Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Looks like Victory for Proposition 8 and for Marriage in Calif

California media is reporting that with 90% of polls reporting in, 52% of the voters have upheld California's marriage protection amendment, Proposition 8.

The "mainstream" media is still holding out hope that votes from certain liberal enclaves in California may yet carry the day for the homosexual agenda, but things are still looking good for Prop 8 so far.

Californians passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2000 which clearly defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

However, activists judges in May 2008 manufactured a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage."

Pro-family and pro-marriage forces have had an uphill battle getting and defending Proposition 8. Homosexual activists tried to have the petition thrown out, and when that didn't work, the California attorney general changed the language of the petition to prejudice voters against the measure. Marriage defenders have also faced a well-funded opposition campaign with Hollywood dollars and millions from homosexual activists around the country.

Florida and Arizona also passed marriage protection amendments yesterday.

With 99% of precincts counted so far, Florida reports that Amendment 2 has passed with 62%. That state required a 60% margin for passage rather than a simple majority.

Arizona's Proposition 102 is showing 56-44% in favor with over 80% of precincts counted.

If all three states pass their amendments, that will bring the total of states with marriage protection amendments to 30. This puts marriage out of the reach of activist judges who would hijack marriage and allow homosexuals to counterfeit it.

This year's events should serve as a warning to the remaining states that only have DOMAs. In both California and Connecticut, unelected judges have created law--something reserved to legislatures--in manufacturing a right for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage." If other states don't want to see marriage hijacked in their area, they should get busy with a marriage protection amendment.

And with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, along with his pledge to force the legitimization of homosexual behavior on America, other states had better act fast to protect marriage.

Assuming final passage of Proposition 8 in California, there will still be a mess to clean up. That state has for some months now allowed homosexuals to hold "marriage" ceremonies, so the question will be what happens to these unions that for a time were blessed by official state sanction.

Time will tell how hard it is to clean up the mess in California, but unless the numbers drastically change in the other direction, it looks like at least the mess won't grow any bigger in that state.


jim said...

Wow. So close. What's next. Where do we see what exactly this means and when!!

Wolf said...

I don't understand how allowing gays to "marry" is "anti-family". There is nothing attacking your way of life. There is no imminent threat. Whether gays "marry" or just live together as unofficial couples does not affect your or my life as heterosexual Americans. As a straight woman who plans on getting married someday I simply don't see how gay marriage is a threat to family ideals. The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, a lot of homosexuals adopting children make far better parents than a heterosexual couple trying to raise an unexpected and unwanted child. Why do you feel threatened?

Sukebei said...

I'd never thought I see the day when American people were so gleefully happy to strip their fellow citizens of basic rights. This article is wrought with sadistic glory commending the segregation and discrimination of Americans.


ChrisV said...

Protect marriage from what you ignorant thing. Protect marriage from 2 people who love each other to commit themselves to one another. Oh as opposed to heterosexuals that marry women, cheat on them, priests that molest children. Oh I see what you are trying to "protect". You are the voice of IGNORANCE. Hope you have the sense to post this comment.

- Just Married in Mass

Andy Armitage said...

Obvously it affects no one other than the people who get married. Opposition to same-sex marriage is borne out of religiofascism and some kind of mental instability and a lack of confidence in their own sexuality on the part of the Prop8-ers.

nicholas said...

Protect marriage from changing the definition of the word. Marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman. That union is given special consideration by the government because it usual produces children. Why is that so hard for people to understand.

Haggs said...

This has been the one dark cloud in what has been a very bright, happy day for America. I think the results of this Prop 8 vote are very sad and depressing.

Lucas said...

I have to admit: I have never been more hurt. I really had a lot of faith in the American people. Unfortunately, it seems as though we are falling into the same mindset as every other, less successful country. We had the idea once before, separation of church and state, and equal rights for all. Somehow, our priorities have changed to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone heterosexual”.
I know it’s only a matter of time before these amendments are worthless and gays are finally treated as equals but, this just goes to show how selfish our society can be.
I hope that some of you who voted incorrectly will one day see that everyone deserves equal rights and that your ignorance does not make you any better than anyone else. In fact, our open-mindedness makes us significantly more superior being than yourselves.
Remember, being, people, groups, and nations that do not conform to change crumble and die.

ZergNerd said...

Passing prop 8 is an important victory for freedom and civil rights in America. After the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts same-sex activists sued and forced Catholic adoption agencies to either place children with them or shut down, eliminating the right of Catholics to place children in religious homes. In California, doctors have been successfully sued for refusing to offer artificial insemination to lesbians according to their religious beliefs. America's strength comes from its open exchange of ideas and diversity; however, the gay rights community repeatedly violates this principle when legal statutes are in their favor. Prop 8 does nothing to remove their ability to enjoy their relationships or participate fully in society. It simply removes a judicial decision that gives them legal means to restrict and deny those same civil rights to what is rapidly becoming a religious minority.

Amy said...

I'm having a hard time understanding the "threat" to "family" by allowing homosexuals to marry. Why don't we disect the word Family. Many single moms and/or dads would still consider themselves family. My mom and dad are raising my nephew - they are a family. The list goes on. Gay people wanting to marry, want to be able to have the same rights under the law as others trying to protect their loved one. Who are we to deny that right. It wasn't long ago that self richious americans thought it ok to deny people of different races to marry. I guess one day the "majority" will come to their senses. You can have your opions on all the issues, but it comes down to right and wrong. We shouldn't deny others the right to marry the one they love......

Gillian said...

I wonder how people who support prop 8 feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's, when there were "racial purity" laws banning interracial marriage. Racists back then insisted that if interracial marriage were legalized, it would destroy families and force churches to perform wedding ceremonies involving interracial couples. Sound familiar? None of that happened when interracial marriage was legalized, and it won't happen when same-sex marriage is legalized. This prop 8 is just like the racial purity laws back in a day when the law supported segregation.

This article is disgusting. The fact that they call same-sex marriages a "mess" to clean up is embarrassing to me as an American. Ever notice how if you take away the religious arguments against gay marriage, there is no argument? In this country, we have freedom of religion, but we also have freedom from religion. Separation of church and state. Marriage is a legally binding contract, and religion has no place in the law.

The reason the arguments for prop 8 don't make any sense is because it's not really a pro-marriage argument. It's an anti-gay one.

ratman said...

ehh nicholas, couples that can't have children can marry, people can get married at a drive through in Vegas (and other places should someone open up a drive-through wedding chapel there).

Definitions change with time and there's no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

ratman said...

Why does everyone keep calling the judges activists, some of them were Republican for crying out loud.

cherry413 said...

Only affects the two being married hugh? What about the churches that had their tax-exempt status removed because they refused to marry gay couples. The gay couples filed suit in revenge. Churches have a hard enough time keep their doors open even without paying taxes.

Andy said...

Gays and lesbians already have all the same rights as hetero married couples. All they want is the special word "marriage," a word that came from religion and specifically applies to a man and a woman.

J. Collazo said...

This is a beautiful moment when reasoning and sound judgment prevail in the approval of Proposition 8. Many who argue that same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right refuse to understand that Marriage is simply a practice (not a right) to which government simply plays a role in recognizing that marriage. Government has no right to redefine it. God invented and defined Marriage to be a union between a man a woman. All the government was supposed to do is provide the certificate to recognize it. Government (nor humans) never invented or defined it. God did. And the issue of human rights was not in the purpose or agenda during the creation of marriage.

It is a shame that homosexuals who defy what is natural but still have the freedom to live by their carnal passions, seek to overstep what is not in their right but accuse others of doing exactly what homosexuals are doing themselves: being selfish and foolish as always.

Virtue Media said...

Are homosexual groups destroying family when they marry? Yes, here are several reasons why:

They will force their agenda on schools. In other words, teach to my children that homosexuality is an ok lifestyle.

If I teach it's wrong, I will be labeled a bigot or a hate-monger for expressing my views.

I can lose my child. Why? Because psyhological abuse is called grounds for the state to put my child on foster care.

All businesses, even Churches, will be required to hire homosexuals if they apply - even schools. Homosexuals have a higher chance of molesting children. Can you trust homosexuals with your children?

Homosexuals have more sex partners than the average person. Promiscuity is the word for the day.

The list goes on and on...

Wolf said...

J. Collaza, what happened to "separation of church and state"?

Also, "carnal" by definition means "relating to or given to crude bodily pleasures and appetites". You're telling me straight people don't give in to their "carnal passions" too?

Ugh, I'm astounded by the number hateful and ignorant people in this country.

Emily said...

For the record, numerous studies have been done to show that molestation is no more likely in a homosexual than in a heterosexual. Kurt Freund who researched this through measuring arousal as oppossed to polling (an often inaccurate way of gathering true results on this topic) found that ""Homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children."

I think it is important to remember that we have a seperation of church and state and the arguments against same-sex marriage are all religious. They have no business being debated on a ballot at all. And America will come to terms with this fact. Ten, twenty years down the line we will be studying with wonder the bigotry and intolerance that existed, once again, in people all across America.

Articles like this disgust me.

Dr. Theo said...

Does this mean I still can't marry my border collie?

Bob Ellis said...

Emily, while there are good religious arguments against the concept of homosexual "marriage," there are at least as many practical ones.

For one thing, simply wanting to redefine a term is no justification to actually go ahead and redefine that term. Words mean things, and they have meaning for a purpose--to define important concepts and objects. Marriage is between a man and a woman; nothing else can constitute a marriage. No one is stopping homosexuals from sodomizing one another, but they have no right to counterfeit marriage. Like a $20 bill made in your basement isn't real currency, two homosexuals don't constitute a genuine marriage.

Homosexuality is also a very unhealthy practice. Homosexuals experience much higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence. There is no reason whatsoever that the state should lend an air of legitimacy to such a dangerous practice.

Family is also inextricably linked to marriage, which also implies children. With the aforementioned health risks and home instability, there is no conceivable justification for placing adopted children (or biological children for that matter--but homosexual couples cannot produce children, can they?) in such an unhealthy and dangerous environment. What's more, even homosexuals who claim they are monogamous have been found to usually involve outside sexual partners; like their attempt to hijack the word "marriage," "monogamy" means nothing when it means anything.

Homosexual behavior and homosexual relationships do not provide the useful and positive service to society that real marriages and families do. There is no justification whatsoever for society to bestow a special status on a relationship that provides no positive societal value and is tremendously unhealthy on many levels.

Wolf said...

I know happy, healthy, honest, and faithful homosexuals. I also know alcoholic heterosexuals on their third marriage.

Vast generalizations typify ignorance and fear.

Aunika Mae said...

Proposition 8 does not change the rights of a gay couple, it just means that it would be unconstitutional to call their union marriage. They are free to have their commitment ceremonies and should, I think it is important to give a show of love and commitment to your partner. Gay couples will not lose any rights or privileges. They are fighting for a word that to them is just a word, but to others is far more.

Yes there are millions who don’t hold marriage as a sacred vow or a holy covenant which is why the divorce rate is so high. This does not change that it has always been meant to be and should always be. Gays say that Prop. 8 is unfair and wrong, unfair why, because they won’t be allowed to use the word married? No one is saying they can’t love who they want or be with whoever they want, just that a man cannot marry a man nor a woman a woman, but that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman. This has been the tradition in every culture for centuries. It was done this way to create “families“ by producing children, which obviously two men or two women cannot do without adoption. Which I think is tragically unfair to the innocence of the child being placed in that situation.

Homosexuality can be self destructive and can jeopardize the stability of a family situation. After all, we are considered mammals, but mammals in nature mate for reproduction, not just a perverted pleasure. After all a man is still a man and face it guys you all like boobs. As many homosexual friends as I have, every man has admitted he is enamored with the female shape, our scent, the softness of our skin and gentleness of our voice. Why else would so many homosexual men try to impersonate and imitate us so.

As well, the women I know who are homosexual have ogled over a hot guy at the gym or on the beach or in a magazine, with abs slightly defined and a broad hairless chest…and back. In spite of lusting after the opposite sex, for their own reasons, have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. However, I can still love and support my friends regardless of their sexual preference because after all that is not what defines them as a person. As a country though, it is only through the persistence of this perverted corruptness that society has developed a tolerance and acceptance for this lifestyle. Apparently marriage is where the line is drawn.

To approve homosexual marriage and defile the sanctity of marriage as a holy covenant before God would be sacrilegious. It would be grossly irreverent and an outrageous violation of marriage not just in the eyes of God but to a tradition thousands of years old. Yes times have changed, but tradition is timeless and will surpass the generations.

Aunika Mae said...

Everyone keeps trying to take religion out of it, but if you look at these homosexual unions as even having been sanctioned by the state, "so the question will be what happens to these unions that for a time were blessed by official state sanction" from the above article, Sanction from Latin sanction-, sanctio, from sancire means to make holy.

Bob Ellis said...

These aren't "vast generalizations", Wolf; they're clinical statistics.

Pretending they aren't real typifies ignorance and fear.

J. Collazo said...


Your question "what happened to "separation of church and state?" is the point I am making that church simply proclaims what is written in scriptures, the Word of God. God said that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The STATE IS SEPARATE in the fact that it did not define marriage but adopted the definition as to provide the recognition of what was defined as a marriage. Again, the STATE (or the PEOPLE of the STATE) does not have the right to redefine what GOD defined. The problem for gay people is that the marriage institution has such a historical impact on society that there will be people who have a decent respect of what God defined.

How can you take marriage that not even the STATE defined and try to use the STATE to redefine it? Your question is the actual point I am making.

On another note, as long as there are people who have a decent respect of what God defined how can anyone dare to accuse those people of being discriminatory or hateful? We are using our faith, not right, to oppose same-sex marriage. How dare someone tell us that we cannot act upon our faith? This is why gay people have no merit, but again, use carnal passions to substitute reasonable or sound judgment.

Which gets to my point about carnal passions. I never said that heterosexuals do not give in to carnal passions. But I will say that between a married couple that consists of a man and a woman, they can desire each other carnally since the marriage (WHICH GOD DEFINED AND CREATED) would justify them. This is why marriage prevents the sin of fornication. It defines decency. Therefore if a man and woman have sex out of wedlock, then it would be wrong (sin). Homosexuality is sin in itself and no marriage can justify it. So why bother getting "married'? It would not be a right, but an act that the STATE cannot justify through redefinition.

I don't say that all heterosexuals respect the sanctity of marriage. So the argument that there are drunk heterosexuals who divorce and remarry 3 or more times does not mean that the marriage should be redefined to accommodate homosexuals. What does that have to do with homosexuals?

Again, stop the foolishness. God will always prevail.

Wolf said...

Where exactly are these statistics?

Bob Ellis said...

Go look them up, Wolf. They aren't hard to find. You can even find many of them on this website if you take the time to look.

Clicky Web Analytics