Prop. 8 repeal fails to qualify for ballot

April 13, 2010

A ballot initiative designed to repeal Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage measure, has failed to qualify for the November election. [Los Angeles Times]

The deadline was Monday and the all-volunteer campaign came up short on qualifying signatures–694,000 were required for certification. a campaign spokesperson declined to say how many signatures had been gathered.

This campaign relied heavily on Internet support for signatures, instead of more traditional, face-to-face, interaction with voters.

Gay marriage groups will try again for the November 2012 ballot.

A constitutional challenge of Proposition 8 remains pending in a Sn Francisco federal court.



  1. trebor86 says:

    my recall was that Prop 8 was not about denying rights to homosexuals, rights they already have.

    Proposition 8 – made simple

    is it about re-defining marriage?

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. willie says:

    It is almost never (with exception of initial fear or caution) the case that a person is gay or anything else but more importantly what type of person they are.

    (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
  3. mkaney says:

    As far as the government should be concerned a marriage should just be a contract, and it should stop recognizing the institution of “marriage” altogether and leave the religion side of it to the churches.

    (2) 10 Total Votes - 6 up - 4 down
    • SanSimeonSam says:

      You are absolutely correct Mkaney. Everyone should be required to undergo a civil union to meet the requirements of our state. (eg: inheritance, SS, Taxes, Medical coverage, community property, pre-nupituals etc) If a couple wishes to be “married” in the eyes of their creator be it Christian, Druid or otherwise let them find a church that will perform that marriage. No state and certainly no individual religion or religious zealot has the right to deny anyone the right to be declared “married” in the eyes of their creator. But the word should have no legal meaning.

      (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
      • trebor86 says:

        Where (should) we draw the line. Why just couples, what about groups of people forming “a civil union”?

        What is a union anyway, an incorporation?

        (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  4. willie says:

    This matter is pending before the Supreme Court.
    It is a sequence of one big can of worms after another.
    If you go by the “Letter of the Law” Constitutionally, there is discrimination by rethoric.
    If you go by the “Spirit of the Law” the moral majority vote, there is no general discrimination.
    If you try to get a background of the forefathers who drafted the Constitution, of whom possess Christian background, It was definitely not their intent to regulate something like this.
    Fourth. I do not think the government should regulate every issue in our lives, even if the powerful and rich push it on them.
    Without being too far fetch in deviation, if the high courts does regulate this, ir will eminently have to be amended to consider bi-sexual marriage (threesome) issue, a marriage between two of the same with one of the opposite sex.
    I f I was a supreme court magistrate, I would send it back to the lower courts like it was the plague and let them keep fighting it to the death!

    (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
    • Cindy says:

      If it were me, I would give them all the rights of married couples with a different name for their union. Why should anyone care if they have every right that is afforded a married couple? It doesn’t harm anyone. The problem is that they are insisting on using the word marriage rather than getting their own word for a same sex union and that is where all the dissension comes into play. I had someone tell me I was a gay basher for insisting that two men or two woman engaged in a sexual union are different than a heterosexual couple.

      (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
    • Spectator says:

      You are correct, Willie. This is a can of worms. Unfortunately it is the vision of sex practices that is stopping the movement. If the partners were celibate, perhaps people would understand the love and focus on that. The other problem is “spilling of seed.” If we could get this past us, maybe more log cabin Republicans would result.

      (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
      • Cindy says:

        I know I probably shouldn’t touch this one but what the heck. “spilling of seed”, all I can say is let he who has not entertained himself ………………., that’s includes are the far right, left and centrist Christians, Muslims, Jews, Goddess worshipers, Hari Krishna’s, Mormons, lets see who did I forget?

        (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  5. Cindy says:

    “Gay marriage groups will try again for the November 2012 ballot.” A comical thought just came to mind. I sure hope the Mayan, Hopi Indian, I-Ching (and whoever else that’s in there) 12/21/12 predictions are wrong because I know without a doubt that if CA starts falling into the ocean a month after the gay’s get the rights to marry…….need I say more, too funny.

    (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
    • mkaney says:

      That is too funny.. Reverend Fred Phelps would have a field day

      (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.