The surprise to me is in the age-group findings.  This is the first poll I've seen in which every age group showed a majority in the "No" column.  In the past, at least one age group - the oldest - (my generation) was in the "Yes" column. That's pretty significant and I don't know what accounts for that change. If you look nationwide, you see a clear divide between older and younger voters. Older voters are consistently opposed to marriage rights for homosexuals and younger voters are consistently in favor or marriage rights or, at the worst, civil unions.  With almost four months to go before the election, it will be interesting to see how this thing plays out.

On the personal side, I'll probably do what I've always done when civil rights issues for homosexuals get put to a vote: hide my eyes and peep between my fingers every once in a while to see how things are going.  We tease our daughter about these things, asking her how she's going to vote. "Oh, Daddy!", she'll say, "Shut up."  She gave us away on our wedding day.

HM, I sure we can count on Wayfarer's support

Regardless of anyone's support, I like the idea of viewing a proposed law on it's merits of justice and fairness. For example, I'm a smoker (perpetually in a state of quitting), but when initiatives came up to limit/restrict/eliminate smoking in public places, including night clubs and bars, I voted in favor of it because it was a just and fair law.

That's what I'm talking about. I trust that people recognize fairness and justice, but I can only hope that their religious beliefs don't prevent them from following the voice inside that says "This law is not fair or This law is not a just law".

If Proposition 8 were to be passed, I'm sure I'd mope about it for awhile and probably avoid the internet so I wouldn't have to see people gloat about it. If it fails, I'm not going to gloat. I'm just going to reconfirm my belief that you can't move forward when you underestimate the goodness, the intelligence, and the sense of justice and fairness of your neighbors. 

Well said.  I hope as well that the voters see this as a civil rights issue because that is exactly what it is...a referendum on allowing basic and constitutionally guaranteed rights to all of the citizens of the state.

Could be the numbers have nothing to do with marriage. Alot of people are offended that the court legislates law from the bench. "No" could mean a reprimand to the courts rather than any feelings about same sex marriage.

Also, there is the fear, no matter how unfounded, that along with an open border policy for illegal Mexicans, Californians don't want the state to be a magnate for gays. Of all the blogging about gay/lesbo rights and marriages, I've never hear these side issues mentioned or how voters feel about them.

Cat, I think you have identified some concerns that are probably in the minds of the voters, and as you said, no matter how unfounded.  People can really try to justify any argument,  but it does really boil down to not "gay/lesbo" rights, but basic rights for all here in the state.  Hopefully come November the voters will end the discrimination.

Catpaw: I'm a little confused as to how a "no" vote would be a reprimand to the court. A "yes" vote seems more likely to be interpreted as a reprimand, because it would nullify the courts opinion on the perceived injustice they based their opinion on.

As for California being a magnet to gays, that's been the case since World War II and probably because of the same reason it drew so many people during the Great Depression - it's a melting pop that also happens to be a land of enormous wealth. Alone, California is the 7th largest economy in the world. California has the largest concentration of homosexuals in the country. That would be a given since the state has the highest population in the USA.

There are other factors that bring gays to California. 1) The reputation for progressive politics. 2) The film industry is here. An odd statistic that practically no one knows about that is associated with homosexuals is from social research where adolescent homosexuals are asked about their career choices.

One of the most striking things learned, especially from among gay teens, is that they show the highest preference among ALL teens for wanting to seek a career in acting.  Most don't achieve that goal, but even still, gays are far, far over represented in the production end of filmmaking and, if they do achieve the goal of becoming an actor, they probably are slightly ahead of their numbers in that field.  Like any social group, gays have an extensive grapevine that lets the community in on this information. So, when you look into the visual and production arts, you see a whole lot of gay people who are simply finding a small way to fulfill their youthful career ambitions. That ambition happens to be in the most powerful industry the media has created, so the presence of gays there cannot be glossed over. Working for a living matters a great deal and, just like anyone, gays go where the work is.

HM brings up a good point about Hollywood. Many "Homophobes" credit SF/Bay area for the big change in this nation's preception of "civil justice", but Hollywood has had a much more damning effect on this nation's morality.

So HM you have yet to respond to my article by a recovering homosexual who dare to dissent from the gay rights movement. 

You're right, husband, I mistyped. My bad. As to the perceptions of the voters, as goofy concurred, they're there, no matter how unfounded. That can only be resolved by education, communication and a lot of patience.

I don't see how a sampling of 672 voters can be called an accurate poll. That doesn't sound like much to project millions of votes with any certainty.

I think it depends on what one perceives as a "damning effect on the nation's morality." What I mean is, that my college training was in literature and creative writing (my small attempt to get into the movies). The typical college writing class, no matter WHERE the college, places the most emphasis on the literary genre of "Realism", which is a branch of the whole spectrum of creative writing that happens to be the most current form in the evolution of writing for the sake of creating art.

Realism emphasizes the specialness of writing stories that actually reflect what people do in real life. To give you a deeper understanding, just compare a real-life story to the typical Hollywood movie.  In real life, bad guys win and never get caught. In movies the bad guy invariably either gets caught, or they suffer in some way that makes their bad deed an object lesson to filegoers that doing bad has negative consequence.  The public DEMANDS that kind of summary in a movie.  When it isn't delivered, the public, especially those with religious and/or ethical mores, will NOT shut up about it until the evil is exposed and used as an example to all.

We recently say a film that captured this controversy.  "No Country For Old Men" is about a horrible evil person who got away. This man had NO conscience. The film implies that he might have had a tiny bit when he would force a person to flip a coin to determine whether he would murder them or not.  In the final scene, he engages in this bargain with a woman, but the film doesn't show whether or not he killed her.  All it shows is him driving away, getting hit by a car that ran a stop sign, and this evil guy making an escape.

That's an example of realism. It is the EXCEPTION to Hollywood films. It was an extremely well-told story that had no logical loopholes like bad films do. So, given the choice between marketing this kind of film on a routine basis, and showing films in which evil is almost universally defeated, which do you think fans want? Well, most fans can't stomach watching bad guys get away with it time after time. But they can tolerate the conquest of evil, almost infinitely. So, that's really the kind of moral impact Hollywood has had on this country, in my opinion.  Evil gets punished. Bad guys either get caught, or they are depicted as suffering the consequence of their actions in some way.

It's statistics catpaw. You only need a random sample of about 1000 people to have +-3% accuracy in a poll. Lower sample sizes are possible, but the results are not as accurate. The key problem in polling is getting that random sample. It is very hard to get a truely random cross-section of the population as a whole. But, give the assumption of randomness, the math all works out statistically speaking.

So HM you have yet to respond to my article by a recovering homosexual who dare to dissent from the gay rights movement. 

Must have slipped my mind <grin> You've posted such an article? I've responded to that genre of argument a gizillion times over the past 25 years. So, if I didn't realize how critical it was to your worldview that I *personally* respond to it, I hope you'll understand.

Having lived the life of those whom you call "recovering homosexual" long before there was such a  thing as this AA for Homos you speak so favorable of, I could write from memory about my own past experience of trying to avoid acting on my homosexual orientation and basically, in doing so, tell you what this fellow said without ever having to read his testimony.

Nonetheless, if you'll link me to which of your many discussions that revisit this same issue over and over again, I'll look into participating.  I don't quite understand why this is revelent to this poll discussion, where you seem to have no opinion at all.

The Art's of any culture have served to transmit the values of that culture.  So of course, most stories are about the victory of good over evil.  A story that allows evil to go unpunished says that there is no good, no victory over evil, and ultimately no meaning to life.  That is nihilism and is the overall disease that afflicts our culture.  When we look at the questioning of core values, the rampant depression and materialism of our culture we are seeing the effects of nihilism and our world being led to suicide. 

Here you go HM  http://people.bakersfield.c...  I posted it today with you in mind, since you seemed to have a need to talk about "homosexuality" on my "look at atheism" blog that I posted yesterday.  As for my opinon of the poll question.  Need you even ask?

Here's a site that "rehabs" gays. There was a guy who was living a gay lifestyle in the early 1990s, and through psychotherapy was rendered heterosexual again (it's complicated; the guy hated his "manly" father so he took up girly things as a boy, and so on and so forth. He said that gaiety never felt quite right to him. He married a babe and they have five kids (hope he has a good job). I first read about it in the San Diego Reader, a free but very good weekly newspaper.

http://www.narth.com/

Catpaw: "A lot of people are offended that the court legislates law from the bench."

Sure, there are people who unfavorably view the courts' interpretations of the constitutionality of laws and various legislation whether born in the halls of congress or by voter measures and referendums, etc., when the court rules in a way that they don't like.

The courts are the underpinnings of our judicial and legislative system.

Without the courts we would still have slavery and all sorts of unconstitutional laws.

But when these same folks agree with the courts' rulings, it's peachy.

The bottom line is, courts don't legislate, they interpret the constitutionality of various issues.

Just because a majority of people emotionally reacting to an issue pass referendums, measures , etc.,  does not make them right , either morally or constitutionally.

When will people wake up to the fact the majority is not necessarily always right and is often dead wrong.

Under our democracy the minority is protected from the majority.

That is one single most important ingredient in true democracy.

Lynch mobs don't get to hang people.

Vigilantes don't get to enforce law.

Majorities don't get to make unconstitutional laws.

In the particular issue of homosexuals and their marriage rights, it is right that homosexuals are afforded every right afforded everyone else , heterosexual or otherwise.

When will the homophobes, racists and other wackos wake up and get it?

Homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals is not an issue of religious morality, it is a legal, constitutional matter of basic human rights.

But every time an issue arises concerning the violation of some group's or individual's rights, some angry people are all too ready to rewrite the constitution to skirt that basic tenet of democratic justice.

It will be a sad day for this nation when it becomes so easy for a gang of idiots to "adjust" the constitution to their liking over some silly religious-based moral indignation.

If the democratic system continues to work the way its designers intended, the anti gay referendum to amend California's constitution to deprive homosexuals of basic human rights will ultimately be struck down by the United States Supreme Court even if passed by the morality mob.

But I doubt that a majority of the people in this state  are ready to trash the constitution and abandon the sanctity of human rights over this issue.

I don't believe sensible people are willing to take one small step for homophobes and one giant step backwards for mankind.

The protection of equal rights for gays is inevitable in a progressive society.

I believe that this latest attempt by bigoted moralists to undermine human rights will go down in history as the wackos' last stand against democracy.

If the democratic system continues to work the way its designers intended, the anti gay referendum to amend California's constitution to deprive homosexuals of basic human rights will ultimately be struck down by the United States Supreme Court even if passed by the morality mob. 

I wouldn't count on *THAT*, the way the court's been stacked with Opus Dei types.

The operative phrase there is "If the democratic system continues to work the way its designers intended". That seems to be a bigger and bigger if these days.

I'd say we passed *THAT* "milestone" a few years back on the road. 

If I recall, wasn't the death penalty ruled cruel and unusual?

As regards its application, and its application to certain non-murder crimes, yes.

Catpaw: "If I recall, wasn't the death penalty ruled cruel and unusual?"

That's another complicated legal debate over a fundamentally dissimilar issue and court decision which pleased some and displeased others. It was finally left to the states to decide.

That issue hinged on the rights of convicted murderers, kidnappers, etc. vs the public's right to punish the perpetrators of heinous crimes.

It hardly compares to the debate over the infringement of the rights of law abiding citizens to quiet enjoyment of their preferred sexuality and their rights to equal treatment and benefits under the law.

But your point is?

The initiative could easily pass in Kern County but the Coast way area will vote against it.  That's why California is known as the Land of "FRUITS" and Nuts.

Thank Zeus for fruits and nuts.  They've been right many a time.

But Saber at least on the Federal level the courts right to interpret the Constitution isn't established in the Constitution.  It is in fact a unconstitutional practice that some one carved out for themselves.  You know like the fact that the President can get us involved in a war, even though that power is restricted to the legislative branch.  But as you said we let them get away with it as long as we agree with it.  Then one day we wake up and find that we have given up our right to protest. 

Neverleft: "The (antigay marriage) initiative could easily pass in Kern County....."

A whole lot of unconstitutional crap could fly in Kern County where there's no shortage of  fundamentalist evangelist extremists wishing to force their agenda on the public who actually show up at the polls to vote while sensible, intelligent people stay at home on election day figuring no one is stupid enough to allow religious extremists to influence legislation with their biblical based BS.

Wayfarer, I'm not sure I understand your contention that it is unconstitutional for the courts to interpret the constitutionality of laws and other social issues.

If not the courts, then who would decide these matters?

Politicians, police, priests, the Chamber of Commerce?

Certainly not the majority of the people who might still be executing heretics were it not for the judicial sensibility of the courts.

Bad law cannot be allowed to stand and determine the fate of its victims.

Bad legislation must somehow be rectified.

The courts are the last word.

Again, if not they, then who?

Aren't we through with this yet?  The only people who care about this issue are the bigots.

Sorry to spoil your fairy tales Saber, but I personally don't know anyone who wants to execute heretics.  The power to establish laws is given to the legislative branch which is supposed to be composed of duly elected represenatives of the majority.  Remember this is supposed to be democracy which means rule by the majority.  As long as there is one guy who dissents we will always have minorities.  As the saying goes, "You can please some people some times, and others at other times." 

The Salem witch trials were "fairy tales"  Wayfarer?

Really. You might consider reviewing early American history.

The very obvious point was/is that these sorts of extremist wackos might still be in charge if it weren't for the involvement of the courts to dertermin unjust law and prevent the religious majority from imposing their injustice on the minority.

The only difference is, today's version of the early inquisitors are after gays instead of heretics and witches.

The courts exist to prevent these and all sorts of injustices.

I've seen other polls showing the marriage protection amendment (Prop. 8) winning in a landslide. So it will be interesting to see which poll turns out right. Now we may want to see who the real inquisitors are as "Papa Doug" Manchester is finding out at: http://people.bakersfield.c...

Wayfarer it's called Marbury v Madison. Try reading the Federalist Papers, specifically Nos. 78-83, which will give you a better understanding of our Judiciary. You really should take a course on constitutional law.

Marbury set the country on the right course; the recent California Supreme Court decision did the same for marriage in California.

.

Besides, the argument is invalid--SCOTUS rightly wasn't involved in the case, so Buffoo's argument that SCOTUS shouldn't have the right to decide what is and isn't constitutional doesn't apply.

.

Pax, polls taken in your church don't represent the majority of Californians.

Sorry to spoil your fairy tales Saber, but I personally don't know anyone who wants to execute heretics.

I personally don't know anyone who's committed murder, but I don't doubt the existence of murderers.  You should read up on the Dominionist movement.

Thanks Chica.  While I haven't taken a course on Constitutional Law; I have taken more US history courses then you could shake a stick at.  It is apparent to me that strict adherence to the US Constitution didn't make it beyond 10 years of the documents existence.  If at that, at all.  Sorry Saber I still don't know any 18Th Puritan sect members nor do I know anyone who wants to burn witches at the stake.  But I do know a lot of liberals who think it is OK to bash anyone who disagrees with them.  It is ironic that on one hand they claim that man in inherently bad and needs a strong government to protect man from himself.  On the other hand they vehemently protest when the government doesn't permit them to harm themselves or others.  Which do want?  Make a choice and stop being bi-polar.

I will be sooo glad when this is over. Although I believe in rights for common law whether it be man, woman, either or, both I don't condon the marriage of gays but I also don't condon the court telling someone that something is ok and that in six months the public will tell you if it is ok now or not. It iseither legal or it is not!!!!! It is not right to treat anyone the way the Supreme Court is treating all these people letting the court decision hinge on a vote in November. I really don't think anyone would appreciate their right being given to them and then stripped in a hand basket just like that...I believe the Supreme Court is being Negligent in the decision making process...its called Sh*t or get off the pot!!!!

The people being negligent are the ones who think that a majority vote can take away the civil rights of a minority.  The court was acting within the law to allow same-sex marriages; it was acting within the law to allow the vote on the hate amendment--and if it passes, it will be acting within the law to review that amendment for constitutionality.   

The court is, in fact, doing just what it's supposed to do--it ruled that the previous law conflicts with the equal protection clause of the state Constitution, however popular it may have been when it was voted on.  They ruled that the current proposal should be voted on because they can't rule on it one way or another until it *HAS* been voted on and has affected someone.  This is basic Civics 101.

Buffoo, there's a *HELL* of a difference between criticising someone and taking away their civil rights or targeting them for death.  It's become chic for Chrisitanists to cry "persecution" when someone calls them on their nonsense. 

RF, the polls I'm talking about are polls like those done by the L.A. Times. Is that liberal enough for you? Furthermore, would you consider the Supreme Court negligent for voting 7-0 (read: SHUTOUT!) in rejecting the same-sex marriage proponents' bid to pry Prop. 8 off the ballot?

PC3 wrote: "Furthermore, would you consider the Supreme Court negligent for voting 7-0 (read: SHUTOUT!) in rejecting the same-sex marriage proponents' bid to pry Prop. 8 off the ballot?"

Well, it was a tiny stretch for sure, but way more principled than the Pro-Bigotry side's attorney's petitioning to prevent the Court's decision from taking effect on June 17 for the idiotic reason that it would create administrative problems with using personal pronouns like "he" and "she" on legal documents.  That move was OBVIOUSLY one aimed to prevent anyone from marrying before the vote so, in the event Proposition 8 passes in November, the bigots wouldn't have to contend with 10,000 legally married couples' marriages to try on the books that they have to take more bigoted court action to try and nullify.

See, it stuff like this deliberate bigotry that is turning people against Proposition 8.  When you practice bigotry in public, it's the same as turning the fire hose and police dogs on people who are peacefully making a stand for their rights.  "Religious Bigot" was not a phrase that was uttered by anyone until religious people BECAME bigots.  Now it's such a common expression to hear, it's not even regarded as politically incorrect anymore. People like you, Pax, earned the moniker for your church. 

The tide has turned against religious bigotry. You'll see inside a month when the California Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of withholding medical treatment on the basis of religious belief. That's due to be decided in August and it involved, of all people, a lesbian whose insurance plan forced her to go to a company who was the contractual sole provider for her health insurance but the company refused to treat her because she was a lesbian and her doctor was a religious bigot who hated homosexuals.

That's going to be the death blow to your crowd. 

Remember this is supposed to be democracy which means rule by the majority.

No. It's supposed to be (and thankfull, IS)  a "Constitutional" democracy where EVERYTHING has to withstand the scrutiny of the constitution, no matter if the vote is 100% to 0%.  Most laws and legislative acts are not as controversial as the Religious Wrong has made this one, so some misguided, civics-flunking people get the idea that laws are passed purely on majority rule.

Wrong!

Any and every law can be brought to the court for constitutional review. You're about to see another one in August in which religious bigotry will vanquished from our state with regard to health care.

JohnBurns wrote: "Here's a site that "rehabs" gays. There was a guy who was living a gay lifestyle in the early 1990s, and through psychotherapy was rendered heterosexual again (it's complicated; the guy hated his "manly" father so he took up girly things as a boy, and so on and so forth. He said that gaiety never felt quite right to him. He married a babe and they have five kids (hope he has a good job). I first read about it in the San Diego Reader, a free but very good weekly newspaper."

NARTH is about the only holdout to Freudian psychology in this county and it uses a kind of therapy technique called "reparative" therapy that the 100,000 member American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association think should be banned.  In a nutshell, NARTH's theory is that homosexual orientation is the product of a "distant father" or "smothering mother". They don't have any theories on what heterosexual orientation is a product of, but what the APA and AMA note is that complaints about distance/smothering parents is reported as often by heterosexuals as homosexuals. That's makes the NARTH theory suspect. If it were merely about distance and smother, why then, aren't all the heterosexuals who have the problem homosexuals?

The APA and the AMA have position papers specifically aimed at the therapy NARTH provides, calling the attempt to alter a persons sexual orientation a dangerous and damaging practice. What keeps NARTH out of the broiler is that they don't publish their work or make it available for review.  Most people don't know that NARTH's board of directors is made up of people from Focus on the Family - the big tent that includes Family Research Council.  FRC, itself, doesn't DO any research. It only takes the research done by others and checks to see if it passes religious muster.

This sissy boy here? He's one of thousands of boys who have a genuine notible difference in their behavior as a child, a behavior called "gender non-conformity" and it's not that his father was distant from him; it's  that his father was so disturbed by the boy's persistent sissyness, he distanced himself from the boy because of the behavior.

With this kind of kid, you can't beat the sissy out of them. The just take it underground. If they are in a religious family, a lot of them get hauled off to the NARTHs, or counselors of some type to try and change their behavior.

I was one of these kinds of kids. A total sissy-acting, play with the girls, don't get dirty, make curtains for my room kind of kid and, I'd have to say that underneath I still am in small ways. The better "fix" for these kids always proves to be peer pressure. They learn to "butch up" and most of them turn out to be just ordinary looking an behaving grown up.  But the BIG deal is, if you see a kid like this (ALERT: NEXT STATEMENT IS CRITICAL TO KNOW): if the behavior is PERSISTANT (not haphazard, once in a while), the kid will identify as homosexual in adulthood.

Nobody know why childhood gender non-conformity translates to homosexual orientation in adulthood, but the sign point to a biological explanation.

NARTH know ALL about  this. How? 

Because of Richard Green, PhD. His 350 page study of gender non-conforming children ROCKED the whole psychological establishment. He's not a  NARTH guy. He was a UCLA guy who made the discovery.

He discovered that persistant gender-non conforming behavior is a virtual predictor of homosexual orientation in adulthood. His study was the first of it's kind and he had about 80 boys who were your persistant sissy types (yes, the same one you saw in school who acted like sissys). Green had boy from the age of four up to age 12 in his study. He also had control group of CONFORMING boys (like like GI Joes, Is suspect) that had the same family demographics as his sissy boys.

Green simply followed these kids from infancy to see how the identify in their sexual orientation in adulthood.

ALL of his sissy boys identified as gay in adulthood.  NONE of his control group boys did so.

His study and been replicated four times with similar results. Upward of 50% or HIGHER in foreign studies identify as homosexual in adulthood.

So NARTH took this information and interpreted it in the OPPOSITE way that Green did.  Green could find NO  conditions in the boys's home that were any different than his control group. He began with the belief that the home environment was causing these boys to be gender non conformists.  But he found NOTHING that could have caused this behavior.

Green's conclusion?  They must have been wired this way either from fetal development or very early in their childhood. Parents told Green they noticed the behavior when the kids were in their cribs, as early as age two.

NARTH? They brushed Greens conclusion aside as if it was rubbish. NARTH, in true Freudian form, likes to blame mommies and daddies on a whole range of things that have nothing to do with gay people. Daddy is distant. Mommy smothers.  So what they do with the peope in therapy is what AA sort of does with drunks: they teach the person how NOT to act on their their impulse: their sexual orientation, and how to redirect it to women. Meaning, they saying if you have a wife, you'll be cured. Well, not cured. They say, "Free of homosexuality." Cured is to fickle. So some of the patients do what I did BEFORE I came out: Get married and have a family. That's what this sissy man is doing. But NARTH keep it quiet that this guy's fantasy life is still directed toward men. In truth, you can have a satisfying relationship with a woman when you are gay. But you feel like you're cheating on her every day, even when you're strong enough to never act on your sexual orientation. You just get busy with the family and kids and focus on the positive aspect of your marriage, while still having a eye for men that NEVER goes away. Gay people don't fantasize about women, so this guy has to kind of check out mentally when sex is in play, else he'll be bothered lying there with is wife having sex and thinging about John Wayne.  NARTH calls that a success and holds it up as proof that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be treated. Weil, yeah. They change a gay guy into a gay guy who is married to a female. Success? Ask the female. There are encounter groups for women who have had this kind of thing bomb.  How many former Christian ministers have I met who went through this kind of thing, raised all the kids, then BOING, left their wife in the later years of their life?

Only about a dozen so far, but I'm deaf so I'm not that social. That's about how many patients NARTH gets a year, but you can't tell that because the web site makes it look like the are rolling in cash (it is, the organization is mostly funded by Focus on the Family) and publishing the equavilent of the city library every month.  They arent. The don't really do any research either. They just talk to each other, agree with each other and try to ignore the 100,000 member APA and the AMA.

I have a good idea....Btown is soooo worried and strung out on this gay marriage thing it is consuming you!!!!!!!No Im not gay. but this is really ridiculous I don't think I have seen so many blogs on such an obsesive subject. No its not country music, its not about white folks, its not about  high school football, its not about a new eatery in good ole Btown.... Get over it people!!!!!!!!! Quit spending the negative energy on how people want to live a life of peace....Try focusing on ending the war!!!!!

AMEN!