Quantcast
About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
 
CHRISTIANITY
Who is a Christian?
Shared beliefs
Handle change
Bible topics
Bible inerrancy
Bible harmony
Interpret Bible
Persons
Beliefs, creeds
Da Vinci code
Revelation, 666
Denominations
 
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

Non-theistic...
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic info.
Gods/Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt/security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
World's end
True religion?
Seasonal topics
Science/Religion
More info.

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality/ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Relig. tolerance
Relig. freedom
Relig. hatred
Relig. conflict
Relig. violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
10 Command.
Abortion
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment
Homosexuality
Gay marriage
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

 

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Same-sex marriage (SSM) and
domestic partnerships in California

What will the future hold for Prop. 8?

Sponsored link.


What is next?

To put the vote in perspective:

Attempts over the past 15 decades to obtain equal rights for minorities such as:
bulletThe abolition of human slavery, and recognition of African Americans as full human beings,
bulletAllowing all African Americans to marry,
bulletAllowing women to enter most professions,
bulletAllowing women to vote,
bulletAllowing non-theists to claim conscientious objection during wartime,
bulletAllowing African Americans to vote,
bulletAllowing interracial couples to marry, etc.
have all eventually been won. With agonizing slowness, the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance for "justice and liberty for all" has been largely achieved.

Opposition against equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations has been decreasing for decades:Prop 22 in the year 2000 passed with 61.4% of the votes.
bullet Proposition 22 passed by 61.4% of the vote in the year 2000.
bulletThe identically worded Prop 8 passed with only 52.3% of the votes in 2008.

This represents a drop in support of 9 percentage points in 8 years!

Assuming that this trend continues, if all legal challenges in the near future fail to restore SSM to California, a new Proposition favoring marriage equality in 2012 would probably pass comfortably. Again, this would only take 50% of the voting public plus one vote to pass.

The drop of 9 percentage points between 2000 and 2008 is not a fluke. Numerous polls on equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations -- heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals -- have consistently shown a gradual weakening of the opposition.

Webmaster's opinion (for what it is worth):

There are few rights more fundamental that being able to marry the person that one loves and to whom they are committed.

It is still puzzling to us how two percent of the population can determine who receives fundamental human rights and who is denied them throughout California.

If Prop 8 is allowed to stand, then nobody's rights are safe. There are lots of minority groups in California who are hated and feared by a substantial number of potential voters in the state. Probably the most unpopular groups are religious minorities -- particularly Atheists and Muslims. Beyond them are other vulnerable minorities.

One of the purposes of a constitution is to protect the rights of minorities from attacks by legislatures and majorities of the public. This protection failed over Prop. 8.

One is reminded of the words of pastor Martin Niemoller writing in 1945 on his release from a World War II Nazi concentration camp:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me." 1,2

References used:

 The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. The above wording appears to be correct. However, a very popular distortion of his saying cites, in order: labor unions, Communists, Jews, and Catholic
  2. Franklin H. Littell, "First They Came for the Jews," Christian Ethics Today, 2001-MAY-27, at: http://www.christianethicstoday.com/

Site navigation:

Home page > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > Couples > California > here

Copyright © 2008 and 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update and review: 2009-JAN-17
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link.


Go to the previous page, or go to the California same-sex marriage menu or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 

Sponsored link: