Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

LA Times Editorial: Oppose Proposition 8

Timothy Kincaid

August 8th, 2008

The LA Times has issued its first recommendation of the upcoming election:

It’s the same sentence as in 2000: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.

To be sure, the court overturned Proposition 22, a vote of the people. That is the court’s duty when a law is unconstitutional, even if it is exceedingly popular. Civil rights are commonly hard-won, and not the result of widespread consensus. Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people’s will on marriage before — in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Fundamental rights are exactly that. They should neither wait for popular acceptance, nor be revoked because it is lacking.



Garrett O'Neal
August 11th, 2008 | LINK

Right on!

Chino Blanco
August 12th, 2008 | LINK

Considering that has decided NOT to appeal the ballot language, what chance do you really see for Prop 8 to pass? I just don’t see a majority of Californians voting YES on a proposition titled ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.

Once the churches realize that Prop 8 is an almost guaranteed loser, are they going to do the right thing and let their members know?

If not, what happens after Prop 8 loses 40-60 (or worse), and then the members find out that the churches were privy all along to internal polling that predicted a crushing defeat? Do the members get their money back?

Or do they get stuck paying for ads that were run by a campaign that knew it was going to lose but ran them anyway!

James Jackson
October 14th, 2008 | LINK

Prop 8 is not about Gay Marriage, that battle was settled in 2000 with prop 22 when the Majority of Californians proved that they wanted marriage to be only between a man and a woman. Prop 8 is about 4 judges who believe they are smarter than the majority of Californians and above the law. What the California Supreme Court did was not lawful in two ways. First they told the Majority of Californians they are stupid and not smart enough to establish their own laws, changes the concept of “We the People in order..” to, “We the 4 judges in order..” Secondly they pushed a side precedence and established a law of gay marriage which did not exist before June of this year. The Judicial system is not the law makers yet they made a law. It was not a law before June Gay were never able to marry even before prop 22 why should they have a right to now. The proper way of allowing gays to marry is to put to the vote of the people and if the majority says yes then you change the law. No Democratic government would ever change a law against precedence and especially against the majority of the people. It is time we stop this abuse.

Priya Lynn
October 14th, 2008 | LINK

James prop 8 is about eliminating the right of same sex couples to marry. The Supreme court judges being highly trained experts most certainly are smarter than the majority of Californians. The law makers did not create a law, they struck down a law that denied same sex couples the right to equal marriage.

You ask why gays should have a right to marry. Because people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm others and we should treat all equally before the law. If you have the right to marry the one you love most gays deserve the same right you have.’

James said “No Democratic government would ever change a law against precedence and especially against the majority of the people.”.

Wrong. Its happened plenty of times. Of particular note in 1967 at the time the Supreme Court lifted the ban on interracial marriage, 71% of the electorate was against lifting the ban. Do you consider that an abuse? Do you think interracial marriage should have been put to a vote?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.