Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
The Creepy, Yet Beautiful Street Art of Dan Witz Now in L.A.
Does Traffic Get Worse After the End of Daylight Saving Time?
Silver Lake Art Crawl: Also a Food Truck Crawl?
Thomas Keller Comes Home: Book Signings and a Recipe(!)
Photo by Tom Andrews/LAist (see more photos here)
It's been more than 10 days since California Attorney General Jerry Brown ruled on the official ballot language for Proposition 8. It simply states that, if a majority of voters say yes, it "Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Of course, Prop 8 proponents are not happy. In an e-mail to voters today, they said "he believes [the language change] will bias voters to voting No." And despite their disagreement, the legal ballot language for the ballot is final. Their website states that the "the entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.'
But Brown's statement is different from the Yes on Prop 8 website, which begs us to ask if there is something fishy here. The answer is no, but it is confusing. The ballot language that describes the ballot (and what voters will see when they go to vote) and what the actual text of the proposition (which will change in the amendment if voters pass the prop) are different. The Yes on Prop 8 website correctly tells voters what the amendment change is, but does not mention the ballot language they will see.
For the Record: The original story posted posed some facts that were confusing which in turn were presented incorrectly. In conversation with election experts, we've updated this to reflect a better presentation of the issue. ~ZB
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I don't understand why Prop proponents would have an interest in keeping the proposition language that way.
Is the emphasis on "eliminate right of same sex-couples" - so that voters may not be confused about what the proposition does? But aren't there more Californians who feel uncomfortable about gay marriage than those who support it?
Is the emphasis on "changes the California constitution", because Californians would hesitate about such a big change?
I don't quite get it.
I'm more confused now. This article did nothing to clarify the issue.
But to the other poster: No, actually a majority of Californians support same-sex marriage, realizing there is nothing wrong with two people who love each other having a legal, binding marriage free of hate and discrimination.
Funny, more of my gay friends have been together longer than many of my straight friends.
As a California voter, the wording change is significant to me. The entire human race is built on the foundation of man and woman marriages. We would cease to exist if the entire world married the same gender. Multiple studies have been performed that find children are better off when raised in a home with a mom and a dad. (Those weren't only comparing against same gender marriages, but also divorced homes.)
I will agree with you that many gay couples stay together longer than many straight couples. But the opposite can be said, too. While it's hard to believe, this isn't an anti-gay proposition. (Jerry Brown decided to try and make it seem that way with his wording change, which is stupid.) This is a ruling to protect the fundamental base of our society which has a proven track record of thousands of years. I am totally fine if people are in love with the same gender, they are free to do as they please. But marriage is something fundamentally important to our entire society.
Imagine in elementary school when a teacher can no longer say, "Mother and Father." Imagine all the children's books that would become politically incorrect. Imagine....the list goes on and on. Think about all the things in your life that directly reference a mother and a father...they would have to change to be "tolerant," whatever the hell that word means anymore.
First of all in my world not 100% of the people are gay so the world is safe!!
And you are wrong about the studies about children being raised. They find that children raised in same sex families are just as well adjusted as those from stright families!!
How can you say this is not an anti-gay propersition! When the whole purpose is to prevent gays from being able to be married!!
And there has been many times in history where there was same sex familes and at that time they were accepted as normal!
My big question I do not seem to ever receive an answer on is how two gay people in a commited relationship can harm hetrosexual marriages??
And why can the books not say "Mother and Father.", just some books will reflect same sex parents! Or are you saying it is only valid to refer to opposite sex parents!!
The word "tolerant," is not about marriage it is about treating everyone equally!! We only want to be treated fairly and not differently!!
I am not sure as to why 61% of the population in California voted YES on Prop 22 and there is a mystery surrounding why Prop 8 is being fought for. The majority of California residents officially recognize marriage between a man and a woman.
It is not intolerance nor bigotry not even a phobia, it is simply that marriage no matter where you perform it is NOT secular; it is a religious institution, even if it is performed in a court it is done by a Justice of the PEACE. It is Biblical it was defined by God and therefore it is not for anyone, straight, gay, a court or otherwise, to say it is something else.
The fact that it was even brought into the courts is simply ridiculous. Civil union is very much legal and carries similar bounds, and I understand it is because of this we ended up in court over Prop 22. I also understand that is how it was overturned 4-3. No one, especially me, would say concessions shouldn’t be made for same sex relationships. I don’t espouse to the numbers that say it is better for raising children this way or that, I know of same sex families and there is love and support and well rounded views that are instilled. These families love their children and their partners, but it is my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, that it is my right to teach my children what family is not what a legal system that is corrupt for the most part is trying to make correct.
Personally, I could care less how it looks, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; I don't feel that in anyway should this be changed. The State of California should not in the business of making others feel good about their life choice. California does not make ANY concessions regarding common law marriage between a man and a woman, we don't teach it schools and I see no reason for there to be concessions for any other union that is outside the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
If anyone is looking for acceptance, try it at home, where is the acceptance for those who have made a choice to marry as a man and a woman and stand up for that choice? Where is the tolerance for those who have religious beliefs? It is not a bad thing it is simply something that people are willing to peaceably fight for. Where is the acceptance for independent thought? I see none, I see bigotry and hatred towards those that don't follow what is the supposed "main stream" ideology and the fight for that ideology will NEVER become a hate crime and no one will go to court mandated sensitivity classes because they spew intolerance and hate towards me and what I stand for, but I can guarantee that if this passes I will be the first to be in those classes because what I believe has just become illegal to believe and teach.
First - it was not 61% of the population that voted for prop 22 but 61% of those that voted.
A check of the records indicate that only 35% of eligible voters voted in that election!!
And the most recent polls indicate that 54% of the people oppose prop 8!!
And you are wrong the marriage accepted by our government for the purpose of all the laws is secular. Religious marriage is only an extention of secular marriage that religious groups want.
There is nothing or will be nothing that makes it unlawful for you to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is your right, but you do not have the right to say what is right for me and my partner!!!
Again all we want is to be treated fairly and not be treated differently because of who we love!!!
Apparently, you are not watching the news or paying attention to the state of Massachusetts, where parents of a child were sent to sensitivity classes. So, if you think that there are no consequences for those of us who believe in traditional marriage and teach our children this, you are sorely mistaken.
As I have stated, marriage is NOT secular, there is nothing secular about it, it was adopted by law makers in recent times, but historically the union between man and a woman was and is of a divine nature, not of a worldly one and there are enough historical data to prove it.
No one is saying you are not able to be with whomever you love, but to say that I have to change my views that I firmly believe is not fair either.
Again, I must ask where is the tolerance? I am expected to understand and be tolerant of views that differ from mine, but there is NEVER reciprocation.
I have read all the above messages and would like to respond to them all.
There are two worlds that exist simultaneously: the secular world and the religious world. Some of us only see the world from one point of view (secular or religious) and some are able to see the world from both points of view. Not everyone by the way is a Christian and not everyone was raised on the Bible and, the Bible is only ONE of several religious resources out there.
Okay...with that said, here are my responses!
1) Civil marriage is not considered a religious marriage. One does not need the permission of any church or religious leader in order to obtain a marriage license and be wed in a court.
2) Marriage is not only for those who 'choose' to procreate. There are many heterosexual couples, like my oldest sister, who marry without any intention of having children. Gay and Lesbian couples who marry also have families or some don't.
3) The majority of the justices on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Governors. None are what I would consider to be 'leftist' or 'radical'. Here is there rational for voting in favor of the plaintiffs for same sex marriage. They based their decision on another California Supreme Court Decision of 1947 which made inter-racial marriage legal in this state. Prior to this time, inter-racial marriage was illegal. People back then used their own interpretation of religious dogma to justify why a black person could not marry a white person. The justices also saw that 'domestic partnership' was also different than marrage, and agreed that it is discrimination when only one class of people are allowed this civil entitlement.
4) California has two laws which prohibit the discrimination of gay and lesbian youth in our schools; AB 537 and SB 777.
California does not have a law or education code which mandates that LGBT issues or even gay marriage will be taught in the schools.
In regards to fears that the heterosexual point of view will be eliminated in our schools that is not true. I work for the largest and most progressive school district in California. We will continue to be inclusive of everyone. We will not all of a sudden eliminate words like 'father' or 'mother' from our materials or resources.
The last thing I would like to say is this: When you are born into a privileged class (white and heterosexual)it is very easy to not understand why other minorities want their rights. Women, you had to fight for your rights to vote, own property, access education, and play sports. African-Americans, you endured the worst; slavery, Jim Crow laws, restrictions on voting, housing, education, employment and your right to legally wed another black person. There was a time when that was illegal. Other minority groups, myself included, have also been marginalized. I remember my white friends telling me when I was young, "If God had intended for the races to mix he would have made us all the same color." For a time, I actually believed this.
Gay and Lesbian people are no different than ALL others. We want, and are entitled to our rights for EVERYTHING as all others. Not only is that just, it is the American way.
Consider this: If we left EVERYTHING up to a popular vote we would still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, and most minority groups would not have the same access to equal housing, employment and education.
This is why I will be voting NO on Proposition 8.
Stephen Jimenez, Educator
first off in response to the last blog posted if you were to have had put the fact if slavery should be legal or illegal to a popular vote then slavery would have had been abolished sooner during the slave days the number of slaves out numbered the amount of white people not to only mention there were millions of people who werent slaves in america that were against slavery so you would have to consider their votes too second off events and things that are occuring now with gays and their right to marry doesnt even come close to the things that blacks had to go through or even women so how could you compare things that have nothing in common...also i would like someone to tell me why gays say that prop 8 violates their constitutional rights if no where in the constitution does is mention gay rights or even gay people in it...gay people knew the consequences in california and knew there rights before even deciding to to voice their opinion in california why live somewhere for so long when your not pleased with the rights your ancestors had to live with in california...something like this which is such a contraversal issue can bring chaos to all of california not knowing of how people and how homophobes will act if gay marriage were to be legal which can actually lead to riots and mulitiple deaths in california...notice how most homosexual people are athiest...well...my question is why are people ok with allowing to have gay marriage talked or even teached in school to children that dont even belong to them when people arent even ok with religion being taught or even talked about in school to children...think gay people want their rights well isnt it hypacritical if people wouldnt even want another group of people to have their right to be heard due to their beliefs and train of thought...?IF they want their rights then why dont they stay out of the idea of other people gaining their rights becuase and this is facts that a big majority of people who are against religion being taught in school or even talked about are gay...(look at the new "NO" on prop 8 commercial)...prop 8 wants to eliminate educational rights by making sure gay marriage cannot be taught or talked about in school by the teachers...its not just so that if it is passed then gay marriage will be illegal in the state of california to be exact...as much as people would like to say that it has nothin to do with school sorry but your wrong because a teacher is not obligated to teach gay marriage in their curriculum if prop 8 is not passed but that doesnt mean that they cant teach it or talk about it if they want...there are over a hundred gay teahcers in california with class averages of about 25 to 30 kids so what if a teacher would like to talk about gay marriage(and if the teacher is gay then it is more than likley that the teacher will talk about gay marriage in a positive way) which can conflict with the train of thoughts of children of any ages thus conflicting with their mentality and with their judgement,which should not be legal...ok gay marriage is a choice thats cool got nothing against it but interfering with the way someone thinks especially a kid is not right...marriage is talked about in not only highschool but is discussed in some elementary schools around the U.S....now when a kid is young the brain happens to soak things up very easily such as words,statements,ideas,suggestions actually anything...now if a teacher is talking to a kid or even worse a class about gay marriage isnt it more than likely that the kids will quickly take that thought into consideration or maybe even suggest it seeing that a kid doesn't no better(doesnt that sound more like a revolution trying to be started than just people fighting to get rights they never had)we need change but drastic change is not necessary i say let people marry who they want their choice but giving people the right to teach about gay marriage in school should be illegal giving teahcers the power to possibly influence a kid or kids with something that is so controversal in america is wrong...