Comments on: Poll shows increased support for gay marriage ban in California

By: Hank

Hank — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:37:05 +0000

So "Hollywood stars Brad Pitt, Ellen Degeneres and Steven Spielberg have all given public support to campaigns to overturn Prop 8, an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot in November"

Hollywood is the most untypical segment of the the USA that nothing
they advocate is worth much to the average person. Hollywood's
values, mores, attitudes, etc. are too far out-of-touch with
most of our citizens.

The ban will pass and homosexuals will have to settle for
same-sex union category. You people don't understand that
when you "take on" a 5000 year religious tradition of marriage,
you are aksing too much for us to "cave in" to your demands.
Nice try, but no brass ring.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:32:17 +0000

apYrs, NO, no same-sex marriage will be deemed null and void if the ban goes into effect, but it does pose a huge problem if Obama is elected. He is for federal (national) recognition of civil unions (partnerships in the UK)….but, unlike the UK, those who have married in Massachusetts and California will be recognised as marriages, NOT civil unions. New York state where I currently reside, though it has no civil union law in place, but domestic partnerships which convey many of the rights of marriage, is the only state that recognises same-sex marriage from out of state and from abroad, unlike the UK. I'm not sure if California reciprocates in the way that New York does even though any gay couple can now travel to California or Massachusetts to marry, or Canada if they so choose. Same-sex marriage legislation has already been drafted in New York state and if the democrats take control of the state senate, then the legislation will be brought to the floor, passed and enacted so that we can marry. It will be the first state to offer marriage through legislation. New Jersey which currently offers civil unions will probably abandon those for marriage if the democrats are in control of that state. A recent study conducted by the New York City comptroller's office estimated that by allowing gay couples to marry in the state would generate revenues in excess of $222 million or more annually (roughly 110 British pounds) into the state coffers. It makes sound economic sense to enact marriage equality, anywhere.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: john wilfred sharp

john wilfred sharp — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:35:09 +0000

mathematically the ban can be obtained , there are only 10% PLU.so democracy is an outrage ( it is the dictatorship of 51% over 49% and it will depends only on the number of intelligent straights who vote against.how can this vote have value . how can some one who is not gay bi lesbian or trans understand.the same vote on the ban of smoking tobacco in public 50 years ago would have seen the smokers win and still be allowed to kill the non smokers .

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: apYrs

apYrs — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:32:36 +0000

if the 11,000 ceremonies are anulled, will the coupls concerned be able to claim back ALL the costs involved, and recompense for emotional trauma?

It could cost quite a lot – $55m say, as a very austere guess?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:59:10 +0000

Bearing in mind the dreadful state of California's finances, I would have thought gay marriage would be the least of their concerns!

(Report comment to the moderator)