Gay Marriage

California Proposition 8 – Protect Traditional Marriage Winning 52-48%

With over 92 per cent of California precincts reporting:


California Proposition 8 is passing 52-48 per cent

California election results for Proposition 8 are here and the map is here.

It looks like California voters are restoring the traditional definition of marriage of a man and woman by changing the California Constitution.

Yes on 8 proponents declared victory late last night.

Stay tuned as more results become available.

Update 8: 20 AM:

The California Secretary of State’s website has obviously crashed. A link to the Proposition 8 results is here.

As of 95.8% of precincts reporting:

  • Yes – 5,195,136 – 52.1% 
  • No – 4,779,297  – 47.9%

Technorati Tags: ,

33 thoughts on “California Proposition 8 – Protect Traditional Marriage Winning 52-48%

  1. Well, I really didn’t think Prop. 8 would pass, but I’m glad it did. It’s not discrimination, it’s just protecting traditional values.

  2. Congratulations, California. You have invalidated the loving unions of thousands of your neighbors, depriving them and their families of hundreds of legal rights that opposite-sex couples receive automatically. Is it a traditional value to deny someone’s partner of 20 years the right to visit their bed-side at a hospital, to receive their pension of the person they’ve loved and supported for decades, to be the recognized parent of the children they have brought up and supported? Scratch even slightly beneath the despicable euphamism of “traditional values” and you will find bare discrimination, fear, and hate.

  3. Wortex,

    You are incorrect about bedside visit privileges, pensions are federal anyway and California has very liberal domestic partnership rights.

    The California Supreme court will probably let all of the previous “marriages” stand.

  4. Thank God! Now our churches are protected from attacks when they would be sued for refusing to perform these marriages due to religious beliefs. I have gay friends and I believe they have rights too – this one just opened the door to all that is ugly. We need religion intact or we go down for the last time. That takes precidence.

  5. Congradulations California and Arizona for taking a common sense stand.

    Now would be a good time to end the censorship of web sites and reading material for those with unwanted Same Sex Attraction. The subject of homosexuality has been studies extensively for years with many books and studies on the subject. Unfortunately, the information has either been removed or never included in school and public libraries.

    You can search this yourself, then contact your librarians to order the missing material. There is a website you can share with others,

    Jose Schwartz

  6. For all those who think that we are insensitive and took away all those RIGHTS from a sector of our population: ENOUGH! If you would have read the Proposition on the California Ballot (and this is the 2nd time we have tried to resolve the marriage issue), you would know that the proposition only defined marriage via the Constitution and had absolutely NOTHING to do with taking anyone’s rights away granted by our Domestic Partnership laws. Get off the Donkey Bandwagon and try spewing some facts instead of the campaign rhetoric.

  7. one more thing: If it hadn’t been for the LIBERAL California Supreme Court, there wouldn’t have been any “Gay Marriages” performed over the last 6 months….. The black robes caused the confusion and much of the problem by overturning the last vote of the people (66% of the people).

  8. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you try and justify it. How sad that so many are caught up in their own personal beliefs can’t see there is a whole segment of the population (who still live among us as families) has been denied a right that belongs to us all. When Jesus lived on earth he veered toward the oppressed and the judged (including a divorced woman – which the bible calls an abomination.) How sad, that in the name of Jesus, so many people are now the oppressors.

  9. Shame on any minority that voted for Prop 8. If the will of the people and not the courts were to prevail women wouldn’t have the right to vote, blacks wouldn’t have the right to vote, mixed race couples couldn’t marry and there would still be segregated schools. How arrogant to assume the will of the people, based on ignorance and fear, is more informed than judges whose job it is to study our constitution and impartially apply it.

  10. Well I guess this really is the most conservative country in the developed world. So ironic that you Americans take pride in freedom and liberty. It’s good to know that most educated people voted no though.

  11. Finally the election is over… as a supporter for No on 8, I was so embarrassed to see so many single drivers driving on the car pool lane with a No on 8 bumper stick on the cars…

  12. Gays have all the legal rights as straights in a domestic partnership. Gay people argue civil rights. If it is a civil rights issue, should 2 brothers or a brother and sister be allowed to marry. How about a 50 year old father and his 18 year old daughter? This may sound sick to people, but if you argue “civil liberties” then any 2 adults would be allowed to marry. How about polygamy? If 5 women are OK with marrying 1 man or vice versa, gay people are OK with that as well. I am not. We need to draw the line somewhere. The line has been drawn

  13. For those of you who truly believe domestic partnerships are equal to marriage, I challenge you to swap your traditional marriage for a domestic partnership for one year. Then tell me they are equal.

    Time and time again, it has been proven that separate is never equal.

  14. @19

    Oh please.

    Not the equality argument again.

    None of the rights of California domestic partnerships have changed and I do not have to swap anything in my traditional marriage.

  15. Flap,

    You might be getting sick of the equality argument, but that’s what it is.

    But you’re right. People demanding equality is ridiculous.

    I just can’t understand how you actually can believe it’s right that your religious beliefs should be able to impose on decisions I make in my life. This should have NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

    And nice try with the “none of the rights of domestic partnerships have changed” when it’s not domestic partnerships were talking about. Three days ago everybody was willing to marry who they choose. You helped take those rights away.

  16. Yes, I proudly voted to restore the traditional definition of marriage that the California Supreme Court wrongly took away from me in May. Chief Justice Ronald George striped me of my rights to define marriage as one man and one woman.

    The people of California voted to restore that definition.

    None of the rights of domestic partnerships have changed.

  17. Everyone may be tired of the connection being made to the Black civil rights era, but just a curious question Flap;

    Do you believe that issues such as American slavery and the desegregation of schools should have been left up to for the people to vote on? Do you really think they should have that right?

    Just curious, because the historic arguments for maintaining slavery and segregation were based on religious beliefs and writings in the Bible. Should the people have been able to vote based on their religious thoughts?

    Maybe we need Judges to step up and make “unpopular” decisions for the betterment of our country. Maybe you shouldn’t get to restore definitions.

  18. Sorry, Kim, I do not have the time or energy to get into shoulda, woulda, coulda discussions with you about about the history of the United States, the Civil War, and the Bible.

    Perhaps some others here will discuss the issues with you.

    The revisionists of the California Constitution in the early 1900’s put in place a method to amend the Constitution as a check and balance mechanism. Supreme Court Judge’s decisions are not all powerful, without review, sometimes wrongly made and surprisingly just defy common sense.

    Now, if the legal challenge facing the California Supreme Court involves a federal issue then the United States Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue. I do not think the gay marriage proponents wish that review with the court as it is presently constituted.

    But, we will see.

    By the way, since you are already married, I doubt the California Supreme Court will vacate your marriage. There will just be no more.

  19. I didn’t want to go through history with you, just a yes/no answer.

    And whether my marriage remains legal or not (which I actually think it wont, if the courts interpret the reading literally), I’m not only concerned about myself.

    This is bigger than gay rights. It’s challenging the “fake” separation of church and state structure.

  20. I’m with the more confused masses. As a lesbian woman (which will of course make some of you stop reading this immediately), I don’t honestly understand how you think your life will be affected in any way if I were to get married. I have no interest in involving anyone in the elaborate process outside of my friends or family.

    Guys… you’re not special. Nor are you victims. No one is after you with their ‘agenda’. Gays couldn’t care less about you if you would stop interfering in their every day life. I don’t think any homosexuals getting married are going to be trying to invite you to their weddings, nor asking you to marry them. We know you don’t like us. Believe me. You remind us every chance you can get.

    Oh – and no. Humans are not the only species that practice homosexuality. Nor does it have no evolutionary purpose. Do some research before you make bold statements. Seriously.

    The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    So technically, if marriage is a religious thing, there shouldn’t be laws about it anyway. And it’s not about ‘redefining’ marriage. The whole point is that there is no _State-Enforced_ definition of marriage in the first place. They do not tell churches what they can and can’t think. They just don’t let one particular religion or group _impose_ its particular definitions on other people.

    Why the masses of churches out there think I would WANT to get married within their walls when I could go where I’m welcomed is beyond me. It’s like wearing a Rays shirt in Phildelphia. You can do things as you have from the dawn of time for all I care. I don’t want to change your church or your morals or – what else are you feeling threatened by – I don’t want to talk to your children about my love life or seduce your sister or whatever else you think my being able to marry is going to harm in your daily life.

    Anyone who’s heard/said the exhilarating words, “Will you marry me?” from down on one knee should understand why homosexual people would want to say/hear them. I want to wear a wedding dress some day. I want flowers and a piece of wedding cake in my freezer and to be pelted with rice while running to a car with tin cans tied to the back. I want a ring that means something.

    Religion brings hope and peace and stability to millions of families world wide – that it has to have this dark underside of intolerance is ultimately distressing. The bible’s good words were used to justify American’s slavery of Africans. It was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition. It was used to justify both the scourging witch-hunts of the Middle-Ages and their American counterparts. We all know this was not the bible’s intent for mankind… yet they were done just the same.

    Don’t misuse it now. I just want a cake and a dance with my old dad and a ring. I promise you don’t have to watch.

  21. @27

    Touching story but we all know the consequences are more than old dad and a ring.

    There are plenty of threads here that discuss them and if that is what you believe then you are very naive or disingenuous.

  22. I’m so confused about how allowing gay marriage will affect the rights of straight people! Why can’t they just let homosexuals marry? Is it a matter of religion, the fact that it says homosexuality is an abomination in the Bible?! Because the Bible also extremely sexist and allows slavery and we don’t have that today. What is the POINT of forbidding gay people to marry? Can some explain because I am straight, but if I was gay, I would want to get married to my partner like everyone else. You can’t control who you love.

  23. @27 (Chelsee):

    I believe many of your ponits reinforce conservative family values. Being in a monogomous relationship, having a wedding, creating a stable home to raise children are all conservative values. This being done by homosexuals has no affect on anyone – period.

    Keep your hopes up. History has shown that human rights will win in the long run.

    BTW – you can invite me to your wedding anytime!!

Comments are closed.