LA Times Mourns Failed Ballot Attempt

The Los Angeles Times editorial board, in case we forgot, repeats that it supports the neutering of marriage. Here is their latest editorial on the failure of an attempt to get a repeal of the California Marriage Amendment on the November ballot. As always, they are taking comments and I suggest you add your own.

Every day that gay and lesbian couples cannot marry is another day of discrimination against homosexuals, denying them the basic right to form families with equal stature to that of any other family.

A marriage license will not make a brideless or groomless home the same or equal as a one with a natural marriage. Such a home will still lack either a husband/father or a wife/mother. Nothing is stopping any two people from setting up house the way they choose. In California, if one of them is a geezer or if they are a same-sex pair, they can even get a domestic partnership, which the state treats like marriage.

It's too soon after the original, divisive election, and we worried about the potential for a costly, well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful effort.

It was a divisive election – you know, as opposed to "elections" like in the old Iraq, where leaders were elected with 100% support, right?

[Much more after the jump.]

For this reason, we're not all that disappointed that a petition drive failed to get enough signatures to put a repeal of the measure on the November ballot.

Maybe marriage neutering advocates really are a small minority.

The campaign for Proposition 8 relied in large part on misleading scare tactics, but it also was more effectively devised and targeted than the opposition campaign, which ran a series of uninspiring ads and had a disorganized central office.

This is hilarious. The Yes on 8 ads were not misleading – it is just that people like the editorial board do not like the consequences of marriage neutering being portrayed as bad. The marriage neutering advocates were highly organized and ran ridiculous ads showing bride+groom marriage scenarios, never brideless or groomless ceremonies; implying that Prop 8 would lead to segregation and internment camps; and one group ran ads depicting missionaries breaking into homes to commit vandalism/theft. Plus, the marriage neutering advocates had the Los Angeles Times and so many other prominent influencers carrying their water.

Time is against Proposition 8.

Fauxmentum talk. Nature, social mores, votes, and the religions that the majority of voters claim as theirs all back marriage as uniting the sexes.

More than two-thirds of young voters supported [neutering] marriage; reaching out to them over the next two years is key to overturning the ban.

I suspect a majority of them would support their parents being forced to financially support them until they are 30. It doesn't mean they will always think that way.

As far as polling voters in general, I'd like to see the results of anonymous polling that asks:

1. "Do you think it should become official state policy that there is no difference between a couple consisting of a man and a woman and a couple consisting of two women or two men?"

2. "Do your think it should become official state policy that there is no difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy?"

3. "Do you think it should be illegal for adoption agencies to give preference to placing children in homes headed by a man and a woman over homes headed by two men or two women?"

Those are the issues we are dealing with - those things would be the direct result of neutering state marriage licensing.

But we do have to keep fighting for marriage. Let's keep respecting marriage and reaching out to encourage respect for marriage. Don't let those who can't even bring themselves to admit there are real, valuable differences between men and women, and thus mothers and fathers, bully our youth into catering to the activists' misperception of reality.