Are California Liberals bigots in disguise? ?

I guess they weren't as liberal as they claimed to be.

Good morning. I think folks voted for it for a couple of reasons:

First, they are for civil unions but not necessarily gay marriages. When you tack the word "marriage" on to the subject, it's a whole new ball game. Marriage is a religious entity; most religions believe that homosexuality is a sin. When you put the government in the mix, and gay marriage is legalized, churches could be forced to perform such marriages or lose their licenses/tax exemption statues. This would infringe on the religious freedoms of churches and pastors to practice what they believe.

Second, civil unions are already legal in the State of California. Contrary to some false reports, gays who were joined by civil unions already had the same rights as heterosexual married couples for visitation in hospitals, tax purposes, property rights, etc.; I personally know gay couples joined by civil unions that had adopted children through the State of California.

So in the opinion of the majority of voters, the necessity of a new law wasn't really there in the State of California.

My question, (and it does not only apply to this one issue), is why do we have to keep making new laws, when we already have laws in place?

I voted for Prop 8 because I define marriage as the union of a man and a woman just like it has been for thousands of years. It is not a civil rights issue or a discrimination issue.

Maybe now people will start seeing that politicians tell you what you want to hear for your vote and then after the election, they could give a rats *** for their voters.

From what I have seen in the last few years, many politicians are just greedy, hypocritical idiots. Take Al Gore for example. He flies around in his huge private gulfstream and tells everyone the earth is going through global warming. Therefore we all need to be driving tiny cars that don't pollute the earth as much. But its ok for him because he buys our carbon credits... since we can't afford big airplanes.

Before voting, please take a deep look into your politician. Don't vote for the party, vote for the person.

Well, I'm a California conservative, but I'll answer anyway.

I do not think two gays committing themselves to each other should be called "marriage." The argument they use is that it is a "contract between consenting adults." But, if you're going to use that argument, you must apply it to everyone equally (lest you be accused of bigotry yourself). That means relatives should be allowed to marry, since they are consenting adults.

Now, if you're going to say 'incestuous marriage isn't ok because they have an increased risk of having kids with birth defects,' then again, you must apply that equally to everyone. That means you can't allow *anyone* with an increased risk of having kids with birth defects to marry. So anyone with a heart defect, liver defect, brain defect, etc., should not be allowed to marry. So which is it - not allow gays to marry, or allow relatives to marry?

Herb: Arnold is a RINO. He is no conservative.

Phil M: Actually, it IS as liberal as they say. Most of the people who voted *against* prop 8 (supported gay marriage, in other words) were relatively young and "progressive" if you want to call it that. Most who voted *for* prop 8 tended to be older (although not all - I'm only 24) and more traditional in their views of "family." That includes the majority of hispanics and blacks. I actually heard that about 70% of blacks voted for prop 8.

Why does somebody have to have something against gay people in order to vote against them having a legal marriage?

Here's just one example of what I'm talking about. Take a health insurance company. A true marriage would extend health benefits to a gay spouse. Doesn't the insurance company get to SELL an insurance policy to a gay partner who is not a legal spouse, and therefore not eligible to have benefits extended from the other spouse?

Maybe insurance agents voted against gay marriage simply because it was a good business decision for them.

We already have vomit all over our streets from people who see two men swapping spit. We don't need to give them more reasons to move here.

A gay guy has no more " right " to marriage than he does to use the Ladies room.

Most of us see nothing "gay" about a man wanting a penis crammed into his butt, and we don't think this perversion qualifies him to become some other dude's wife.

We retain the right to not distort the definition of political correctness. If you see your views as the only correct ones, then you have your own brand of bigotry.

You do have the right to ignore gender as an important distinction, but we don't have to agree with you. We notice the difference, like it or not.

A lot of California's new voters, many from other cultures, don't buy the white, liberal party line 100% apparently. More "diversity" than they can stomach.

well i doubt california liberals voted for it , more alot of obama voters only voted for him and did not bother to vote against this proppsition .

No, it just goes to show that not even California is as liberal as Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al say it is.

What I cant figure out is how Obama supports rights for terrorist who kill thousands of innocent people,but on the other hand support the wholesale salughter of innocent childern..

Oh wait ok I get it