California - socially conservative?

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

YES will add exactly 14 words to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In that case I'm not at all surprised that it passed. Essentially it defines the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman. There's pretty widespread support for that, so much so that even in fairly liberal areas you can get a majority to support this definition (although it was pretty close in California).

However, it doesn't specifically prohibit some sort of civil union which would impart the same legal rights as marriage to same-sex couples. I don't think that kind of constitutional prohibition would have passed in California. On that issue I suspect the nation is more evenly split.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tilted

In that case I'm not at all surprised that it passed. Essentially it defines the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman. There's pretty widespread support for that, so much so that even in fairly liberal areas you can get a majority to support this definition (although it was pretty close in California).

However, it doesn't specifically prohibit some sort of civil union which would impart the same legal rights as marriage to same-sex couples. I don't think that kind of constitutional prohibition would have passed in California. On that issue I suspect the nation is more evenly split.

This all comes from California having a "civil union" status for homosexual couples. But, that wasn't good enough - even though it gave them all of the legal status they sought. But, they needed the word "marriage", so they challenged the law. The California Supreme Court decreed that everyone has the right to the word "marriage", regardless of whether it validly applied or not.

The people of California said "uh, we think WE can make our laws, thank you very much" to their Supreme Court by voting in this amendment.


In other words, by demanding legally forced acceptance, the homosexual agenda groups made their standing LESS solid, instead of more solid, by fighting for something they already had.

[nw2ne]

Originally Posted by This_person

California has just enough liberals to swing it Democrat in federal elections. However, they do have a Republican governor. And, they did in Ronald Reagan as well. As a state, I believe they're fairly neutral - not too far one way or the other. The San Frans and Berkleys give it a bad name overall, because they are VERY vocal, and VERY left, but they don't represent the bulk of the population.

If California (and states like it, say NY, IL, etc) were able to cast their ballots like Maine and Nebraska, we'd have a different president-elect, and would far more often.

Good points. I do think CA is a bit more liberal when it comes to lifestyle -- whether it's speeding around LA in ostentatious cars or surfing on a work day. Compared to the east coast, we consider them laid back. Yet this might belie their socially conservative nature.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by nw2ne

Good points. I do think CA is a bit more liberal when it comes to lifestyle -- whether it's speeding around LA in ostentatious cars or surfing on a work day. Compared to the east coast, we consider them laid back. Yet this might belie their socially conservative nature.

I think overall there are large pockets of conservative and large pockets of liberal. The ones that make the noise are the liberals, and give the whole state a label.

[nw2ne]

Originally Posted by This_person

I think overall there are large pockets of conservative and large pockets of liberal. The ones that make the noise are the liberals, and give the whole state a label.

Well, perhaps I am over thinking it. I guess I need to study up on CA demographics.

[pcjohnnyb]

Something that troubled me was in Arkansas, I believe, where they passed a law disallowing anyone to adopt a kid if they weren't married. I'm not sure the exact wording of the law, but it applies to everyone (even if it was directed at gays in-particular). I don't think that adoption should be limited to married folks if a single parent can afford to support a child on their own Why should they be restricted?