Just curious but does anyone have a clue why California's Proposition 8 fail? The proposal would have given gay marriages the same legal standing as heterosexual marriages. I'd have guessed in any state in the nation that proposition would have passed easily in California.
Not trying to pass judgements on the issue one way or another, but in an election cycle where liberals won overwhelmingly it simply baffles me that this proposition was not ratified. Anyone have any insight? Did supporters not push the bill? I know many major companies put money behind it to legalize it. So why did it fail?
On a side note, I thought this article was interesting. Nancy Pelosi said the voters simply didn't understand. That seems pretty insulting but maybe she was right?
Not trying to pass judgements on the issue one way or another, but in an election cycle where liberals won overwhelmingly it simply baffles me that this proposition was not ratified. Anyone have any insight? Did supporters not push the bill? I know many major companies put money behind it to legalize it. So why did it fail?
On a side note, I thought this article was interesting. Nancy Pelosi said the voters simply didn't understand. That seems pretty insulting but maybe she was right?
Pelosi: California Voters Just Didn't Grasp the Meaning of Proposition 8
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 13, 2008 - In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered her explanation for why Californians voted to pass the true marriage ballot measure, Proposition 8: they just didn't understand what they were voting for.
"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," said Pelosi. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."
However Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary shot back, labeling Pelosi’s remarks as “ludicrous.”
"If anything,” said Mohler, “the wording of the proposition, controversial in itself, makes the Speaker's point even more ludicrous."
The final wording that appeared on the Nov. 4 ballot said that the proposition, "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Initiative constitutional amendment." This wording had been the subject of a lawsuit by Prop. 8 supporters, after the attorney general changed the wording at the last minute.
Prop. 8 supporters had insisted that the new wording prejudiced voters against the proposition. Originally the wording had indicated that Prop. 8 would define marriage as between a man and a woman, saying nothing of “eliminating” any rights. Despite the last minute change, however, 52% of California voters still chose to support true marriage.
"Is she seriously suggesting that the voters of her home state cannot be taken seriously when they defend marriage? It appears so," responded Mohler.
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 13, 2008 - In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered her explanation for why Californians voted to pass the true marriage ballot measure, Proposition 8: they just didn't understand what they were voting for.
"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," said Pelosi. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."
However Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary shot back, labeling Pelosi’s remarks as “ludicrous.”
"If anything,” said Mohler, “the wording of the proposition, controversial in itself, makes the Speaker's point even more ludicrous."
The final wording that appeared on the Nov. 4 ballot said that the proposition, "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Initiative constitutional amendment." This wording had been the subject of a lawsuit by Prop. 8 supporters, after the attorney general changed the wording at the last minute.
Prop. 8 supporters had insisted that the new wording prejudiced voters against the proposition. Originally the wording had indicated that Prop. 8 would define marriage as between a man and a woman, saying nothing of “eliminating” any rights. Despite the last minute change, however, 52% of California voters still chose to support true marriage.
"Is she seriously suggesting that the voters of her home state cannot be taken seriously when they defend marriage? It appears so," responded Mohler.
