Was legal gay marriage in California well known just because it was taken away, or was there something more?

Not sure that it is any different in California than anywhere else. I suspect you just didn’t hear the hype regarding Mane. I have been hearing about it on the news so it was no surprise to me.

It’s probably just a matter of population and popularity. California has a much larger portion of Gay couples than most other states and the state itself is more popular/newsworthy than most other states.

States that allow same sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont (as of 9/1/09), Washington DC, no decision yet

California is generally known as a liberal state- Prop 8 was kind of shocking and therefore made news, especially because it took away rights.

And someone please correct me if I’m wrong… in Maine and some other of the recent states to take steps towards equality, it was the state government’s doing. In CA, it was the people deciding by a vote. Is that right?

So far, a little over half of the voters of California (which is by no means a majority of the people) has taken away the right to same sex marriage. If all the people voted, the result would be completely different.

Like a few other people said California has a large LGBT population, they were the first to legalize it – making them pretty well known, but then they were also the first to reverse the law, making it illegal for a second time.

Newly elected San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom made the bold assertion that same sex couples should be allowed to marry, and instructed the City and County offices to make it so.
The State stepped in, and stopped it, pending a California Supreme Court ruling. The Court ruled that stopping same sex marriages denied civil rights to gays and lesbians. Gay marriage then became legal.
The Mormon church poured money into a campaign to overturn this decision with Prop 8. Prop 8 passed, outlawing gay marriage. The pro-gay marriage cause was hurt by a strong Obama turn-out (minorities were strongly opposed to gay marriage), Obama himself not campaigning against it, and Mormon money. The vote was razor thin, and not an overwhelming majority.
Currently, the California Supreme Court is reviewing whether the vote is proper, since it denies rights to some.
At the onset, California, with Massachusetts, was in the lead on gay rights. Since then, several other states have approved their own legislation. California’s reversal gets media attention. Certainly, it is not the last we shall hear of it.

My mom told me it was because whatever California does, a lot of the time all of the other states follow suit. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but it’s a theory.

Legal gay marriage was quite well known in California. Perhaps you aren’t paying much attention to the news?

taking away rights has a lot greater of an impact than having a right. most news stations don’t often talk about how we have free speech – they just talk about it when it’s being threatened. if our free speech was taken away completely, you’d surely hear a lot about it.
also, if gay marriage doesn’t pertain to you, it’s less likely that you’ll take notice of the opportunity being open.

no one’s rights were taken away. there was an attempt to redefine marriage by imposition of the courts. the people of cali objected and through their vote, put these few judges in their place by officially re-instituting the definition of marriage that has always existed, here, and everywhere. everyone has the right to marry according to this sane and long established definition.

@archer

“no one’s rights were taken away”
Wrong. Gay people lost rights. They are people, you know.

“there was an attempt to redefine marriage by imposition of the courts. ”
Wrong. The courts were doing their job by ensuring that all people are treated equally under the law.

“the people of cali objected and through their vote, put these few judges in their place ”
Wrong. The people of California showed themselves to be gullible and prejudiced.

“by officially re-instituting the definition of marriage that has always existed, here, and everywhere”
Wrong. Do you realize how many states and countries now allow gay marriage?

“everyone has the right to marry according to this sane and long established definition.”
Wrong. This definition is a narrow religious prejudice that should not be inflicted upon those who do not believe it.

Care to try again?

in every case where redefinition has been “legitimized” it has been done by the courts and against the commonsense will of the people. you can’t “take away” non-existent “rights”.

“narrow religious predjudice”? that’s hilarious. 90% of the world population is hardly “narrow”. and it doesn’t require religion to have commonsense

@archer

“in every case where redefinition has been “legitimized” it has been done by the courts and against the commonsense will of the people. ”
Wrong again. The United States is not the only country in the wordl, you know. In countries such as Sweden and Canada, the right to gay marriage was not granted by the courts.

@archer

”“narrow religious predjudice”? that’s hilarious. 90% of the world population is hardly “narrow”. and it doesn’t require religion to have commonsense”

Please show me you citation that demonstrates that 90% of the world’s population shares your prejudice.

And please outline your non-religious case that demonstrates why you oppose gay marriage. I have yet to see any that are in any way “common sense” rather than religious ranting.

re sweden and canada: are you saying they had nationwide voting to redefine marriage?

citation? oh, please. just look around the world. read history. do your own research

non-religious case? do i have to insult your intelligence by giving you a biology lesson?

@archer

I think that your responses speak for themselves. I will leave it at that.

discussions with you folks are just absurd. one of the hardest things to do is explain the obvious to someone who can’t see it or who is willfully denying it

nature has an order

@archer: Where do you get the notion that it is “common sense” to deny one particular group a right that others enjoy?

i don’t advocate denying rights

You just did.

anyone has the right to marry under the definition of marriage. i object to the redefinition of marriage

@archer

“i object to the redefinition of marriage”

OK, stop playing word games, evading questions, insulting posters, and otherwise refusing to have a dialogue and explain. without recourse to religious dogma, exactly how gay marriage harms you in any way. Otherwise, I call troll.

i haven’t made one religious statement. call whatever you like

marriage has meaning and purpose. it’s been established for a very long time. now, some want to redefine it. i oppose that. it’s that simple

Why do you oppose “redefining” it? Where is the harm?

the harm is to logic and reason.

any culture that doesn’t uphold and defend logic and reason is doomed. truth is important.

You are not using logic and reason.

homosexuality is an aberration. when you as a culture, make aberration equivalent with what is normal you have lost reason.

You’re logic is an aberration.

aberration of itself doesn’t endanger a culture—aberration will always exist—but what will endanger it is if the culture loses the ability to tell the difference between what is normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, logical and illogical

does that mean that archer is doomed?

Edit: This thread has veered away from the original question. People’s personal opinions on gay marriage and what is or is not normal is not up for debate here.. the question was what was so special about california and why all the fuss about prop 8.

So how about we stop the flame war and the hate-mongering and just get back to the topic at hand mmmmkay?

ease up on the pot, pete.

archer is fine. individuals will always be fine, even in a sick culture

i do care about the culture though

the entire “fuss” about prop 8 revolved around opinion about marriage redefinition; the court’s and the vote of the people.

there is no “flame war” or “hatemongering” going on here, simply there has been an exchange of opposing opinion and perspective. if you can’t deal with debate then you might want to consider the weakness of your position.

Ugh. Prop 8 was upheld today. I have such mixed feelings… on one hand, the people voted and in one way I’m glad their voices were heard, although IMHO they voted out of fear and ignorance. On the other hand, how can legal discrimination be good? Sad day for CA, equal rights, many of my friends, and freedom.

@Likeradar The great thing about the referendum system is that issues can be voted on every single election, and it can go on/off for the rest of eternity.

@YARNLADY True. I’m looking forward to seeing a huge pro-equality voter turnout next time around.