California gay marriage ban gaining steam

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Link

CBS 5 Poll: Young Voters Lead Prop 8 Support Shift
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5) ― A new CBS 5 poll finds that California's Proposition 8 has picked up support in the wake of a television ad campaign that features footage of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not."

The poll conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA indicates that support for the measure to ban gay marriage has grown among voters in the state over an eleven day period — most especially among young voters.

According to the poll, likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.

The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters — considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters — who now support the measure after previously opposing it.

It should be noted that the poll, conducted statewide Oct. 4 and 5 among 670 likely voters, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent, and the pollster continued to label the race too close to call — just as it did eleven days ago.

"Polling on ballot measures in general is an inexact science, and polling on homosexuality in general is a tricky business. So, not too much should be made of the 5 points that separates 'Yes' and 'No' today," concluded a summary of the results prepared by SurveyUSA.

Unchanged from the two recent polls: Those in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley continue to back Proposition 8, while those in the Bay Area remain opposed. Those in the greater Los Angeles area also remained largely split.

Not surprisingly, support for a gay marriage ban was strongest among those who considered themselves conservatives and identified themselves as regular churchgoers. Opposition was strongest amongst liberals and those who are less religious.

If you live in California or know anyone who lives in California, please spread the word to vote no on prop 8.

[tim31]

So how does this work for people that already have their marriage licences? Will they still be recognized as legally married, or does this have a grandfather clause attatched?

[Kodiak]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

[Kodiak]

So how does this work for people that already have their marriage licences? Will they still be recognized as legally married, or does this have a grandfather clause attatched?

I believe the marriages will be annulled.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

So how does this work for people that already have their marriage licences? Will they still be recognized as legally married, or does this have a grandfather clause attatched?

I believe the marriages will be annulled.

Wrong. Their marriages will remain legal. And fuck you for trying to take my rights away.

[Darth Wong]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

Is that primarily because you're an asshole and you hate gay people, or is it primarily because you're an imbecile and you buy into the boatload of laughably fallacious arguments in favour of banning gay marriage, such as "sanctity of marriage" or "marriage is for procreation" or "only ideal parents should marry" or "marriage is a Christian institution"?

[Kodiak]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

Is that primarily because you're an asshole and you hate gay people, or is it primarily because you're an imbecile and you buy into the boatload of laughably fallacious arguments in favour of banning gay marriage, such as "sanctity of marriage" or "marriage is for procreation" or "only ideal parents should marry" or "marriage is a Christian institution"?

Wow, so many reasons how can I choose?

In 2001 Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage in civil law as being between a man and a woman. Within their reach of power, the state supreme court overturned that ruling as "unconstitutional", and now those persons are back to vote the same measure into law via an amendment to the state constitution.

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is. I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

You're a discriminatory asshole.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is. I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

Yeah, there's no Asian or non-Western/Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic marriage out there, none.

[Kodiak]

So how does this work for people that already have their marriage licences? Will they still be recognized as legally married, or does this have a grandfather clause attatched?

I believe the marriages will be annulled.

Wrong. Their marriages will remain legal. And fuck you for trying to take my rights away.

My apologies, you are quite correct about the status of existing marriages. However, you're wrong in thinking that this proposition would take away any civil rights already guaranteed to same-sex couples in California.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm gonna break with my brother and have to vote 'no' on this one, but not for the reasons most folks are doing it. I don't like the government trying to define what is and isn't a marriage, because it lets them think they can define what else is and isn't appropriate for a family. That's not so much government's job.

[Kuja]

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is. I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

I challenge you to morally back up this assertion without resorting to "it's traditional" because I believe you can't do it.

[Kodiak]

Yeah, there's no Asian or non-Western/Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic marriage out there, none.

Forgive me for not listing every single culture that recognizes an institution of marriage

[rhoenix]

This is really lame.

I saw a commercial in favor of Prop. 8 as I was walking past the TV getting ready for work this morning, and the ad makes Gavin Newsome look like he's being a smug bastard, having him say "Whether you're ready or not, whether you like it or not, it's here!" repeatedly, like this is...bad.

I mean no offense to you Kodiak or anyone else when I say this, but I haven't seen one person in favor of Prop. 8 be able to argue logically for it without that logic being influenced (and usually inspired by) by their religious beliefs. In fact, all the arguments I've heard against it are exactly the same as the arguments used against inter-racial marriage.

[Kodiak]

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is. I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

I challenge you to morally back up this assertion without resorting to "it's traditional" because I believe you can't do it.

In my assertion above I meant that prop 8 does not diminish any of the legal rights currently enjoyed by same-sex couples in CA (i.e. hospital visitation, inheritance laws, employee benefits, etc). I'm not sure how to back that up "morally" since it's a fact of the existing laws.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wrong. Their marriages will remain legal. And fuck you for trying to take my rights away.

My apologies, you are quite correct about the status of existing marriages. However, you're wrong in thinking that this proposition would take away any civil rights already guaranteed to same-sex couples in California.

No, its just designed to remind them they're unequal lesser citizens in the eyes of the state.

I'm gonna break with my brother and have to vote 'no' on this one, but not for the reasons most folks are doing it. I don't like the government trying to define what is and isn't a marriage, because it lets them think they can define what else is and isn't appropriate for a family. That's not so much government's job.

While better functionally from your brother's wishy-washy bigotry, what exactly do you think the mandate of social services and divorce courts are?

Yeah, there's no Asian or non-Western/Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic marriage out there, none.

Forgive me for not listing every single culture that recognizes an institution of marriage

The point is you tried to use historical precedent in a specific case to constrain the definition, although a laundry list of societies permit many definitions of marriage unorthodox to our culture and probably repulsive to you, and certainly outside your preference for a "pro-family" definition (which is the only possible rational reason to limit the matrimony to pairs of men and women).

[Kuja]

In my assertion above I meant that prop 8 does not diminish any of the legal rights currently enjoyed by same-sex couples in CA (i.e. hospital visitation, inheritance laws, employee benefits, etc). I'm not sure how to back that up "morally" since it's a fact of the existing laws.

In other words, you're saying that you can't think up a reason to support your position outside of "gay marriage was banned before and it should stay that way."

I do believe I called it.

[Kodiak]

In my assertion above I meant that prop 8 does not diminish any of the legal rights currently enjoyed by same-sex couples in CA (i.e. hospital visitation, inheritance laws, employee benefits, etc). I'm not sure how to back that up "morally" since it's a fact of the existing laws.

In other words, you're saying that you can't think up a reason to support your position outside of "gay marriage was banned before and it should stay that way."

I do believe I called it.

Are you asking me to defend proposition 8 from a moral standpoint?

[CaptainChewbacca]

While better functionally from your brother's wishy-washy bigotry, what exactly do you think the mandate of social services and divorce courts are?

Those are means by which the government protects families and family members from one-another. They don't (generally) get into the details of what does and doesn't define 'propper' relationships, and usually they evaluate familial relationships on a case-by-case basis. In my point of view, a rigid defining of marriage marks a shift in family law, and not one for the better.

Hope that makes sense.

[Erik von Nein]

In 2001 Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage in civil law as being between a man and a woman. Within their reach of power, the state supreme court overturned that ruling as "unconstitutional", and now those persons are back to vote the same measure into law via an amendment to the state constitution.

The Hell do you think that meant, other than to keep gays from marrying? Do you have anything of a counter-argument for the California Supreme Court's decision?

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is.

What a croak of shit. In all cases where this whole "defining marriage via constitutional amendments" it was always about denying gays the ability to get married. Especially now that gays are able to marry in California this amendment to the stat constitution WOULD remove their ability (thus right) to get married. Oops. Guess that goes against your statement of "I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples."

I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

Because you're a traditionalist moron. Especially since you just stated that all marriage, regardless of what religion (or lack thereof) should be defined by your particular brand of religion's definition, which is retarded. What was that about establishing religions?

[Kuja]

In my assertion above I meant that prop 8 does not diminish any of the legal rights currently enjoyed by same-sex couples in CA (i.e. hospital visitation, inheritance laws, employee benefits, etc). I'm not sure how to back that up "morally" since it's a fact of the existing laws.

In other words, you're saying that you can't think up a reason to support your position outside of "gay marriage was banned before and it should stay that way."

I do believe I called it.

Are you asking me to defend proposition 8 from a moral standpoint?

Isn't that exactly what I fucking said? Are you brain-impaired or something?

[Ekiqa]

If it passes could the Supreme Court veto it?

[CaptainChewbacca]

If it passes could the Supreme Court veto it?

Probably, but it'd take a while and be a massive political shitstorm.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

Is that primarily because you're an asshole and you hate gay people, or is it primarily because you're an imbecile and you buy into the boatload of laughably fallacious arguments in favour of banning gay marriage, such as "sanctity of marriage" or "marriage is for procreation" or "only ideal parents should marry" or "marriage is a Christian institution"?

Wow, so many reasons how can I choose?

In 2001 Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage in civil law as being between a man and a woman. Within their reach of power, the state supreme court overturned that ruling as "unconstitutional", and now those persons are back to vote the same measure into law via an amendment to the state constitution.

I don't hate gays at all. I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is. I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion. Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era. I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

It's called progress. Perhaps you should be supporting progress, if only so that you'll sound consistent. If prop 8 is successful then you've just returned gays to being unequal members of society in CA. So, do you really think they should be treated as equals or is a definition of a word too important for you?

[TithonusSyndrome]

I saw a commercial in favor of Prop. 8 as I was walking past the TV getting ready for work this morning, and the ad makes Gavin Newsome look like he's being a smug bastard, having him say "Whether you're ready or not, whether you like it or not, it's here!" repeatedly, like this is...bad.

Of course it's bad. Impoliteness is every bit as bad and probably worse than shitty logic, flawed argumentation or bullshit premises, and should be punished at a level of priority above fallacious or deceptive reasoning. Just ask any Mindless Middle shit-for-brains white picket moron whose very existence argues for anal sex being capable of producing children.