Posts Tagged As: State Marriage Amendments
July 11th, 2016
This seems confusing, since CNN is reporting that the draft Republican Platform no longer language calling for a constitutional amendment to declare marriage as between “one man and one woman.” But the report then goes on the misread the platform’s draft language. Fortunately, the New York Times has reprinted the draft language in full:
The data and the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion: that every child deserves a married mom and dad. The reality remains that millions of American families do not have the advantages that come with that structure. We honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the burdens of parenting alone and embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with dignity and respect. But respect is not enough. Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in the platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to states.”
This does represent a change of sorts. Prior Republican platforms called for the adoption of the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have had the effect of outlawing same-sex marriage throughout the country. This draft platform is calling for a different sort of constitutional amendment “returning control over marriage to the states.” That is, if a Republican President is unable to pack the court with enough anti-marriage conservatives to overturn the Windsor and Obergefell decisions. It also, indirectly, appears to call for the establishment of a “defense of marriage act” of some sort in saying that governmental regulations should only recognize opposite-sex marriages.
The draft platform also includes language opposing the Obama Administration’s efforts to eliminate anti-transgender discrimination in the nation’s public schools via Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972:
That same provision of the law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current president of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people. Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power. They are determined to reshape our schools — and our entire society — to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions. Their edict to the states concerning restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities is at once illegal, ominous, and ignores privacy issues. We salute the several states which have filed suits against it.”
The draft platform is still undergoing amendments and revisions today as various platform subcommittees continue their work.
September 15th, 2011
The North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has issued an open letter denouncing the proposed constitutional amendment banning all same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships which goes before voters in May 2012. Says the NAACP:
A vote on the same sex marriage amendment has nothing to do with your personal and religious opinion on same sex marriage but everything to do with whether or not you believe discrimination should be codified and legalized constitutionally. We should never seek to codify discrimination into the very heart and framework of our Constitution.
…The NAACP strongly urges you to reject the so-called same sex amendment and any other present or future proposals of constitutional amendments that would permanently deprive any person in our great state of his or her inalienable rights
September 13th, 2011
That’s the argument Rep. Henry M. Michaux, Jr. (D) made to the North Carolina General Assembly yesterday before they voted to send a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to the state Senate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ywUYAq2UUDon’t put this into a living document. The constitution is a living document. And if you think it’s hard to get something out of that living document, you take a look at the United States Constitution where it says that I am three-fifths of a person. Even though we have had amendments that come along to sort of change that, it still says it in that Constitution. And what you put in a constitution is there permanently. I know you all think you’ve got the votes to do it, but you need to think about what you’re doing and you need to think about the greater good of the people of this state.
Also, lawmakers who approve such an amendment will find their names forever attached to discrimination. Dan Savage has an example of a Presbyterian minister by the name of Thomas W. Miller, whose name is remembered for his religious-based opposition to efforts to prohibit deed restrictions and other forms of discrimination preventing African-Americans from buying or renting a home. I wonder what Miller’s grandchildren think about their grandpa’s legacy?
September 12th, 2011
After three hours of debate and without public notice or input, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a proposed constitutional amendment by a vote of 75-42. A three-fifths approval was needed to put the measure on the ballot. Eight Democrats joined Republicans in passing the measure. The proposed amendment would not only place a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but it would also bar civil unions and, possibly, domestic partner benefits. Some details from today’s decorous debate:
State Rep. Marcus Brandon (R-Guilford), the only openly gay state lawmaker, told his fellow lawmakers that people yelled “abomination” at him as he walked through the capitol building that afternoon, and said he was told he was “going to hell.”
State Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham), a black lawmaker, had an exchange with (House Majority Leader Rep. Paul) Stam on the floor in which he pointed out that the U.S. constitution “still says I am three-fifths of a person.” Michaux said on the floor that he was attempting to highlight how hard it would be to remove the discriminatory language in the future.
At one point, state Rep. Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake) called out Stam for eating popcorn during the debate “while other’s rights are stripped away.”
The house voted to put the proposition on the ballot for a special election in May rather than holding the referendum during the Presidential election in November. Democrats feared that putting the vote on the November ballot would hurt President Barack Obama’s chances for carrying the state in 2012. Republicans agreed to move the date in order to increase Democratic support for the Amendment. However, with the May date coinciding with the Republican primary and with no Democratic presidential primary taking place, the earlier date is likely to significantly boost turnout for amendment supporters. Other observers also believe those same supporters would then boost the chances of socially-conservative candidates like Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Given the pressing crisis of massive numbers of same-sex couples battering county courthouses demanding marriage licenses, the Senate is expect to take the measure up very quickly, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
March 4th, 2009
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments over a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 this Thursday. The court is then required to rule within ninety days. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Court may rule as early as Thursday to uphold the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:
Reporting from San Francisco — The California Supreme Court may reveal Thursday whether it intends to uphold Proposition 8, and if so, whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid, during a high-stakes televised session that has sparked plans for demonstrations throughout the state.
By now, the court already has drafted a decision on the case, with an author and at least three other justices willing to sign it. Oral arguments sometimes result in changes to the draft, but rarely do they change the majority position.
The Times reports that Chief Justice Ronald M. George is the one to watch on this. He wrote the May 15, 2008 majority opinion which originally granted same-sex marriage. That ruling was a narrow 4-3 decision. According to The Times, most analysis expect the court to have just votes to uphold Prop 8, since only one justice is needed to shift from the original decision. The three dissenting justices from the 2008 position already held that the votors should decide.
A large outdoor jumbo screen will be erected outside the San Francisco Civic Center, where large crowds are expected to gather to watch the live hearings taking place at the nearby Supreme Court headquarters.
February 25th, 2009
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has joined the California chapter in calling for Proposition 8 to be overturned:
“The NAACP’s mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law,” said President [Benjamin Todd] Jealous. “Our Mission Statement calls for the ‘equality of rights of all persons.’ Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts – assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority.”
…”The NAACP has long opposed any proposal that would alter the federal or state constitutions for the purpose of excluding any groups or individuals from guarantees of equal protection,” said Chairman [Julian] Bond. “We urge the legislature to declare that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper protective process and should be overturned as an invalid alteration that vitiated crucial constitutional safeguards and fundamental American values, threatening civil rights and all vulnerable minorities.”
The NAACP statement urges passage of House Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 7, which would put the legislature on record as viewing Prop. 8 as an improper alteration of the California Constitution. The question is currently before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to hear arguments on March 5.
January 14th, 2009
Freedom to Marry has just released a study (PDF: 112 KB/5 pages) which shows that “exhibiting leadership by voting to support the freedom to marry helps rather than hurts politicians.”
Many politicians, particularly Democratic politicians, fear that if they appear too closely aligned with same-sex marriage, they will face the consequences at the ballot box. But Freedom to Marry found that those who voted to end marriage discrimination since 2005 have a 100% re-election rate. This finding goes beyond re-election to their current seats — even those who sought higher office in 2008 all won.
These findings extend to those who evolved from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage, as well as to those who voted against anti-marriage amendments in their state legislatures.
January 12th, 2009
We were tipped to this press release from the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund announcing a press conference on a proposed anti-marriage amendment for Indiana. State Reps. P. Eric Turner (R-Marion) and Dave Cheatham (D-North Vernon) are listed as co-sponsors for the amendment during for the current General Assembly session. Also participating at the press conference are unnamed representatives from the Family Research Council and the Indiana Family Institute.
[Hat tip: Mike]
November 10th, 2008
November 8th, 2008
From The Washington Post:
November 6th, 2008
California’s No on 8 campaign has issued a statement conceding the passage of Prop 8:
Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law.
All Americans are harmed when any of us are discriminated against or have our fundamental rights taken away.
Make no mistake, this fight is not over.
We remain committed to ensuring full equality under the law, just as the thousands of same-sex couples who joyously married in California are committed to each other.
While it is understandable to be angry that a deceptive campaign could lead to such an unfair and wrong outcome, we need to keep focused instead on the progress we have made.
Thousands of volunteers and contributors gave selflessly to this fight for equality. Political leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike–took strong stands and spoke out against the distortions against us. Clergy, labor, educators and business leaders eagerly joined our cause. And we came within 4% of making history and protecting marriage equality in California.
The momentum is clearly on our side.
So, as disappointed as we are, we know that there is still hope and there is still love and, yes, there is still work to do. With our continued effort and by building on the support generated in this campaign, we will prevail. There will be equality. For us all.
Since No on 8 is not involved with the lawsuits filed before the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn Prop 8, that effort will likely continue.
November 5th, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a petition before the California Supreme Court, urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if its passage is certified by the Secretary of State. The groups charge that Prop 8 is invalid because it changes the state constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone. According to the group’s press release (PDF: 2 pages):
The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid.
“If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not to men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw — it removes a protected constitutional right — here, the right to marry — not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,” said Jenny Pizer, as staff attorney with Lambda Legal. “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just be a bare majority of voters.”
Opponents of Prop 8 tried to block the innitiative from appearing on the ballot on similar grounds last July. At that time, the Supreme Court denied the petition without comment.
November 5th, 2008
The No on 8 campaign called a quick news conference to declare that they are not conceding the race:
Kate Kendall, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said 3 million to 4 million ballots remain uncounted statewide. “The fact is depending on the turnout model we are looking at millions of votes yet to be counted,” Kendall said. The race is too close to call. People’s fundamental rights hang in the balance.”
Many of those ballots are absentee and provisional ballots. The California Secretary of State’s office is expected to issue an estimate of the number of uncounted ballots later today or tomorrow. It could take several days to process all of them.
Prop 8 supporters declared victory shortly after midnight early this morning in a move that No on 8 called “presumptuous.”
November 5th, 2008
CNN also has some interesting exit polling on California’s Prop 8:
As in Arizona, women are more supporting of same-sex marriage than men:
Men: Yes: 51%; No: 49%
Women: Yes: 50%; No: 50%
We have done a very poor job in reaching out to the African-American community:
White: Yes: 47%; No: 53%
African-American: Yes: 70% No: 30%
Latino: Yes: 51% No: 49%
Asian: Yes: 47%; No: 53%
The youth are our future:
18-24: Yes: 34%; No: 66%
25-29: Yes: 40%; No: 60%
30-39: Yes: 50%; No: 50%
40-49: Yes: 58%; No: 42%
50-64: Yes: 50%; No: 50%
65 or Over: Yes: 59% No: 41%
There’s a reason our opponents distrust education:
H.S. Graduate: Yes: 54%; No: 46%
Some College: Yes: 56%; No: 44%
College Graduate: Yes: 48%; No: 52%
Postgraduate: Yes: 39%; No: 61%
Marriage Amendments are a GOP thing:
Democrat: Yes: 35%; No: 65%
Republican: Yes: 81%; No: 19%
Independent: Yes: 44%; No: 56%
November 4th, 2008
As of 2:12 pm EST/11:12 am PST:
Okay, one last update. The Los Angeles Times declared Prop 8 as passed, and so will we. I hope we’re premature.
Now, this ends the live blog.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,040,122 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,437 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 573,873 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 434,406 (43%)
96% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,235,486 (52%) — Projected winner
No: 4,800,656 (48%)
97% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,710,928 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,877,193 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 1:35 pm EST/10:35 am PST:
At this point, there has been no substantial movement in the election results for the past several hours — just a few tweaks here and there as the last precincts report in. There may be more changes as absentee and provisional ballots are counted over the next few hours and perhaps days. We will continue to update these figures periodically in other posts, and put this particular marathon “live blog” to an end for now.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,845 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,346 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 573,873 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 434,406 (43%)
96% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,220,694 (52%)
No: 4,792,873 (48%)
96% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,674,662 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,855,432 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 1:20 pm EST/10:20 am PST:
Just a few minor tweaks to the Arkansas and Florida counts. No change on Arizona or California. The No on Prop 8 campaign called a hastily organized press tele-conference refusing to concede, saying that 3 million to 4 million ballots remain uncounted statewide.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,792 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,315 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 573,873 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 434,406 (43%)
96% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,220,694 (52%)
No: 4,792,873 (48%)
96% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,674,662 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,855,432 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 12:20 pm EST/9:20 am PST:
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,792 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,315 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 573,774 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 434,344 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,220,694 (52%)
No: 4,792,873 (48%)
96% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,674,626 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,851,966 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 11:30 am EST/8:30 am PST:
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,792 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,315 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 573,873 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 434,406 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,195,136 (52%)
No: 4,779,297 (48%)
96% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,674,654 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,855,427 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 10:00 am EST/7:00 am PST:
It’s time for me to head to work, so updates may be sporadic.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,606 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,279 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 573,774 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 434,344 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,163,908 (52%)
No: 4,760,336 (48%)
95% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,662,558 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,851,598 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 9:35 am EST/6:35 am PST:
Interesting exit polling results for California’s Prop 8. The present is difficult, but the future is ours. Hang in there.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,606 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,279 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 571,392 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 432,512 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,125,752 (52%)
No: 4,725,313 (48%)
95% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,662,558 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,851,598 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 9:15 am EST/6:15 am PST:
Interesting exit polling results for Arizona’s Prop 102. Things will definitely be different in another decade or so. Despite these losses, time and history are clearly on our side.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,606 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,279 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 571,392 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 432,512 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,019,930 (52%)
No: 4,656,291 (48%)
92% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,662,558 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,851,598 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 8:45 am EST/5:45 am PST:
None of the networks are calling California’s Prop 8 yet.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,606 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,279 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 571,392 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 432,512 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 5,010,855 (52%)
No: 4,650,469 (48%)
92% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,662,558 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,851,598 (38%)
99% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 8:00 am EST/5:00 am PST:
Well, we’re back. Let’s see where things stand right now.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,039,606 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 801,279 (44%)
99% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 571,392 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 432,512 (43%)
95% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,948,765 (52%)
No: 4,597,609 (48%)
91% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,632,316 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,832,236 (38%)
98% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 2:15 am EST/11:15 pm PST:
I’m afraid this will have to be my last update for the night. My partner has rolled over and turned off the light, and our two dogs are staring at me with that look that says, “aren’t you done yet?” And there’s the fact that I still have to get up early in the morning for my real job.
So here is where things stand right now. We’ll pick it up in the morning. Feel free to add your updates in the comments.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,008,420 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 776,896 (44%)
92% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 544,197 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 544,197 (43%)
90% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 2,457,023 (53%)
No: 2,202,737 (47%)
39% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,632,316 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,832,236 (38%)
98% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 2:00 am EST/11:00 pm PST:
California is still hanging in there.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,007,350 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 776,264 (44%)
92% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 509,879 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 379,606 (43%)
84% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 2,282,644 (53%)
No: 2,055,774 (47%)
35% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,632,316 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,832,236 (38%)
98% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 1:40 am EST/10:40 pm PST:
As we continue to watch California’s results trickle in, there are some silver linings to report. Arizona State Sen. Tim Bee (R-Tucson) lost his congressional race against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 55% to 43%, with 73% of precincts reporting. Bee is the guy responsible for casting the crucial sixteenth vote which put Prop 102 onto the Arizona ballot. His political career is now, fittingly, over.
And perennial Federal Marriage Amendment sponsor Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) has lost her bid for re-election. With 67% of precincts reporting, Betsy Markey is thumping her 57% to 42%.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,004,467 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 774,471 (44%)
91% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 501,385 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 373,806 (43%)
83% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 2,252,980 (53%)
No: 1,983,079 (47%)
32% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,614,855 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,816,930 (38%)
98% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 1:20 am EST/10:20 pm PST:
The web site for California’s results is extremely slow right now. It’s been slow all evening, but right now I’m really having a hard time getting the results to come up.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,003,365 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 774,034 (44%)
91% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 481,397 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 361,804 (43%)
77% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,996,918 (53%)
No: 1,810,938 (47%)
29% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,614,855 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,816,930 (38%)
98% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 1:00 am EST/10:00 pm PST:
It’s official; Florida has fallen. California is still standing — and the gap is beginning to close.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 998,429 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 771,350 (44%)
91% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 475,310 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 356,953 (43%)
75% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,867,373 (53%)
No: 1,633,120 (47%)
24% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,589,831 (62%) — Projected winner
No: 2,800,945 (38%)
98% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 12:40 am EST/9:40 pm PST:
I’m back home now, keeping an eye on Arizona and California. It looks like Arkansas and Arizona are lost. I can however take consolation that Pima County (Tucson), my home, has stayed true to its better nature and is trending against Prop 102. California and Florida are still too close to call, although I think we’ll be able to call Florida soon, unfortunately.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 973,264 (56%) — Projected winner
No: 747,932 (44%)
85% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 446,081 (57%) — Projected winner
No: 337,638 (43%)
67% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,682,717 (55%)
No: 1,407,141 (45%)
22% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,479,514 (62%)
No: 2,719,369 (38%)
92% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 12:20 am EST/9:20 pm PST:
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 930,710 (56%)
No: 728,183 (44%)
81% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 415,261 (57%)
No: 317,625 (43%)
61% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,451,505 (55%)
No: 1,213,319 (45%)
17% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,414,880 (62%)
No: 2,678,415 (38%)
91% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 11:35 pm EST/8:35 pm PST:
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 877,204 (56%)
No: 684,143 (44%)
71% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 378,764 (57%)
No: 288,143 (43%)
54% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 1,053,742 (54%)
No: 894,081 (46%)
6% of precincts reporting.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,249,773 (62%)
No: 2,591,180 (38%)
86% of precincts reporting.
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 11:07 pm EST/8:07 pm PST:
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 754,526 (56%)
No: 585,886 (44%)
49% of precincts reporting.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 287,692 (57%)
No: 218,441 (43%)
40% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
No results yet.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 4,184,771 (62%)
No: 2,558,175 (38%)
84% of precincts reporting
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 10:00 pm EST/7:00 pm PST:
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
No results yet.
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 90,920 (59%)
No: 63,362 (41%)
3% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
No results yet.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 3,623,476 (62%)
No: 2,179,355 (38%)
62% of precincts reporting
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
As of 9:30 EST/6:30 PST:
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 3,388,335 (62%)
No: 2,066,794 (38%)
50% of precincts reporting
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
Arizona: Proposition 102: (Marriage Amendment)
No results yet
Arkansas: Initiative 1 (Gay Adoption Ban)
Yes: 21,273 (57%)
No: 16,366 (43%)
3% of precincts reporting.
California: Proposition 8 (Marriage Amendment)
No results yet.
Florida: Amendment 2: (Marriage Amendment)
Yes: 3,388,335 (62%)
No: 2,066,794 (38%)
50% of precincts reporting
* The Florida constitution requires 60% for an amendment to pass.
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.