I forsee challenges to the moral authority of all election integrity advocates on the grounds that they didn't take such post-facto measures against propositions and candidates they preferred.

There's no way the Mormon leadership can turn back the clock on this horrible stain on an otherwise inspiring election, and I think it will hurt them much more then the gays.

Let's hope VR can prove that voters in California are not afraid of gays after all.

Since I've lived in Utah all my life, I have to try once more to defend my home town and I can, thanks to Salt Lake's top election official, Sherri Swensen, The provisional and mail in ballots were counted after election day and I am proud to say:

Utah's largest county, Salt Lake, voted FOR Obama. Not by much, only 295 votes, but this is very exciting to democrats here. Things can only get better!

On the challenges to the moral authority of election integrity advocates: One thing that sets the Prop. 8 race apart from others is that the exit polling firm Edison/Mitofsky, hired by the major media companies, reported Prop. 8 losing by 52% a little before the polls closed. Later, with a 3% greater sample, the exit pollsters reported a 4% shift to Prop 8 passing by 52%.

Basically, they revised their results to reflect the official results. Something I believe they have said in advance that they would do, making the final results of the exit polls essentially useless. The earlier exit poll results do beg the question of whether the official results are accurate.

If there was any fraud, it was on the side that wants to allow rogue justices the ability to legislate from the bench.

One only needs to take a closer look at the militarized wing of the GBLT community.

The overwhelming majority of people believe and support the institution of marriage as the union of bride and groom.

So yes, I would bet there was hanky panky by the GBLT's but this time it wasn't in a bath house, it was at the polls.

@ Helldigger

Please explain to me how homosexual marriages threaten heterosexual marriages.

I do not think that you can, so why in name do you care?

Perhaps you should study Christ's teachings a bit more with emphasis on those portions stressing tolerance and not throwing stones.

Hatred of Gays is hate. period. Take your hate talk elsewhere because it sickens me and is very unchristian.

“Perhaps you should study Christ's teachings a bit more with emphasis on those portions stressing tolerance and not throwing stones.”

Jesus Schmezus who cares about an imaginary god creature?

Tolerance means following the rule of law.

Intolerance is a rogue judge making laws and bypassing the legislature in order to do so. The Constitution in California was changed and the GLBT community is the group practicing intolerance now.

Why do you hate children so much that you would destroy marriage and make it meaningless, thus taking support away from the family unit and giving benefits to people who simply are practicing unconstitutional marriage nuptials?

“Hatred of Gays is hate. period. Take your hate talk elsewhere because it sickens me and is very unchristian.”

I am not a Christian, and I don't hate gays.

Hating gays has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. Why do you hate Heterosexuals so much that you have to change a fundamental institution like marriage to suite your sick viewpoint.

This is no place for your Hatred of Society and the need to act out against the will of the voters in California and 30 other states who have ratified constitutional changes in order to keep idiot justices from making laws when they should have no authority to do so.
Live with it.

Common phrase translated: "Legislating from the bench" = "Upholding the rule of law when it is disagreeable to my limited understanding of it."

The CA Supreme Court ain't a bunch of yippie-dippy liberals. Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans and come from principally Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations (though they rarely discuss that as it is not central to legislating--nor should it be--thanks to our founding father's emphasis on the separation between Church and State.)

I read HellDigger's comments in the previous post with much interest, as I just don't understand how sanctioning the civil rights of a minority under the rule of law can be perceived as destroying the fabric of our society/ undermining the institution of marriage. The arguments to this end seem very Seussian to me: Straight people as "Sneeches with stars upon thars..."

As 99 pointed out, the skewed, unrealistic standards of "marriage" presupposed by folks like HellDigger have already proven to be adequately trounced by heterosexual abuse of the institution. Where do the prop 8 supporters get this overly sanitized, absurd standard of straight marriage? If gay "marriage" is so objectionable, so destructive to the "nuclear family", then how about objecting to the many marriages of Pam Anderson, Brittney Spears, or Larry King for the very same reason? How do they stack, track and square these facts with their distorted, sunny side up, world view? They don't. Big, ginormous, missing puzzle piece for them.

Their staunch, blustery objections always seem to come down an objection to the terminology used. They hate the term "gay marriage"--a small-minded response to the very simple idea of equality under the law. So let's just spell it with one 'r' and call it a day. Or how 'bout "spoon full of sugar" unions?

Prop H8 is going to go down to defeat, just like Prop 22(it's predecessor) did.

Headline: Top Court in California Will Review Proposition 8
New York Times - 3 hours ago
By JESSE MCKINLEY SAN FRANCISCO - Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was ...
California court to hear gay marriage ban case Reuters
State Supreme Court will hear challenges to Prop. 8 San Diego Union Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle - Los Angeles Times - The Associated Press
all 1,246 news articles »
http://news.google.com/n...16&hl=en&topic=h

And HD--what will your response be if it can be proven that PROP 8 results are NOT LEGITIMATE? Lots of us here know the tell-tale signs, and this Prop 8 election looks very suspicious for a lot of FACTUAL reasons.

I am most anxious to see the results of Emily Levy's and VR's amazing PROP 8 investigation, as I suspect we are not the slim MAJORITY of bigots we are being told we are. We may still be a slim MINORITY of bigots--but clearly these folks are very, very frightened; in abject denial as they watch their provincial, sterilized, non-nuanced world change around them and find themselves unable to adjust or evolve.

Good luck with that. It's time.

Does anyone know--will they be able to separate vote fraud only on Prop 8, or does it open other races up to voiding, recount, whatever?

Candice Gingrich, Newt's sister slams him over his anti Gay Remarks on Prop 8
By John Amato Sunday Nov 23, 2008 12:00pm
article and comments
http://crooksandliars.com/node/24229

Proposition 8 contributions
Search the database below to see who has contributed money to the campaigns supporting and opposing California's Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

[ed note: Part of comment deleted. Please read our rules for commenting. We would appreciate you not spam the comments threads. --99]

If gay "marriage" is so objectionable, so destructive to the "nuclear family", then how about objecting to the many marriages of Pam Anderson, Brittney Spears, or Larry King for the very same reason?

Because those marriages meet the criteria of the definition of marriage and same gender unions do not.

How do they stack, track and square these facts with their distorted, sunny side up, world view?

It has nothing to do with sunny side up or even scrambled.

Just because heterosexuals have bad marriages, violent marriages, marriages based on co-dependency or what ever, same gender unions are something entirely different all together.

GBLT people continue to identify their relationships as criteria for special rights and benefits that they already have and believe calling their union a marriage will achieve that. It doesn't. It only makes the rest of society focus on what they will have to do to protect the institution for what it is.

They hate the term "gay marriage"--a small-minded response to the very simple idea of equality under the law.

The thickness of your argument has no validity. I don't hate a term, thats just silly. Equality under the law means that everyone has the right to marry, only what you refuse to understand is that marriage is the union of bride and groom.

The words gay and marriage do not belong together any more than saying whales are fish.

There are bad whales, whales that bully and make other whales afraid, but fish aren't whales and even though the fish wants to be a whale, it doesn't matter what they want, because they are a fish.

And HD--what will your response be if it can be proven that PROP 8 results are NOT LEGITIMATE

Then of course, the court will have once again thwarted the most important process that our constitution allows us, that's the right to vote on an issue. California voted, the judges ruled, the voters then changed the Constitution so that judges could no longer bypass the voting process, and now, if the court does it again, it is simply a travesty.

Your sophistry does not change the fact that gay people are humans who, in this country, have all the same rights you do. Getting married is not a special right. It is deemed by almost everyone as a fundamental human right and so conservatives, strict constructionists, indeed any American citizen must agree that homosexuals have that right if the rest of us do.

The public can vote all it wants on an unconstitutional proposition, but it is the duty of the judiciary to see that unconstitutional laws are not enacted.

Seems to me, Helldigger, you should stop digging hell and start reading the Constitution.

HD@13-What if it's a marriage, between a bride and groom, that happens to be a happy one. Could it be a "gay marriage" then?

While I voted no on 8, and stand in solidarity with my homosexual family and friends that wish to marry, I think I understand where HD is coming from.
People like HD feel for some reason that gay marriage infringes upon, and therefore demeans the brand(marketing terminology) of "marriage," sort of like how California is only allowed to produce "agave spirits," and not "tequila." Even though it's the same blue agave, with the same type of process, producing the same basic product, the producers of "Tequila" have a vested interest in that brand and defend it vigorously.

It's a shame how much branding dominates our society; "liberal"/"conservative," "Republican"/"Democrat", "American" etc., because branding is designed to appeal to an emotional response and not the intellect.

If two people are in love, that love transcends any brand, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

Helldigger (#13)~

Because those marriages meet the criteria of the definition of marriage and same gender unions do not.

According to whom? Websters? Actually, the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (liberal rag that it is), has BOTH same sex marriage and traditional marriage included in it's on-line definition. Whose criteria are you assuming?

Just because heterosexuals have bad marriages, violent marriages, marriages based on co-dependency or what ever, same gender unions are something entirely different all together.

Hm. I'm not sure what you mean by "something entirely different", but it seems your flip is showing.

And if 'children' are the real concern, as you keep stressing, then a bad heterosexual marriage is surely just as destructive for the kids as a bad homosexual marriage, so again, I have to ask:
if you feel so strongly about "protecting traditional marriage", why not put celebrity marriages on the ballot? Maybe give them a "three strikes and you're out" policy when it comes to abusing the good name and high standards of traditional bride-on-groom marriages. Yes, put it up to a vote! Let US decide which heterosexual celebrities we allow to enjoy basic civil rights. They haven't kept within the traditional confines of marriage, so then they must be treated as lesser-thans and denied civil rights by LAW.

Seem ridiculous? I know. But that's exactly how your position reads to me.

Re: the term "gay marriage":

The thickness of your argument has no validity. I don't hate a term, that's just silly.

Funny, for not hating the term, which is 'silly', you give it 5 lines of fish and whale talk, which I guess, conversely, is..not at all silly?

Equality under the law means that everyone has the right to marry, only what you refuse to understand is that marriage is the union of bride and groom.

Again, I refer you to point one and the clarification I requested, above. Thanks for once again deferring to convention as rebuttal.

And then, in that last bit in response to my question re: the potential INACCURACY of the PROP 8 election results:

Then of course, the court will have once again thwarted the most important process that our constitution allows us, that's the right to vote on an issue. California voted, the judges ruled, the voters then changed the Constitution so that judges could no longer bypass the voting process..."

Ugh. Talk about THICK. I don't know where to begin with that one: having a constitutional right to vote has nothing to with ratifying a state constitution to discriminate against against a minority group (which is very bad manners ) AND without 2/3 majority, which is in and of itself, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

No, the question was: what if these election RESULTS showing Prop 8 PASSED are proven to be inaccurate? What if Californians did NOT pass Prop 8 by 500,000 votes? What if it passed by more? Or by less? Or, what if it could be proven that it didn't pass at all? Would that even matter to you? Or would you still bandy about that "will of the voters" line as if this election was a legitimate mandate?

>>Because those marriages meet the criteria of the definition of marriage and same gender unions do not.

Because those marriages meet the criteria of the definition of marriage and same gender unions do not.

“According to whom? Websters? Actually, the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (liberal rag that it is), has BOTH same sex marriage and traditional marriage included in it's on-line definition. Whose criteria are you assuming?”

Federal DOMA law defines it nicely.

You can make up all kinds of definitions that fit your twisted needs to justify the belief that marriage includes same gender nuptials. If you are a liberal whack job judge in Massachusetts for instance, or a Supreme Court justice in California, you might believe you are above the law and can malign all sorts of definitions.

That is exactly why the people had to institute State Constitutional amendments to deny idiots from squirrelly applications.

Prop 8 was the reaction of the electorate to define Marriage the way it is meant to be and to keep nincompoops on the bench from doing that again.

The national landscape is a good indication of how the people in the US feel. 31 states with overwhelming margins, have validated new language in their State Constitution that defines marriage as “one man and one woman”. Most of the other states have laws that ban SSM. Federal DOMA law does that and has withstood Constitutional tests. Only where the bench has bypassed the normal law making process is the practice of SSM forced upon the people

Only a few states have lost their compass in allowing judges the power to create laws that have no foundation.

What really needs to happen is a Federal Constitutional amendment that ends the controversy by defining marriage that synchronizes with the overwhelming American safeguard that 31 states have already ratified in their constitutions. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

As long as civil rights are granted to those citizens who join into union as it is defined by DOMA law and those same rights are denied to citizens who join in union outside of DOMA law, then there is discriminatory action under that law and the law...is wrong.

These civil rights extend well beyond what defines a marriage and include such humanitarian activity such as visiting a loved one in the hospital ICU and estate disposition.

The current definition of marriage in regards to civil legal standing, is discriminatory.

Me, I'm happily and conservatively hetero, but in fact, the most conservative stance available here is to extend civil protection to anyone seeking to join in legal intimate partnership.

You aren't just socially wrong, HD, you're legally wrong too.

This "marriage" concept seems to be a weird amalgam of religious and civil law, I guess dating back to when you had to go to the Church to get married.

California got religion out of divorce law long ago by ending the need for proving some reason for terminating the marriage. It's time the other shoe dropped.

“As long as civil rights are granted to those citizens who join into union as it is defined by DOMA law and those same rights are denied to citizens who join in union outside of DOMA law, then there is discriminatory action under that law and the law...is wrong.”

Dumb arguments prove some people are too dense to understand rationality.

Those rights are not denied to anyone. Anyone can get married, even GLBT's. Go ahead and get married. Nobody will discriminate against you. Just make sure you marry someone that fits the criteria for marriage.

Civil rights are not based on sexual preference, if they were, it would be a special right, like what Massachusetts created.

“These civil rights extend well beyond what defines a marriage and include such humanitarian activity such as visiting a loved one in the hospital ICU and estate disposition."

Dumb arguments prove some people are too dense to understand rationality.

Anyone of age, can name who can and can't visit you in the hospital. If you don't want your brother or father to visit you, you can deny those particular people a visit. It is simply a matter of filling out paperwork so that your desires are fulfilled.

Hospitals honor and even demand these agreements in some cases. Try finding a hospital that denies the right to name those who can visit you. It no longer is standard practice to deny gays visitation, as long as the partner is named in the forms.

If you are too dumb to make arrangements ahead of time, before you bang your head on the wall and fall into a coma, then you are too dumb to make the decision who is allowed to visit you in the hospital.

Estate disposition is another area where legal documents create who gets your property or who can dispose of your property if you continue to bang your head against the wall and don't get those legal documents written, then you only have yourself to blame for your stupidity.

There are really no rights denied to people because of their sexual preference.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.----Helldigger

(Sigh.)

Well, isn't that wonderful. At least you didn't drag out that "bride and groom" spew for the umpteenth time. Jesus fuking christ I thought you'd never give it a rest.

And no where do I see where you answered my questions:

How do two gay men or two lesbians getting married destroy YOUR marriage or anyone else's?

And if you are so interested in "protecting the children" do you want to ban DIVORCE since it is DIVORCE that destroys marriage?

"There are really no rights denied to people because of their sexual preference."---Helldigger

We are NOT talking about "sexual preference."

We are talking about sexual orientation. They are two different things, but from your comments I wouldn't expect you to know that. I won't waste my time explaining the difference to you because nothing else I've said or asked of you has made a dent or has "taken" So why bother?! If you are interested in learning what the difference between sexual preference and sexual orientation is, consult a credible psychologist.

And from all your comments I've read, you need to see one anyway. So while you're there in session, don't forget to run that by them and he/she can educate you on that.

Well I see there's no answer still from that Helldigger to my questions which I have asked repeatedly. I have asked these questions of many people opposed to gay and lesbian marriage and none of the people opposing it will ever answer these question. Wonder why that is?:

How do two gay men or two lesbians getting married destroy YOUR marriage or anyone else's?

And if you are so interested in "protecting the children" do you want to ban DIVORCE since it is DIVORCE that destroys marriage?