Are you happy the people of California banned gay marriage ?

Question

I am, people go through different phases in life. Just because a few people act childish and go through a sick phase doesn't mean we should change what marriage is and always has been. Marriage is and should always be between 2 adults a man amd a women that love each other and want to be together for the rest of there lives.

Answer 1

CA did not get the president right but we got this issue right.



This is about protecting children not marriage.

Answer 2

I don't think homosexuality is a "phase". I do think gay couples are entitled to the rights of married heterosexual couples as far as taxes, wills, inheritance, property settlements, and, yes, even dissolution of a union. I don't think it should be labeled a "marriage" but that is simply because of the sensitivity involved...why look for trouble when a more peaceful route achieves the same goal?

Am I happy the people of California banned gay "marriage"? No. Not unhappy, either. I don't care. I don't live in California.

It's a state by state decision. That was the decision in California. Not my state; not my business.

Answer 3

"people go through different phases in life"... does that mean you had a gay experience and now you're so ashamed you don't want gays to have the same rights as straight people do?



This is the second time you've posted this question... that i've seen at least. To me that suggests that you are a little hung up on this subject. I think you might be a closet case.



And I would support your right to marry if that is the case. There was a point in this country's history that blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Google Love v. Virginia. I dare you.

Answer 4

I'm not happy about it, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Marriage will always be seen as a man and woman, because people can't get that out of their mind.

All gay people want are the same rights that straight married couples have. I really don't think gay people care if they have the marriage title. You can call it whatever you want, but as long as a partner can visit another partner in the hospital, have the same medical benefits, etc.. I think it will make all gay couples happy.

I think the use of the word "Marriage" has caused more problems than good because it's clouding the real purpose. It's about equal rights and access to the same benefits straight married couples have, and that's it. It's not really complicated.

Answer 5

To all you people who think it was bigots who supported this proposition:



Would you support a man getting "married" to his brother?

Would you support a man getting "married" to his cousin?

Would you support three men and two women all getting "married" together?

Would you support a man or woman getting married to his/her dog?



If you answered no to any of these then you are a hypocrite.



Marriage is between a man and a woman by definition. If you allow other marriages you are changing the meaning of the word. It has nothing to do with being a bigot. Shall we change the meaning of other words as well.



Maybe a man wants to be biologically a man but be legally called a woman so he can go into the women's bathroom. Shall we allow that? Let us keep some integrity with our language here.



Restricting the term "marriage" to one man and one woman doesn't take any "rights" away from anyone. Gay people can get the benefits of "marriage" without being married.

Answer 6

Marriage is passion, caring, and love between two people. Who cares if it's between the same sex??? What, is it the love between each other going to differ because both are those people are men or women? No, I don't think so. I'm not happy by it, but I don't live there, so...What do people have against gays??? It's fine they like the same sex in my opinion!!! Would you be happier if one of them got a sex change!? It wouldn't make a f*cken difference!!! GO GAYS!

Answer 7

I am happy that it was banned because I happen to believe marriage is something sacred for only a man and woman. However, what exactly do you mean by "sick phase" and "a few people act childish". Are you implying that people who are gay are just going through a sick childish phase? That's kind of confusing to me. Please advise.

Answer 8

I am happy that the Gay community finally found out who they are REALLY in bed with politically...



I feel bad for them. For all of the support they have given the Democrat party; they have been "sold out"



This is more proof that we need a third major political party in America.



Libertarians have no problem with Gay Marriage. We feel that this issue and many others are none of the governments business. I would be more than happy to have the Gay and Lesbian Community join with us in standing up for personal liberty and limiting the reach of government!

Answer 9

It is absurd to characterize homosexuality as a phase and a sickness. It is just plain incorrect. It has been characterized scientifically and logically in the same way that race and gender were once constructed to undermine civil and human rights.



If we wanted to keep marriage as the institution that it "has always been" then it would still essentially be enslavement of women for biological purposes.



You would know this if you read a book once in a while. Read the Bible and about these traditional institutions. Become educated.

Answer 10

No, I am not happy that California has joined many other states in denying gay citizens fundamental rights.



Marriage is a civil institution which allows spouses many rights that are not available to couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions. All people deserve to have the same government-protected rights whether they are in a life-long committed relationship with a man or a woman. Also, civil unions or domestic partnerships are not sufficient to ensure that people of all sexual orientations are guaranteed the same civil rights. The Supreme Court wisely decided that separate is inherently unequal, thus civil unions/domestic partnerships cannot be equal. The fact that they are separated is a badge of inferiority. Many religions recognize marriage as a religious institution in addition to a civil one. However, churches may choose which couples to marry. Also, straight couples are able to marry in a civil ceremony even if they are not religious. This is because the United States does not have a national religion; there is a separation of church and state.



Furthermore, allowing gay marriage protects families. It ensures that partners, who in some cases have lived commited to one another for decades, can visit one another in the hospital, make critical medical decisons, secure healthcare benefits and adoptions by gay couples would allow the children the same security as those children placed in the homes of straight couples.



Lastly, labeling one's sexual orientation as a "sick phase" is demeaning and inaccurate. There is a lot of evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined (including wild animals who live their entire lives in committed, same-sex relationships). Many people who are gay struggle with hating themselves for who they are. People have been subjected to insults, threats, even physical violence and murder just for being gay. Why would anyone "choose" that? Sexual orientation is as unchanging as eye color, race, or gender. It's time to stop the discrimination.

Answer 11

i'm no longer effective about those information; information are too surely manipulated. truth is, in spite of the truth that, the electorate spoke. in my view, i develop into satisfied to work out the judges did not wreck out with attempting to take the alternative out of the palms of the electorate. and that i do help similar-sex marriages; I do exactly not help judges overstepping limitations, and finally, I help votes by making use of the people, even even as i do not consider maximum people turnout. EDIT depending on: "The gay community did not make it a civil rights problem in those communities - in the adventure that they'd, there may were diverse effects." No, i do no longer imagine so. i imagine the precedence is one of those large form of interior the gay community has set their chops on having the note "marriage." lots of those who help similar-sex unions with finished partnership rights as a wedding ceremony do no longer help replacing the definition of marriage. they're no longer only battling for rights; they're battling over a note. in the adventure that they were only battling for rights, they'd be prevailing. yet society-- even some secular society-- isn't waiting to modify the classic marriage definition from male-lady unions. battling for this note is the precise problem that led to one of those large form of to restrict jointly to objective to make state constitutional amendments adverse to it. battling for the note marriage is, in the meanwhile, placing issues decrease back for similar-sex couples. in the adventure that they carry out, they are going to in all likelihood win finally, even if it really is going to take lots longer. truly, the gay community needs all or no longer some thing; the vast majority of electorate want to maintain the note marriage, so the gay community is getting no longer some thing. the right to a freelance, to a union, and to all criminal chance-free practices, those are civil rights that would nicely be fought for and gained. Calling it a wedding ceremony between your self and your friends, no you may take that remote from you. even if the note marriage, how issues are defined lower than regulation, isn't a civil top, that's a voter determination. Oh, no longer to point, i ask your self what number different supporters of similar-sex marriage (like myself) quite have concept about the ramifications in tries to objective to comprehend the different side's perspective? seems there is only a large form of brand-calling and finger pointing, finished intolerance for the different point of view from an similar those who pontificate about the want for more effective tolerance.

Answer 12

I just think we shouldn't take that away from these people. Back then, whites and blacks couldn't get married in certain states because it was just not recognized. And today, I don't think it's a big difference. I really don't have strong opinion on this, but those are my thoughts. Let the two guys or two women get married, it's not hurting me or you.

Answer 13

How many of those people who voted against and the people here who are against it have ever:



Lived with bf/gf before marriage

had sex before marriage

had a child out of wedlock

lusted after another person

cursed your mother or father

took something that did not belong to you

lied

worked on a Sunday

Used the Lords name in vain...



These are all sins in the eyes of GOD. How many of you will be condemned for your sins?



Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.



Who are we to pass judgement on someone else?

Answer 14

No, absolutely NOT. Back in the days of our founding fathers, marriage wasn't an issue, it was a religious institution, and that's why it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Since then, the government has taken matrimony and made it a government issue. Since that has happened, marriage now needs to be looked at not as a religious institution, but as a political issue, where the church needs to be separated from the state. There are absolutely no reasons besides religious ones against gay marriage.

Answer 15

so you're asking this question just to know how many people support it as you do and answer with "yea i hate thos f8gs"



i'm not happy but i'm not angry either. as i live in texas and i'm straight and christian also. i don't believe it's natural or good either -gay marriage i mean. but i don't believe it's up to the power of other people to say so either. ultimately, it's God's choice on judgment day. not the people of california.

Answer 16

Marriage has become so devalued since the relaxation of divorce laws, as well as the birthrate outside of marriage, that it no longer means the commitment it did even 75 years ago.

I am happy that California decided not to give more work to divorce lawyers.



Edit: No ones rights have been denied or altered with this vote.

Also, to those who claim "civil rights" you seem to forget that the religious have civil rights also; by the First Amendment, religious persecution is unconstitutional, and isn't a relentless assault on the institution of marriage tantamount to religious persecution?

Answer 17

It was dumb. The conservatives are worried about the children so they acted to destabilize relationships in the gay community. Duh!



BTW: Scroll down to Steven's answer (#50) for a very good response.

Answer 18

No. I think it's sad that so many voters decided that they could impose their morality on other people.



If two consenting adults want to commit to each other, that's not my business, or yours, or the government's. And it doesn't affect my heterosexual marriage one bit.



This isn't a theocracy. If your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong, it's irrelevant when it comes to passing laws.



If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage, then love your spouse with all your heart, be faithful, be a good partner. Set an example, rather than tell other people what they can't do.



Fortunately, the law should die as soon as it meets a court challenge. It's a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment.

Answer 19

No. Are you happy to be a narrow-minded bigot?



Of course, you are! Some other issues I bet you wish you could bring back, that were previously in state constitutions but overtuirned by the supreme courts or Congress:



1. slavery

2. Interacial marriage

3. segregation

4. the right of Armenians to own land



As a bonus, the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans.



The list can go on and on.



ADDENDUM



"Marriage is between a man and a woman by definition."



So, then you support



- a man marrying his mother

- a man marrying his daughter

- a man marrying his sister



My, you are more liberal than I'd given you credit!

Answer 20

No ,I am not happy.I have an Aunt who is gay and has been with the same woman for 34 years, now is that love or what?

Answer 21

Homosexuality is not a "sickness." And newsflash! Marriage is not always between people who love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lives. The vows you take may be sacred, but the legal contract is not.

Answer 22

I am not happy about the vote to ban gay marriage. Gay people have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us . . . .



JUST KIDDING! I do believe the ban will be overturned by the Supreme Court, and rightfully so.

Answer 23

What makes me mad is that these people are singling out the mormons to hate when in reality they were one of many including catholics, jews, and evangelicals that all equally supported the ban. It was basically just used as an excuse to further persecute the mormons. It also amazes me that these people can't see the hypocrisy and irony in spray-painting "bigots" on church property. Vandalism is such a brilliant way to spread tolerance... idiots.

Answer 24

I live here in the belly of the beast (SF Bay Area) I voted for Prop 8, marriage is a UNION between a man and a woman. UNION is the key word here, only a man and a woman can have a UNION.

This is not discrimination either since its a lifestyle choice, and just because they chose a deviant lifestyle doesn't mean I or anyone else has to promote it.

Answer 25

The "people of California" did not vote YES. Black churches and other anti-gay groups organized efectively and hit the voting booths hard. And so the "people" have spoken. It's not a big loss, compared to other, more drastic and pressing matters. And gays will fight it constantly in the courts.



Are you claiming that being gay and wanting communal rights is "a sick phase" . . .?

Answer 26

YES ON 8! I am sick of the protests. 5.4 million people voted against gay marriage.

Answer 27

Funny that the Mormon church in Utah provided $22 million in funding (about 95%) for the proposition and yet who are they to be telling people about marriage being between a man and woman?



Especially considering that they turn a blind eye to the polygamists that are a part of their church and live openly in their state.

Answer 28

I was waiting for some dumb-*** lib to haul the word "homophobia" out of storage again. I was beginning to think that "racist" was the only label they had left.

Marriage has it's roots in religion, and just as I don't want anyone preaching at me, I'm not for stepping on their traditions either. Call it a civil union, give them the same rights, and I'm all for it.

Answer 29

Very much yes! I voted for Yes on 8, and it won!!!!!

Answer 30

I'm not sure, I feel bad for the people that wanted to get married.

Answer 31

I'm not happy about it, but being straight, I'm not really saddened either. I just can't understand why any straight person would even care what gays do with their lives, unless they are extremely insecure.

Answer 32

i wonder who is going to do the hair and makeup of the rich and Famous now that they are leaving, or is that a sexist thing to say?

Answer 33

Right on.



Last night I saw 2 men kissing (lips) on Fox News.



Good thing I had already let my dinner settle.



What a disgusting sight it is and always will be.



All those guys can "hang" around as long as they stay away from me and our kids.

Answer 34

The irony is hysterical



Obama, but not gay marriage.

Answer 35

I completely agree. Marriage is a sacred tradition that shouldnt be corrupted by those disgusting people.



I really dont see what the gays are complaining about. They have things really nice here in America. You could live in a country like Nazi Germany for instance. Read what happened to gays there.

Answer 36

The majority once said that marriage should be between two people of the same race. The supreme court decided otherwise. A tradition of discrimination is still discrimination.

Answer 37

I'm a straight guy living in Michigan. So no, I'm not particularly happy about it. My happiness doesn't hinge on the inability of others to get married.

Answer 38

Yes - and really surprised! I thought California was Sodom and Gomorrah.

Answer 39

So you think a lesbian woman should marry a straight man? I'm sure he'd feel like a complete failure in three minutes.

Answer 40

That's your opinion and your welcome to it, but I don't believe that people like you have the right to deny others' civil rights.



We should have a vote to try and ban people from legislating their religious beliefs.

Answer 41

YESSSS



i don't care if gay people are the way they are but i believe marriage was found on the basis between a man and a woman and should not be infringed on.

Answer 42

I am happy, even though I am gay.



They will recognize same sex marriage eventually, but in the mean time I wish the liberals to think about what happened and to come to certain conclusions. Liberty and socialism do not mix.

Answer 43

christians of all stripes instigated the ban and campaigned for it



christians are haters and bigots... thats all there is to it

Answer 44

Yes, we passed a similar law here in Florida!

Answer 45

I'm happy when we ban it every time it comes up for a vote.

Answer 46

It doesn't really affect me but I am pleased to see that some tradition will still be held sacred in this country.

Answer 47

Happy and grateful to God. You are right on, my friend.......keep up the good word going out.

Answer 48

Yes very happy

Answer 49

Yes I am.

Answer 50

Sure, I'm against it...

It doesn't effect me though, I live in NY.

Answer 51

That's your opinion. Go thump your bible now.

Answer 52

I agree.

Answer 53

NO. What a bunch of bigots. Why does anyone care if two people in love get married?

keep your religious views out of others lives.

Tom Baily:

What do children have to do with it? Should we ban divorce, also?