Pulse poll: Do you favor the legal challenge of Prop. 8?
November 11th, 2008, 11:52 am · 265 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Proposition 8, the successful measure to ban gay marriage, won more handily in Orange County than did John McCain. But the two have similar constituencies, as you can see from the current OC Political Pulse poll. In early returns, Republicans tend to oppose the legal challenge of the measure, while Democrats favor it. Conservative Christians are siding with Republicans, while progressive Chrisitians are going with Democrats.
Vote yourself and see where other demographic groups stand at ocregister.com/pulse
Click here for an item on prominent GOP gays coming out in support of the legal challenge of Prop. 8.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
No.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Regarding your today’s OC Register poll regarding California’s Proposition 8:
There is no religious freedom in America when any religious group can impose their dogma on any person that disagrees with that dogma. Separation of church and state, as Constitutionally mandated in America, is a myth.
It is important that all Americans realize that their country is NOT, and never was intended to be, a Christian nation . . . let alone a religious nation.
Whether the above conclusions are supported or not, to believe otherwise is un-American; and, those that are so uninformed, whatever else they may be, they are not American patriots.
The teaching of the Constitution and all its implied freedoms should be, and is not, one of the most important functions of all American public schools.
Religious zealotry by well intentioned persons, that are badly mislead by their anthropic religious leaders, who often speak directly with a god, is the greatest, unnatural threat to well being in the world today. Certainly, no religious organization should be intolerant and mean-spirited toward others that live by the Golden Rule.
Isn’t it amazing how many persons think that their religion is the only true religion; yet the origins of most every religion is from relatively modern ideas from persons that have lived for only a small proportion of anthropic existence.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Paul Fitz-Gibbon:
Every law (including Prop.
must have SECULAR reasons. No one is arguing that with you.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Prop 8
November 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
No one is outlawing civil unions. Gays can still live together with full marriage rights. But marriage is for the propitiation of children, not just for birth but also for upbringing. Every gay person, though homosexual, has heterosexual parents. Children need both a mom and a dad, not two moms or two dads. if any gay couple has a child, only one of the gay partners can be a biological parent, the other is a step parent at best. 30 states have already passed traditional marriage laws. That is not just religion, that is the basis for ideal child upbringing. Gays can have their civil unions, but leave marriage to the moms and dads.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Charles R:
That’s not the only reason (since widow and widowers have to raise children too). I want to repeal “domestic partnership” laws too.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Do civil unions give the same beneficiary rights that a spouse receives? like social security, IRA inheritance options? Do they have to pay taxes on their partner’s estate when one dies?
November 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Ideally, I agree. Thanks
November 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Being raised by a widow or widower is still more natural than to be raised by gays. Even as hard as death is to deal with, a child can deal with the death of a parent more naturally than to deal with having two dads or two moms. A child may wonder how to treat the bilogical parent over the gay partner, and also, who is the other bilogical parent? Why isn’t that person around? etc.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I agree.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
confused:
I believe on the State level, all rights and privileges of “marriage” are accorded to “domestice partnerships”.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
domestic
November 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It is interesting how the far left can pass law after law which increasingly limits our free speech, as the Democrats social engineer us to death in California. We do not go sue crazy and make up attacks about them as “intolerant, bigoted, hateful and discriminatory”. The radical left Democrats can attack organized religion time and again and no one in the media complains
Let the majority of Californians, for a second time, reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman, and the media and activists on far left goes crazy. Let’s be clear and accurate. Prop. 8 does not deal with bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. It correctly was passed, with over 500,000 more votes than the opposition, because most Californians are not delusional like the far left activists and media that live in the twight zone. Civilizations, learned the hard way over thousands of years, that raising a family through marriage as one man and one woman was less costly emothionally, mentally, physically and financially than the continuous problem of sexual deviancy. Duh!
November 11th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
no!
the people HAVE spoken!
thats democracy in action.
that is love of country.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
The California State Supreme Court is morally compromised and has ignored the will of the people. It probably will do so again and WHAT are we going to do about it? It is time to clean the house in Sacramento. VOTE THEM ALL OUT! TERM LIMITS!!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Black Independent:
No reasonable person supports violence on either side of this debate. Did you even vote for Prop. 8?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Did we really have to ask this question? About 52% will say no, and 48% will say yes. Yawn.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Some of the comments on this very page are the best argument for making a legal challenge to Prop 8. Voters blinded by bigotry should not be permitted to determine the civil rights of minorities.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Paul Fitz-Gibbon— Separation of Church and state is not in the constitution… here is the exact text of the first amendment …
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
if the founding fathers wanted the separation of church and state so badly; why did the hire a chaplain? as one of the first acts of congress.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
This is just another ploy for the homosexuals to get their gay agenda out. Gay will never been mainstream or accepted as a mainstream idea or lifestyle. We voted, you lost. If you want gay marriage, move to Conn or Mass. Here you get a civil union or nothing. Take it leave it. If you want to march, please head North out of California!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
To JakeD….you mentioned about separation of church and state, but if prop 8 passed then it would have affected our churches and there would not have been separation of church and state but rather the state telling the churches to conform to these beliefs and these beliefs would have affected our rights. For the ones who really read the prop, understood this. I am just trying to protect my rights as a parent on how I would like to raise my children.
To Black Independent…..there is no room for hate….shame on you
November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
NO!!!!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Paul Fitz-Gibbon — you said…”It is important that all Americans realize that their country is NOT, and never was intended to be, a Christian nation . . . let alone a religious nation.”
Load of crap– that needs to be flushed..
Let me show a little something from the Declaration on Independence
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Can you tell me what they possibly mean by “endowed by their Creator ” or who is ” their Creator”?
We are founded by Christian and on Christian principles— sorry to burst your bubble….
November 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
this is about equality… why not let gays be as miserable as most married people are?? all a child needs is love and who says a child cant grow up in a loving home with same sex parents?? its better than a home where daddy beats mommy and then the child grows up with that mentality….
equality for all is suppose to be constituational… marriage is something defined in a fictional book..
should we not let interracial marriages happen anymore?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
The people have already voted.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Black Independent: Did you say the same when blacks were marching for their civil freedoms? How soon you forget.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Why not they challenge Prop. 215 and SB 420 all the time. I thought the “People have spoken” on that issue as well? It is not that difficult to understand people, read the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment. It is pretty clear just like most other issues but the lawyers and politicians like to complicate and make it sound more difficult than it is.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Pat in OC, there is no “gay agenda”. Nobody is trying to make it mainstream, nobody is trying to convert your children to homosexuality, nobody is trying to force YOU to do anything. The people who voted against Prop 8 felt they were not getting equal rights under the law; the people who voted for it had various reasons. Some were legal reasons, some were semantic, and some were outright fear and bigotry of gays. As for your comment about marching, it is their right under the Bill of Rights to march ans assemble wherever they want. Everyone has that right.
Lots of bigots here in the OC, people calling for “elimination” of homosexuals and spewing hate speech against them. Jake D is right, no reasonable person would advocate violence against another person because they disagree on something.
The voting was done and it was passed. If enough people raise a legal challenge, it is their right under the law to do so. From a purely legal standpoint both situations are fine. Its not an issue of “do you support this” or not. The OC Register just put this poll up to watch people go at it. Its not reporting news, its trying to stir up stuff. Report the news, OC Register!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I AGREE WITH PAT. IF YOU ARE SO UPSET WITH THE OUT COME OF THE PROP, THEN MOVE OUT OF CALI AND GO TO A STATE THAT SUPPORTS FAGS. IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE THEN SHUT UP AND STAY IN SAN FRAN WHERE YOU ALL SHOULD BE. YOU FAGS CAN LIVE TOGETHER AND PASS YOUR DISEASES AROUND TO EACH OTHER.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Shane, turn off the caps lock. Also, its not just homosexuals that get sexual transmitted diseases. Everyone has that ability. But I won’t let facts get in the way of your blind bigotry.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The Gays marching are not considered “reasonable”, JakeD. Why would the fags rally around mainly white churches when whites accounted for 54% of their vote. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for only 30% to 35% of their vote. The Gays should be marching in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Why aren’t they doing so,…….fear???
Fear will come to them if the continue marching where they currently are demonstrating, I’ll bet!!!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Charles R Says: “But marriage is for the propitiation of children, not just for birth but also for upbringing.”
please provide one secular source that proves this. i am not interested in what bible passages you can misquote. if the bible is your only source well thats great and all but why don’t you keep your ancient beliefs to your church and not force them upon the state. if you say being gay is “NOT NATURAL!” then your logic still fails. it is natural. maybe not the norm, may be some abnormality, but it is still definitely a NATURAL abnormality.
according to merriam-webster marriage is:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union
i don’t see anything in there about children. i know plenty of people that are married that intend on NEVER having kids, so how does this apply to them?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Of course I favor the challenge. Prop. 8 should have never made it to the vote anyway. It is wrong and the challenge will win. It is not a gay issue, it is a matter of civil rights and creating a “separate but equal” situation.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Charles R, what if I want to get married to a person of the opposite sex, but one of us can’t have children? Or what if both of us don’t want children? Should we not be allowed to marry?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
The civil rights argument is ridiculous. The legitimization of a immoral and perverse act is not a civil right. Homosexual marriage failed, let’s move on.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am
GG, bravo. And I have no problem with heterosexuals owning the word “marriage” in a legal sense. If that’s the dictionary definition, then let it stand. However, all consenting adults should have the right to marry another consenting adult and keep the same exact legal rights - hetero or homosexual. If a “civil union” provides the same exact legal rights, then I don’t see what the big problem is. I think a lot of people have very passionate feelings about the word “marriage”. That’s fine; semantics are just that, its just a word. But when people start trying to deny tax-paying citizens rights based on personal intolerance, fear, hatred or bigotry, it flies completely in the face of everything this country was founded on.
Prop 8 passed in a democratically-voted process. And it was close. Those who are disappointed have every right to fight it, march against it, protest it, etc. I support any situation where the citizenry use their rights to challenge, protest, support, and vote for laws or propositions, even if I don’t agree with the outcome or the platform.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
SHANE Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I AGREE WITH PAT. IF YOU ARE SO UPSET WITH THE OUT COME OF THE PROP, THEN MOVE OUT OF CALI AND GO TO A STATE THAT SUPPORTS FAGS. IF YOU WANT TO STAY HERE THEN SHUT UP AND STAY IN SAN FRAN WHERE YOU ALL SHOULD BE. YOU FAGS CAN LIVE TOGETHER AND PASS YOUR DISEASES AROUND TO EACH OTHER.
obviously your opposite sex parents didnt teach you tolerance of others… and diseases come from whatever your sexual orentation is… its people with no brains that scare me…
November 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
pinky22:
Are laws against polygamy or incest “a matter of civil rights and creating ’separate but equal’ situation[s]” too?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Jake D, those are totally different issues. If someone wants to legally challenge either issue they can. But neither incest nor polygamy have anything to do with homosexual marriage, no more than they have to do with heterosexual marriage.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
No, I do not.
Regardless of your feelings on this issue, the bottom line is it was up for a vote, twice, and lost both times. If votes can be overturned because the losers are more vocal than the winners, there is no point in voting and we do not have a say in our government.
Squeaky wheel is not the way to run a country.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
People of California had been spoke, Stop wasting Taxpayer $$$$ for this since we are in the recession right now and California in Debt.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Solution: Call all weddings civil ceremonies. If the people in the church want to call it marriage, let them use that terminology.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Of course not.
Where were all the No on 8 people BEFORE the elections? Why were they noty rallying like they are now, or fighting the proposition before it was even put on the ballot?
Because they thought they would win. Now they didn’t they are putting up a stink. And they are entitled to.
This has nothing to do with rights (as under CA family code law 297.5 states that Civil unions (available to all) shall have the same rights, benefits, and protection as married spouses).
It has everything to do with acceptance. They want to have their lifestyle accepted. They are free to do what they like,of course. But there is a good chance it will be taught in schools (CA educational code says that marriage is to be taught in school along with sex ed - look it up) it makes it hard for parents. Teachers will have to teach both.
Look at the back-lash Yes on 8 has gone through? Imagine if they start to preach homosexuality is a sin. Is that preaching hate?
What we need to do is pass a prop that forces companies to recognize the rights already given to them by law.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
JakeD Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
pinky22:
Are laws against polygamy or incest “a matter of civil rights and creating ’separate but equal’ situation[s]” too?
Funny you bring up polygamy considering the major backers of “yes” on prop 8 were the Mormon church…
and incest is a total different issue…. you sir, FAIL.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I want to lobby to change the meaning of the word “diaper” because I want it to mean “bank.” And if you don’t like that, I will sue you and protest in the streets because I demand that we change the definition of the word.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I LOVE IT WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO PRAY TO THEIR GOD ON SUNDAY AND SAY TREAT EVERYONE EQUAL AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR THEN ARE THE BIGGEST HIPOCRATS OF ALL. IT IS TIME TO STOP THE HATED AND DISCRIMINATION THAT IS SPREAD THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY FOR DECADES.
IT IS FUNNY THAT THE CATHOLICS AND THE MORMONS SAY IT IS IN THE NAME OF GOD….. JESUS NEVER DISCRIMINATED…. AND YET MOST OF YOU CHURCH GOING PEOPLE WOULD NEVER EVEN SPEAK TO THE VERY PEOPLE JESUS DID. HOW VERY SAD!
November 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Interesting; the “reader comments” agreement says that this forum prohibits “homophobic” remarks. I wonder who is moderating this forum right now, because a lot of stuff is getting past him or her that I could clearly call “homophobic”, such as calling for the “elimination of homosexuals from our land”
November 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Santiago Sam, go read the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Anyone has the right to peacefully assemble wherever they want. They are marching in many places, not just in front of churches.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
pinky22:
Are you still around?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
V-Grove, couldn’t “Creator” mean a deity from other religions, not just Christianity? The Bill of Rights declares we have the right to freedom of religion. This means Christianity, but also Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or the right to abstain from any religious belief. Our country was founded on principles of freedom and liberty, not on “Christianity”. “Creator” does not equal “Christian God” necessarily.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Marriage is between a women and a man, period. The people of this state have now voted twice for the traditional marriage to stay in place. Now if all the gays and lesbians don’t like this there are other states that would be more then happy to take you on.
The fags didn’t mind the proposition being on the ballot, but they did get the outcome that they wanted to see. So now they are all looking like a bunch of idiots out they whinning and crying and taking the case to our courts again. The courts have more then enough to do without cases like these. We can only hope that the judges throw this out the door.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Why aren’t these Prop 8 proponents going after adultery and divorce? Children (presumably every adult was once a child) have been damaged far more by parents staying in unhappy marriages for the supposed “benefit of the children”, or by having their parents divorce more than anything else. Who has done untold damage to the fabric of marriage with a laughable 50% divorce rate? Heterosexuals, or homosexuals?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Here’s an interesting perspective. I don’t care who is wrong and who is right. All I know is it passed. All those challenging it, quit whining. You lost, better luck in 4 years. Seeing people cry, whine, and complain makes me GLAD it passed. Life isn’t perfect, you win some, you lose some. Move on.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
NO, the people have spoken. If a court overturns prop 8 that would violate the rights of 52% of the voters. Our vote would have no meaning, So much for democracy in America.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
NO
November 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
How is polgamy different?
It’s two consenting adults - It’s a lifestyle choice that was made illeagal.
On a separate note - Incest? There are health reasons for this but hey, I have these feelings towards my sister/brother - we are two consenting adults? What’s the harm?
Same thing.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
If we want to have marriage defined in our constitution, it’s our right to do so. Take a look at some of the other state constitutions. What does Utah’s say? Are gay marriages legal in Utah?
Then why should they be legal here?
We’ve voted on this twice.
How much more money do we have to waste on this subject?
Civil Unions already offer ALL of the same legal rights as a marriage.
Gay couples are not being denied anything the government has to offer.
Otherwise, why not sue for the right to mark “Female” on your driver’s license and other legal documents, even though you’re biologically male? You can’t say you’re ‘married’ if your partner is the same gender as you. Period.
If this is successfully challenged, the next step will be suing churches who refuse to marry gay couples.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I’m glad it passed. Especially now that the true colors of the No on 8 people have come out.
Stop whining.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
tbone:
If we can’t even make same-sex marriage ban stick, good luck banning adultery and no-fault divorce again.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Eric, you’d have protests and people whining and complaining if it didn’t pass. Its the nature of hot-button political topics.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
JakeD: “If we can’t even make same-sex marriage ban stick, good luck banning adultery and no-fault divorce again.”
Is this what happened in the states where gay marriage is legal?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Sammy Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Eric, you’d have protests and people whining and complaining if it didn’t pass. Its the nature of hot-button political topics.
**************
Not really. Did you see any mayhem when the 4 judges over-ruled the vote 6 months ago?
Like Carl said - the true colors have come oout and they are not pretty.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
David:
I agree with you. What is the difference between polgamy and homosexuals? Can someone explain that to me? Should we let them marry?
November 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
David, I wouldn’t call a protest “mayhem”. I saw lots of Yes on Prop 8 rallies before the vote. There was a big one just down the street from me. If there is a successful legal challenge to prop 8 in the future, I bet there will be more rallies and protests on that side. And that is their right! Its not “mayhem”, its using your constitutional rights!
November 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Re: the comment about “true colors” - you’re right, they’re NOT pretty. Calling people “fags”, telling them to get out of California, calling for their “elimination” - VERY UGLY!
November 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Homosexual marriage failed, just like marriage between old people and young children would fail. We will not legalise wife beating or rape or any other perverted sex acts.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The argument that religion can’t be a consideration in the creation of laws is