leave your extremist and restrictive religious views out of the lives of others”. We say, leave your immoral and radical ideas out of our religion (ie, marriage). We do have a right to our religious views and that is what our country was founded on.
I want to know why people think that a mother or father in a family is so re-placeable. The best situation for children is to have both. Understood that it does not alway happen that way and that some families are not ideal but a father and mother create equality and stability in a child’s life. Not to mention that FAMILY is the core of a society and the breakdown of family is a direct reflection on the breakdown in a society.
I believe that gays should be able to have a civil union or anything like that, except marriage. And quit comparing yourselves to the civil rights of Blacks and women. It is not the same.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
SCAM! Over 200 votes have been logged in the past 5 minutes. People are deleting the cookies and refreshing the page to vote over and over.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
This is not about rights. Gays have rights in this country. If they lived somewhere else they could be jailed and killed. We live in a great country but sometimes freedom needs to have a line. Did the founding fathers want free speech to protect people who constantly cuss? I don’t believe so. People take the Constitution to seriously. It is about marriage. Man and Woman together in one union. Marriage used to be a sacred thing. Now with all the divorces and this issue marriage seems to be less sacred and taken too lightly.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Are you going to keep deleting my message and let the scam continue????
October 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am
We are supposed to have a seperation of church and state. Gays are allowed the same benefits, insurance etc, as a straight couple, as long as they fill out the correct paperwork. This prop makes the state decide on a religious issue. Should this pass, gay couples can sue churchs who refuse to marry them, for discrimination. I don’t believe it is right for the state to put that burden on the church. If a catholic church and its congregation do not believe in gay marriage, then the place they turn to for worship and guidance should not have to change b/c the state said so. Regardless of if gay marriage is right or wrong, there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state.
On another matter, if Prop 8 passes then my 5 year old will come home with a diversity book that talks about the normalcy of having two dads or two moms WITHOUT Parental notification, just like in Massachusetts. I don’t know how I will answer those tough questions at 5 years old. I wish I could discuss them with my child when they are old enough and ready. 5 is much too young.
It changes a lot more than, so what if two gay people get married? Sometimes even if the issue is correct, the wording can be wrong, perhaps I will pass a gay marriage prop that clears up all of these issues, prop 8 isn’t it.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Marriage is, and must remain, exclusively between one man and one woman. The intent of marriage is to procreate, promote the family unit and raise children in a healthy and supportive environment. Homosexual unions can not accomplish this in spite of their efforts to do so by contorting moral standards in attempts to normalize the perverse. Marriage is not a “right”. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are. Homosexuals may be allowed legal rights in some other union, but don’t call it marriage. That would only serve to degrade yet another tenant of our Judeo-Christian ethics. These same liberals who incessantly cry about how our stature as Americans has diminished in the world theatre, seem to overlook the fact that only six countries in the entire world recognize “gay” marriage. So please, don’t degrade our society anymore…..VOTE YES on Prop 8.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Janna wrote:
“I still can’t wrap my head around the fact I am voting for someone else’s freedoms. This system is screwed up.”
TheSarah wrote:
Civil rights are not determined by majority r