<p>Not surprising to me. But what I did find interesting is the chart breaking down the opinions split by age group: [SF</a> Gate: Multimedia (image)](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/07/18/BA7U11R8T4.DTL&o=0]SF”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/07/18/BA7U11R8T4.DTL&o=0)
The boomers - age 50 to 64 - have the strongest support for gay marriage of any demographic. I’d have thought the the youngest groups would be the most supportive. Interesting.</p>
<p>Well, they DID grow up in the 70s :D.</p>
<p>kluge, remind me, will it need a simple majority or 2/3rds to pass?</p>
<p>Makes me proud to be a boomer.</p>
<p>I don’t see the logic behind opposing it in the first place.</p>
<p>The boomers were probably confused by a question about opposing a ban, or simply too stoned to have a valid opinion.</p>
<p>Actually, the stereotype of baby boomers is that they <em>used</em> to smoke pot 30 or 35 years ago. And then became yuppies, etc. It’s the Gen X’ers, really, who are stereotyped as lifelong slackers who continue to get stoned all the time. So. Joke not funny. </p>
<p>The margin of opposition to the ban among the youngest voters is almost as great as among boomers. So, not a statistically significant difference, I suspect.</p>
<p>Surprising that statement came from you xiggi.</p>
<p>Am I reading the graph wrong? It looks like the age 50 to 64 group has the least support for Prop 8, 38%, whereas the youngest three groups all clock in at 40% plus. Geographically the most opposition seems to be in the Bay area, which is surprising to me.</p>
<p>I am beginning to think that the reason for opposing gay marriage is, in addition to whatever moral reasons some may have, a financial reason. I think there are some people who don’t want to pay to extend marital tax and other advantages to gay couples. This is only starting to dawn on me. Perhaps the moral outrage is being fueled by those whose real objection is financial/fiscal.</p>
<p>The double negatives of this graph are horrible. Someone in copy editing should be fired. </p>
<p>After looking it over a few times, 51 percent say no, and are opposed to the ban; therefore in favor of keeping gay marriage legal. So the Bay Area is the most opposed to denying gays the right to marry - not that surprising.</p>
<p>People are opposed to it for financial reasons? There aren’t that many of us gay people. The tax and health benefit savings (though many companies already offer benefits for domestic partners, only to be hit by a nice tax by the federal government) that the gays who choose to get married, while significant for the individuals, would have a negligible effect tax returns. Though that’s expecting people to be too rational.</p>
<p>The finances work the other way – out of staters coming to California to get married are a huge boon to local business (hotels, caterers, florists, etc.).</p>
<p>I think that’s why our pro-business Republican governor has come out strongly against the initiative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Should I use different fonts for the parts of my statement that were serious (double negatives) and clearly differentiate them from the more jocular parts (stones and fossils)?</p>
<p>The tide really seems to be turning this year in favor of gay marriage. I think the states that enacted those bans a few years ago will eventually reverse them. Might take a generation or two, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly hope it doesn’t take that long, at least in New Jersey. I think it would be wonderful if my son could meet a nice Jewish boy someday, preferably a doctor (kidding!), and settle down and get married. (Not that that noble institution worked out so well for me, of course.) True, he insists that he’ll never, ever want to get married. But I think a decision on that question is a bit premature for him at 18, especially given that he’s never even gone out with anyone yet!</p>
<p>Ok, I see the double negative now. They are opposed to a ban, therefore in favor of gay marriage. The numbers make a lot more sense now. As for the “cost” of gay marriage, I have heard people say things like “they can do whatever they want, just don’t ask me to pay for it with my tax dollars”. A stupid attitude to me. I would be ok with civil unions too as long they came with the same legal rights and benefits as a marriage. I don’t know if such a law would be easier to pass in most places or not.</p>
<p>I’m in favor of monogamy and don’t mind tax breaks to reward people for it.</p>
<p>It’s all irrelevant. The Calif. Supreme Court imposed its personal opinion without giving a crap about the opinion of Californians. </p>
<p>It would have been far better for the people of California to decide who should marry than an elite group of lawyers.</p>
<p>I think that the government on all levels should butt out of “marriage” entirely. For everyone. Consenting adults should be able to formally register civil unions that are legally recognized the way “marriages” are now. Then, if they wished, people could go get “married” by their church. As now, all religious bodies would be free to set their own rules around “marriage,” but now without interference from the government. This is more or less the way it works in France, according to my understanding, and it sounds good to me. Increases the stability of more adults and more children, which is the government’s only legitimate interest in people’s domestic arrangements, and maintains a nice clean bright line between church and state.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Hmm…I didn’t know that the California Supreme Court was a person capable of having a “personal” opinion. A better description of what happened was that the court ruled that the current law was contrary to the state constitution.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, that “group of lawyers” mostly consists of rather conservative Republican appointees. So if even they couldn’t find a way to rule the way their fellow conservatives and Republicans might have wished, then you know the law against gay marriage must have been awfully shaky.</p>
<p>The anti-gay marriage people in California made a huge blunder eight years ago when they had everyone vote on Prop 22. They could have framed Prop 22 as an amendment to the state constitution and settle the question for good. But instead they chose to pass it as a statute - which simply begged for a court challenge. They lost the court challenge. Now they are forced to try this Prop 8 as a desperate attempt to amend the constitution now and thus reverse the court ruling. But their moment has passed. People have seen that the sky didn’t fall in Massachusetts and Canada when they legalized gay marriage. The anti-gay marriage faction no longer enjoys the support of a majority of California voters. Unless they can really get a good campaign going and turn the trend around, they are going to lose the whole question once and for all due to their own myopic stupidity.</p>
<p>Having just returned from the wedding of my dear friends, who happen to be gay and who’ve been a couple for 21 years, I would say that no, the sky did not fall in, and, yes, the conservative moment has passed on this issue.</p>