People aren't ready for it so they want to stop it by putting a rights restriction in the constitution.
A bad thing to do IMO.
Many people also are frustrated at activist judges making up the law as they go along.
In the case of marriage, everyone was already treated equally. Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. And vice versa. Everyone is limited to one partner. Nobody can marry a sibling or certain other close relatives.
There is nothing about homosexuality in our existing family law. The law talks about men and women, not about sex orientation/identity, whatever the current politically correct term is. So based on the interpretation of the law, the judges clearly invented a right to homosexual marriage. There was no denial of anyone’s rights in the first place to justify the court ruling. Gay people can marry anyone of the opposite sex. I understand that they don’t want to, but the law doesn’t ban a lesbian female from marrying a male. Millions of single adults don’t want to get married either. Their rights aren’t being violated either, if they choose not to marry.
I’ve talked to a few people, some of whom are sympathetic about gay rights, but agree that the legal reasoning used is questionable, because of the fact that there was nothing about homosexuality in the law in the first place.
I am voting for it. One does not do away with thousands of years of tradition with a 4-3 vote. The original “restriction” of marriage to one man and one woman was not necessary until groups started defining marriage as something other than that traditional concept. The proposition enshrines the traditional meaning. Sorry, but gay relationship didn’t need marriage to begin and won’t be stopped by not having marriage. You are aware that all the privileges of marriage in California are already in place for civil unions? It isn’t needed except to bludgeon the federal government and other states to accept that radical redefinition of marriage, and to further harass those who have personal objections to same-sex relationships.
By the way, I think—a lot, especially since I don’t watch television. I have heard the commercial on my way to work a couple of times but it didn’t sway me.
There is not constitutional right to marry. You are very off base in your reasoning. You can not restrict a right that people do not have.
The State Supreme Court created a “right” where one never existed, like the USSC did with Roe v Wade. The civil marriage license was not intended to sanctify the love between 2 people but to protect spouses and children from abandonment and to insure their inheritance rights. Gays want their love to be recognized as normal and they want the power of the state to enforce that notion, to teach school kids that they are normal and to silence those who think that they are, indeed, sick!