cogadh: Californians didn't support that, Utah Mormons did and they were not overwhelming at all, it only got passed by the skin of its teeth. As of today, it still isn't official either as the Federal District Court did overturn it, pending appeal.

It is extremist in that nationwide, the minority oppose gay marriage to the point that they want to amend our constitution to eliminate it. As of last year, less than half the country was opposed to gay marriage itself and when you add the option for civil unions, the number opposed grows even smaller. Then there is the fact that this is an issue that nearly 70% of the country feels is not an important important issue at all (regardless of their pro or anti gay marriage stance). The economy, the wars, heck, even abortion is seen as a bigger issue than same-sex marriage. The only people who really care to make this an election issue are the far right Christian conservatives, one of the extremist views of the Republican party.

HereForTheBeer: I was thinking of the earlier Prop 22

cogadh: California prop 22 is a ban on the state borrowing funds from local governments. It was passed this last November with something like 60% approval, but it had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.

EDIT - Ah, wait, you're thinking about the prop 22 from like a decade ago. That one did pass, but it was not a state constitutional amendment like prop 8; in fact, prop 8 was put forth because prop 22 was declared unconstitutional. However, it is important to note that prop 22 passed with only about 50% voter turnout, so that 60% who voted for it only accounted for less than a third of the entire California voting population.

HereForTheBeer: Yup, but that's how voting works. We could look at it a different way: any other survey or poll on the matter would use a much smaller sample size and still try to extrapolate public opinion from that.

Prop 8 passed by a majority (not a huge majority, mind you), with the voters saying they wanted the restrictions on marriage. Even so, and I hope people will understand this point, this is not an issue for the US Constitution unless it's to say that gay couples get the same legal rights as hetero couples. There is at least one declared candidate (I haven't looked into all of them, yet) who supports a definition amendment that limits legal rights for homosexual couples. To me, that candidate does not "get it" when it comes to this all-important founding document. Whether or not it would actually come up as a change to our Constitution is another matter, but it's telling that some who seek the Presidency think that it's a legitimate use of the document.

I do find it funny that the group of people who suggest that a married couple provides family and societal benefits over single parents is the same group working against gays doing exactly that.

HereForTheBeer: The turnout % reflects the difference between an election with and without presidential candidates, and not necessarily how motivated the people are by the issue itself. Either way, changes to the US Constitution require a greater majority than either of those Props garnered, and hopefully the issue won't come to a vote when there is ever a large enough majority in Congress. My only point was that even in California the people, as judged by those numbers, are not in favor of gay marriage at this time.

Frankly, I hope the trend continues in the direction it appears to be going, with people becoming less and less likely to support discrimination against one portion of society.

cogadh: EDIT - And on a related note, a federal judge upheld the ruling that prop 8 is unconstitutional. The initial ruling had come into question after the original judge revealed that he was actually gay, which some people claimed meant he should have recused himself from the case (so only a hetero judge is qualified to rule on the constitutionality of same sex marriage?). Supreme Court, here we come!

KOCollins: Banning gay marraige is not going to change whether same-gender people have sex together or not, so the issue is truly fruitless, and ultimately distracting.

KOCollins: Isn't it something how a political disscussion in the U.S always seems to turn into a gay discussion.
There is so many serious things wrong that we should be focused on, that is so much more important than what two people do privately and willingly together, and yet, whenever the word "republican" comes up in a disscussion, gay rights issues are always dragged into it.
Is this really the issue that matters most?
Year after year we are all nastying up our planet, poisoning our waters, clear cutting, coal burning, using and consuming at a faster and faster rate. Our economy is struggling, our school systems are degenerating, our prisons our overflowing. And yet, here we are talking about gays. That is how politicans get us all to sit on our hands. They talk about something they know people have strong feelings about, and ignore the issues that are truly important to us all.
The future of our country, its people, and this planet is what should be what matters, what we should talk about. Banning gay marraige is not going to change whether same-gender people have sex together or not, so the issue is truly fruitless, and ultimately distracting.
I care about life, the nuturing of it, the prospering of it. I care about what is going to happen tommorrow. I want there to be a tommorrow. I want that tommorrow to be better for all of us, Republican, Democrat, Independent, PEOPLE, that is what we all are.
The little differences we bicker over every day matter so little in comparison to the history of man, of the planet, and what is at stake for all of us.
Now politicans can fight all day about the little things, but in the end, history does not record the little things we do. History is about the big things, the things that matter, the things that change how we live, how we think, who we are.
This is why people in America are so fed up with politicans, why so few people vote. The politicans spend all day bickering about the little things and neglecting the big things that effect us all, and our hopes and dreams.
Politicans lives, and indeed most of our lives have become so busy and cluttered with information and data and work, that we forget the most important things. We are so easily distracted, and so swiftly turned to hate and anger, ignorance and disinterest.
Long ago, it dawned on me what was important, what the whole purpose of life was, it is something most people go through their lives and do not seem to realize, but, if we lived our lives by this one fact, we would all be better, yes, everyone.

To live and grow is the purpose of life. Good is helping life prosper. Bad is destroying life.

If we lived by this code, being a republican, democrat or independent (etc) wouldn't matter at all, and politicans would actually get things done, instead of just trying to make the other side look worse then them. In the end, when all is said and done, there is really no 'sides' only humans.
Now we have a choice: are we going to be around a thousand years from now, or do we all want to go through life playing 'fallout' or some such for real?

Tulivu: Wow, civil rights are nothing compared to ensuring the continued existence of life on Earth. We should all just drop petty matters of taking care of people for... what? There isn't even an argument here. I was expecting "take care of the Earth" but there is no clear or subtle conclusion to this statement. I am pretty sure you aren't in love with someone while being told your relationship isn't recognized by the state (I think state should stay out, really) and you can't have children. I considered letting this thread die because I don't like necro'ing my own topics, but wow.

LordKuruku: The more popular nickname is "Grinches on Parade", though it's considered tired and cliche. Saying it will make both the left and right moan and facepalm.

Magnitus: To a large extent, I do blame the most extreme right wing elements for the deterioration of our politics and the lack of reasonable accommodation and compromises as an integral part of our political objectives.