Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay marriage proposal fails to secure enough support to make it on to Californian ballot papers

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A couple of issues with this article:

    1) There’s a typo: “Love Honor Cherish were able to gather the 7000,000 minimum signatures…” That should have read they were unable to gather the signatures.
    2) Immediately after the California Supreme Court ruling, there was a split in the gay community as to whether there was a better chance for passing the proposition in 2010 or 2012. Many felt it was better to wait until 2012 because there would be a higher voter turnout in a presidential election.
    3) The campaign to get the proposition on the ballot in 2010 was hampered from the start. They couldn’t get enough volunteers to collect signatures. And, due to a lack of funding, there was little, if any, advertising about the campaign.
    4) Now that the attempt to get the proposition on the ballot this year has failed, Love Honor Cherish announced they would join with the 2012 group to get the proposition on the ballot in 2012.

  2. barry atkinson 13 Apr 2010, 8:55am

    Thanks for putting this story into perspective, Deano; informed facts take the wind out of hyped-up stories – and goodness knows, we’re having enough of these at the moment!

  3. America – Land of the Not-So free!!

  4. A couple more issues:

    #1 Supreme Court turned down an appeal by gay rights groups last year, although a trial examining whether the ban was constitutional is currently on hiatus and expected to resume shortly.

    The California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 did not violate the California constitution. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is on hiatus pending delivery of required documents by the opponents of Prop 8. The US Supreme Court will not decide whether to hear the case or not until after the 9th Circuit rules and the lose appeals.

    #2. All of the 18,000 couples who married in the brief window have been permitted to remain married.

    The California Supreme Court ruled that there was no precedence for annulling the 18,000 marriages. As 1/2 of one of these couples, I can say I don’t feel that we were “permitted to remain married”, I feel that the CA Supreme Court upheld our constitutional right to stay married. There’s a big difference.

  5. The bottom line on this is that GLBT people in California are screwed again. This is why I want to move to Canada. Atleast they had the decency to extend marriage equality to all. More and more, the US disgusts me.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all