# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/521 "2008-11-10T04:46:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think there’s some interesting stuff in here, but I’m not quite clear as to what specific position(s) you hold that you want me to respond to. Can you please rephrase. Thanks. I’ll try. The very premise of your ideal is challenged by society’s continued existence in spite of divorce, death (military service, etc) and their impact on families that previously consisted, legally speaking, of your ideal. It is the human capacity for love that holds this society together. Not your proposed ideal. You would treat your single parents more like they were excluded from being a part of your ideal that is held in such high esteem, were that ideal valid. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they will find ways to share as much love as possible, from any available source, for their family. Until such time that there is a constitutional amendment that functionally denies people who have divorced (or endured the death of a spouse, or have an absent-t spouse due to military service, etc) from a right that is protected for individuals who have not divorced (or endured the death of a spouse, or have an absent-t spouse due to military service, etc) we have a double standard that is imposing an injustice on same sex couples/individuals. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/522 "2008-11-10T04:47:16Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > If you’re going to sit back and argue that the word is so unimportant, then why not let them have the word and save the government money on printing different forms? The word is important because of what it signifies. I think it has value, as I’ve stated now numerous times. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/523 "2008-11-10T04:49:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Uh, the question was HOW does that harm gays? You’re the one that said we enjoy the same rights/benefits. We don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/524 "2008-11-10T04:53:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The word is important because of what it signifies. I think it has value, as I’ve stated now numerous times. But you just argued that it does NOT have value. Or should not, to gays. If it cannot do harm in any way to lack it, then how can it have value? I cannot believe that you are in fact in full favor of gay rights if you insist on arguing on the one hand that the word should not be important to gays as long as they have the same legal rights, and on the other hand argue that that the word is so important, so sacred, so immutably tied to “one man and one woman” that it is vital that it not be given to those who in your words have no respect for tradition, are trying to legitimize their relationships, hijack an institution, squeeze themselves into a suit of respectability…did I miss anything? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/525 "2008-11-10T04:56:52Z")
Okay, I’m posting over here the question I posted in the other thread, as you suggested. If we LGBTetc. people agreeing to call it a “civil union” instead of a marriage would make it all better, why is it that so many of the ballot measures banning SSM also include a ban on civil unions or “marriage-equivalent legal unions”? > [@](#): > > Florida Proposition 2: “This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” > [@](#): > > Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (2006):"(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage. " > [@](#): > > Idaho Amendment 2 (2006):“A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” > [@](#): > > South Carolina Marriage Amendment (2006): "This amendment provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. No other domestic union is valid and legal. The State and its political subdivisions are prohibited from creating or recognizing any right or claim respecting any other domestic union, whatever it may be called, or from giving effect to any such right or benefit recognized in any other state or jurisdiction. > > However, this amendment also makes clear it does not impair rights or benefits extended by this State, or its political subdivisions not arising from other domestic unions, nor does the amendment prohibit private parties from entering into contracts or other legal instruments." > [@](#): > > South Dakota Marriage Amendment (2006): “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.” > [@](#): > > Virginia Marriage Amendment (2006):“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.” > [@](#): > > Wisconsin Question 1 (2006):“Question 1 would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prohibit recognition of any legal status similar to marriage for people of the same sex or different sexes.” > [@](#): > > Louisiana Marriage Amendment (2004):“Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Louisiana, to enact Article XII, Section 15, relative to marriage; to require that marriage in the state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman; to provide that the legal incidents of marriage shall be conferred only upon such union; to prohibit the validation or recognition of the legal status of any union of unmarried individuals; to prohibit the recognition of a marriage contracted in another jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman; to provide for submission of the proposed amendment to the electors and provide a ballot proposition; and to provide for related matters.” > [@](#): > > Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 (2004): “The second paragraph of this proposal further provides that the state: (1) shall not recognize any union between persons of the same sex as being entitled to the benefits of marriage; (2) shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex where that relationship is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction; and (3) removes from the jurisdiction of Georgia’s courts the ability to grant a divorce or separate maintenance or otherwise consider or rule on parties’ rights arising from or in connection with such a same sex relationship.” > [@](#): > > Kentucky Marriage Amendment (2004):“Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?” > [@](#): > > Michigan Proposal 2 (2004):“the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” > [@](#): > > North Dakota Marriage Amendment (2004): “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” > [@](#): > > Ohio Marriage Amendment (2004):"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio: > > That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows: > > Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." > [@](#): > > Oklahoma State Question 711 (2004):“This measure adds a new section of law to the Constitution. It adds Section 35 to Article 2. It defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. **It prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married.** It provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state. It makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.” > [@](#): > > Utah Marriage Amendment (2004): “Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to provide that: (1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and (2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect?” > [@](#): > > Nebraska Initiative 416 (2000): “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska, and to provide that the uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.” > [@](#): > > Kansas Marriage Amendment (2005): “A vote for this proposition would amend the Kansas constitution to incorporate into it the definition of marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman only and the declaration that any other marriage is contrary to public policy and void. The proposed constitutional amendment also would prohibit the state from recognizing any other legal relationship that would entitle the parties in the relationship to the rights or incidents of marriage.” These are only a few that I found the text of online. Doesn’t sound like they’re just protecting semantics. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/526 "2008-11-10T04:59:48Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I’ll try. > > The very premise of your ideal is challenged by society’s continued existence in spite of divorce, death (military service, etc) and their impact on families that previously consisted, legally speaking, of your ideal. It is the human capacity for love that holds this society together. Not your proposed ideal. You would treat your single parents more like they were excluded from being a part of your ideal that is held in such high esteem, were that ideal valid. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they will find ways to share as much love as possible, from any available source, for their family. > > Until such time that there is a constitutional amendment that functionally denies people who have divorced (or endured the death of a spouse, or have an absent-t spouse due to military service, etc) from a right that is protected for individuals who have not divorced (or endured the death of a spouse, or have an absent-t spouse due to military service, etc) we have a double standard that is imposing an injustice on same sex couples/individuals. Thanks. That helps, particularly the second paragraph. But I really do think I’ve already commented on this. With divorce, military service, etc, ewe have an accident of circumstance. What started as an ideal was degraded for one reason or another. Out response to that is as it should be, to allow that less than ideal situation to come as close to it as possible. Doing so, as we have is proof that we value traditional marriage, particularly when children are involved. I don’t see that as the double-standard you do because in the examples I just cited the state is trying to make a less than ideal situation as close to the ideal as possible. By recognizing SSM that state is giving in an imprimatur of the ideal, knowing that it falls short. I see this as diluting the term that represents the ideal. And I fear that down the road that marriage itself (which is extremely useful in in its current meaning) will lose some of its specialness for what it represents and make it less desirable an institution for people to become part of. That does not serve our future children, and therefore our future society well. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/527 "2008-11-10T05:00:20Z")
Why are we still trying to reason with Magellan the retard-troll? He got our rights taken away, and now he’s trying to convince everyone we enjoy exactly equal rights all across the country. He’s got an evil agenda. It’s very clear. Oh, he’ll keep proclaiming he fully supports equal but separate rights, but he argues from a fucking evil retard position of knowing full well he can wallow in his own filth knowing we have nothing like equal rights in this country. “Equal rights! I support equal rights!” He knows damn well we don’t have equal rights, and he loves it that way. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/528 "2008-11-10T05:02:12Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > You’re the one that said we enjoy the same rights/benefits. We don’t. If you choose to inject yourself into someone else’s discussion, you should at least know what is being discussed. Please review the exchanges that preceded the one where you re-entered the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/529 "2008-11-10T05:03:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > By recognizing SSM that state is giving in an imprimatur of the ideal, knowing that it falls short. I see this as diluting the term that represents the ideal. And I fear that down the road that marriage itself (which is extremely useful in in its current meaning) will lose some of its specialness for what it represents and make it less desirable an institution for people to become part of. That does not serve our future children, and therefore our future society well. So SSM is less than ideal. Forget my prior response to you, I’m done having this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/530 "2008-11-10T05:08:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > TDoing so, as we have is proof that we value traditional marriage, particularly when children are involved. Why does allowing gays to use the term “marriage” show that society doesn’t value traditional marriage? I don’t see how it would. Broadening the definition of marriage shows that society values gays and sees them as equal and valid citizens. Denying them this right indicates that society sees them as lesser citizens. Is that the message you want to give? > [@](#): > > By recognizing SSM that state is giving in an imprimatur of the ideal, knowing that it falls short. How does it fall short? Because the ideal is only a man and a woman? I fail to see how that is ideal when so many hetero marriages end in divorce or involve infidelity. The ideal should be of two people, genuinely in love, willing to commit for life. I’m not sure why gender is so relevant here. Fundamentally, marriage is meant to be a permanent union between two people. What threatens the ideal of marriage is not the gender of the participants but the ease and casualness with which it is ended. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/531 "2008-11-10T05:11:52Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Okay, I’m posting over here the question I posted in the other thread, as you suggested. > > If we LGBTetc. people agreeing to call it a “civil union” instead of a marriage would make it all better, why is it that so many of the ballot measures banning SSM also include a ban on civil unions or “marriage-equivalent legal unions”? I think you confuse my position with the counter position at large. You know what mine is by now. (I hope.) I would just reiterate that if the cause were mine, I would push “the rights” argument, letting people know that you WANT to respect the traditional meaning of marriage and have your own term you want to use. It’s much harder to deny someone the right to visit their loved one in the hospital than it is to deny them from contorting the meaing of a word and ignoring what has understood to be It’s much easier to deny someone the right to (as they see it) contort the meaning of a word that was perfectly clear for hundreds of years and represents the natural state of procreation and the raising of children than it is to vote to deny someone the ability to visit the person they’ve loved for thirty years when they’re on their death bed. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/532 "2008-11-10T05:12:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? You don’t see any benefit to society in promoting an ideal? If that’s the case I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. My point, which has been made by several other people, is that by making the perfect the enemy of the good, you’re stomping all over people’s civil rights. There are very, very few families who reach this “ideal”, and the ‘gayness’ of a family is only one very small tic mark in the metaphysical list of good and bad attributes toward the perfect families. I see no reason to outright ban anything that stops short of the ideal. That’s not just encouraging the ideal; that’s attacking anything imperfect. Which is _wrong_. And if you can’t see that, than I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/533 "2008-11-10T05:15:04Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Why are we still trying to reason with Magellan the retard-troll? He got our rights taken away, and now he’s trying to convince everyone we enjoy exactly equal rights all across the country. He’s got an evil agenda. It’s very clear. Oh, he’ll keep proclaiming he fully supports equal but separate rights, but he argues from a fucking evil retard position of knowing full well he can wallow in his own filth knowing we have nothing like equal rights in this country. “Equal rights! I support equal rights!” He knows damn well we don’t have equal rights, and he loves it that way. Honestly, you are not only one of the most unpleasant posters on these boards, but clearly one of the most dishonest (as evidenced AGAIN above) and dumbest. Your stupidity is truly awesome. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/534 "2008-11-10T05:24:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s much easier to deny someone the right to (as they see it) contort the meaning of a word that was perfectly clear for hundreds of years and represents the natural state of procreation and the raising of children than it is to vote to deny someone the ability to visit the person they’ve loved for thirty years when they’re on their death bed. My husband and I don’t have children. Are we contorting the meaning of marriage by applying it to ourselves? What about my friend’s dad, who just got married for the second time at 65 to a 60 year old woman? Would you take away our rights to marry because we don’t intend to reproduce? Marriage =/= natural state of procreation and raising children. That is a one definition but by no means the only one, nor the most commonly used one. It is a set of legal rights and privileges when it is used by the government. You would deny people those very concrete rights for love of an abstraction that is not even the standard meaning of the word anymore. The mind boggles. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/535 "2008-11-10T05:36:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Honestly, you are not only one of the most unpleasant posters on these boards, but clearly one of the most dishonest (as evidenced AGAIN above) and dumbest. > > Your stupidity is truly awesome. No; you are a bigot, and you don’t like it when people like **levdrakon** or myself call you what you are. \*\*levdrakon \*\* is “unpleasant” because you and your fellow bigots have won a battle in the war to take away **levdrakon** ’s rights and dignity - did you expect gratitude in return for your vileness ? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/536 "2008-11-10T05:41:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Again with the miscegenation laws?! I’d addressed this. As far as Mrs Loving, it’s nice to have her on your side. I wish she were on my side. But it’s a mere appeal to emotion. A nice coincidence and one person’s opinion. You are correct that Ms. Loving is just one person; I only brought her up in response to your “Most blacks find [the comparison] ridiculous, infuriating, and insulting.”, which I felt was just as much a mere coincidence of opinions. > [@](#): > > You’ll notice, also, that she cites both religion and the denying of civil rights as reasons. I’ve not attempted to use religion and am for granting gays all rights, save “marriage”. I appreciate that you have not used religion. However, as for your argument that this is not a denying of civil rights, is it not on the same level of acceptability/unacceptability as if the response to miscegenation laws had been “Ok, interracial couples can have ‘civil unions’, but they should still not be permitted to get married”? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/537 "2008-11-10T05:42:40Z")
Also: Bah. My outrage thread has become a “Lets all debate **magellan01** ” thread, which wasn’t really the direction I foresaw. Well, I guess that at least keeps it alive, though perhaps it should move from the Pit to GD if it’s going to be like this… ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/538 "2008-11-10T05:43:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; you are a bigot, and you don’t like it when people like **levdrakon** or myself call you what you are. \*\*levdrakon \*\* is “unpleasant” because you and your fellow bigots have won a battle in the war to take away **levdrakon** ’s rights and dignity - did you expect gratitude in return for your vileness ? What I might expect on a debate board is a debate. Guess I’m funny that way. Not only that, RUFF! RUFF! Ruff-ruff. RUFF! Woof! RUFF!RUFF!RUFF! Woof! Know what I mean, Manson? ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/539 "2008-11-10T05:49:13Z")
**levdrakon** : This is why people debate this person. You know, and I know, and a lot of people know that his positions are untenable, but there are people who might find him reasonable - at least until he starts barking like a dog. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/540 "2008-11-10T05:50:54Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > My husband and I don’t have children. Are we contorting the meaning of marriage by applying it to ourselves? What about my friend’s dad, who just got married for the second time at 65 to a 60 year old woman? Would you take away our rights to marry because we don’t intend to reproduce? > > Marriage =/= natural state of procreation and raising children. That is a one definition but by no means the only one, nor the most commonly used one. It is a set of legal rights and privileges when it is used by the government. You would deny people those very concrete rights for love of an abstraction that is not even the standard meaning of the word anymore. The mind boggles. My brother and wife don’t have children either. But I’ve commented on this numerous times in this thread alone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=28)