Sponsored links

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:

	The abolition of human slavery, and recognition of African Americans as full human beings,
	Allowing all African Americans to marry,
	Allowing women to enter most professions,
	Allowing women to vote,
	Allowing non-theists to claim conscientious objection during wartime,
	Allowing African Americans to vote,
	Allowing interracial couples to marry, etc.

	Proposition 22 passed by 61.4% of the vote in the year 2000.
	The 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!

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

Sponsored link.

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

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

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: