POL: California Prop 8

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

There are LOTS and LOTS of pro-choice people who would never even consider an abortion (my wife being one of them). But just because she would never have an abortion doesn't mean that she feels that viewpoint should be forced on others who would make a different choice.

Again, that's an issue not with abortion itself though, that's taking issue with what the government can and cannot regulate.

Abortion is a tough issue for me.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Intelligently? It's pretty clear that jeheinz doesn't understand the spirit of Proposition 8. It's not about marriage or lack thereof. It's a vote for discrimination.

I don't think it's your right to determine what his interpretation of the bill is. Just using the term "spirit" suggests it is open to different interpretations.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Things can't, and shouldn't, work that way all the time. There are certain instances where everyone's rights, minorities included, need to be protected.

I agree with this. I actually have said this is the only time the government should be stepping in, when it is to protect the innocent, or those whom can not protect themselves.

In this particular case I disagree with Jeheinz, I don't feel the government should be saying what is or isn't a marriage and would personally vote no on Prop 8. I went a step further and said government shouldn't even be in the business of handling "marriages" at all earlier. Just because I disagree with jeheinz doesn't mean that I feel his opinion should be muted or not be allowed. I have just as much a problem with people saying that others don't have a right to voice their opinions or beliefs.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Who is trying to mute heinz? Jesus Christ people, this is a message board. If he posts his opinion, people are going to post about his opinion.

Here's a big slap on the back to jeheinz for having an opinion. Great job. If I was in a position to give out stickers, he would get an opinion expressing one.

Thanks! I shall wear it proudly.

While I get what Alan is saying, it's worth noting that I've had zero problem with people taking issue and/or questioning me about a belief they don't share. That's what makes America great.

Frankly, even, I realize I'm in the minority (not just here, I expect Prop 8 to fail) and that's fine. But I do not feel right voting against a proposition which defines marriage the same way I do.

[jeheinz72]

Anyhow, I gotta run. This was a good talk. THIS was a good talk.

Seriously though.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

While I get what Alan is saying, it's worth noting that I've had zero problem with people taking issue and/or questioning me about a belief they don't share. That's what makes America great.

Just to give you a little background of where I'm coming from.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that they must be sealed in a temple by an officiator who has the proper priesthood authority (hint.. in my beliefs you were not married with the proper authority). I am voting no on Prop 8.

Now answer the following question... if I got enough people to support my belief of marriage, you would be excluded. You're ok with that if the majority supports it, correct?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Now answer the following question... if I got enough people to support my belief of marriage, you would be excluded. You're ok with that if the majority supports it, correct?

Yes, I would be. I wouldn't be "happy" with it, but I'd be ok with it if that's how the vote went down. Fact is, my marriage has little to do with the government. My marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. The rest is essentially, irrelevant.

Again, take the marriage/gay hot-button issue out of the picture.

Let's say somehow there was a proposition passed that California, the state, recognized Yanni as some sort of official/best musical artist. It'd be the "law" but I wouldn't believe in it.

So if some prop passed that your definition of marriage is what the state recognizes then so be it, no skin off my nose.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Who is trying to mute heinz? Jesus Christ people, this is a message board. If he posts his opinion, people are going to post about his opinion.

Here's a big slap on the back to jeheinz for having an opinion. Great job. If I was in a position to give out stickers, he would get an opinion expressing one.

I guess I just don't like the minorities getting bashed on the message board here and am trying to protect their rights!

In all seriousness though, you don't seem quite as liberal in your beliefs as other people who live in this state and you seem fairly close in several of your beliefs to what I believe. (it sounds like I might even be a bit more liberal than you in some cases based on what you said about not supporting friends who might choose abortion).. so I don't have an issue with your viewpoint at all. I just am glad jeheinz was willing to express his as usually most of what I hear on this board are agenda fueled platforms that people are reciting. His stating of his beliefs were refreshing to read to me even if I feel them to be wrong.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yes, I would be. I wouldn't be "happy" with it, but I'd be ok with it if that's how the vote went down. Fact is, my marriage has little to do with the government. My marriage is between me, my wife, my church and my God. The rest is essentially, irrelevant.

Again, take the marriage/gay hot-button issue out of the picture.

Let's say somehow there was a proposition passed that California, the state, recognized Yanni as some sort of official/best musical artist. It'd be the "law" but I wouldn't believe in it.

So if some prop passed that your definition of marriage is what the state recognizes then so be it, no skin off my nose.

I think the problem here is the government, a legal body, crosses with the religious beliefs/body. Do you believe that the government should eliminate the legal term of marriage, and introduce domestic partnerships/civil unions (while still holding all the previous legal attachments of marriage partnerships in the eye of the law), and leave the concept of marriage to religion and individuals?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No, because that's not denying rights to anyone. Let's try this.

You are a HUGE Yanni fan. HUGE. Love him. He is all you listen to.

There's a proposition out there to ensure that the only music people can listen to in CA is Yanni. You love Yanni. This is a no-brainer for you!

Except that, perhaps, you feel that just because you love Yanni, not everyone else should be forced to listen to him.

I wasn't make that analogy to Prop 8 itself, moreso to the scenario heybrad put forth.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Let's say somehow there was a proposition passed that California, the state, recognized Yanni as some sort of official/best musical artist. It'd be the "law" but I wouldn't believe in it.

The correct analogy in this case would be where the fans of Yanni decided that his music should be the only music, so they attempt to pass a law where you can only listen to Yanni. You'd be denied the right to listen to non Yanni music. Again, you'd be ok with that if it was the majority vote, right? It wouldn't matter what you believed at that point. You could not listen to non Yanni music.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think the problem here is the government, a legal body, crosses with the religious beliefs/body. Do you believe that the government should eliminate the legal term of marriage, and introduce domestic partnerships/civil unions (while still holding all the previous legal attachments of marriage partnerships in the eye of the law), and leave the concept of marriage to religion and individuals?

Just to make sure I'm understanding you, you're saying that there is no such thing as "marriage" under the law? Like everyone, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman are all deemed domestic partnerships/civil unions, legally and that the term marriage is used in a more personal matter with how one sees fit?

Sure, no problemo with that at all.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by heybrad

The correct analogy in this case would be where the fans of Yanni decided that his music should be the only music, so they attempt to pass a law where you can only listen to Yanni. You'd be denied the right to listen to non Yanni music. Again, you'd be ok with that if it was the majority vote, right? It wouldn't matter what you believed at that point. You could not listen to non Yanni music.

Yes, I wouldn't be able to listen to non-Yanni music.

But under this law, another artist, let's say Neil Diamond could produce something called "audio entertainment" and we could all listen to this "audio entertainment" or any other "audio entertainment" all we wanted and this "audio entertainment" would have the same rights, rules and regulations as Yanni's "music"

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Just to make sure I'm understanding you, you're saying that there is no such thing as "marriage" under the law? Like everyone, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman are all deemed domestic partnerships/civil unions, legally and that the term marriage is used in a more personal matter with how one sees fit?

Sure, no problemo with that at all.

Yay! You're not a horrible person!

The problem is that right now this scenario is not the case everywhere, and we are therefore left with a patchwork system. Because while California may recognize the two lesbians as essentially "married" for all intents and purposes, if they get in an accident in Nevada and one of them is dying, they have different legal rights in Nevada, as opposed to two people whose "marriage" extends de facto across state lines because of the way that the laws in the other state are written.

And that's also why I think what we really need is a federal court ruling, or even better, another amendment, stating essentially what we are saying in this thread, because otherwise things will continue to be "patchwork" which leads to problems.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yes, I wouldn't be able to listen to non-Yanni music.

But under this law, another artist, let's say Neil Diamond could produce something called "audio entertainment" and we could all listen to this "audio entertainment" or any other "audio entertainment" all we wanted and this "audio entertainment" would have the same rights, rules and regulations as Yanni's "music"

Hasn't this country already figured out that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Where is that the case, DT?

It's a nice thought, but instituting a national secular replacement for marriage and giving marriage to the churches is not feasible. I also don't think that concept really has the legs. I mean, whats to stop a gay couple from getting a Unitarian marriage and continuing to threaten all we hold dear?

Originally Posted by Telle

Hasn't this country already figured out that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

Telle says it best.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Telle

Hasn't this country already figured out that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal?

Agreed.

In an ideal situation, I'd agree with DT and his idea, though it is rather unfeasible.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

You're kidding, right?

Ok, I'm playing catch up here so forgive me if I don't respond completely...

No I'm not kidding. My point was, there will always be enough new Americans to not deplete the tax base if gays can continue to get married.

As far as the unwanted pregnancies comment of mine, that is in response to all the people who are scared that if gays can continue to marry that it will be the end of procreation, traditional values, traditional marriage, etc... quite frankly, people will continue to have kids married or not, planned or not. So that fear from the gay marriage opponents doesn't hold a lot of water in my opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Agreed.

In an ideal situation, I'd agree with DT and his idea, though it is rather unfeasible.

It's certainly not unfeasible. Long time ago people might have said the same thing about people of color. And if they had given up fighting to abolish seperate-but-equal lord knows we'd still be there today. The time for this idea will come - I simply hope it is sooner rather than later.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Agreed.

In an ideal situation, I'd agree with DT and his idea, though it is rather unfeasible.

So then you understand how having marriage for heterosexual couples and domestic partnerships for homosexual couples, even with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, is an act of inequality?

[jeheinz72]

I dunno DT, as much as I would have no problem with it, I think that one would be pretty tough to set in motion

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Telle

So then you understand how having marriage for heterosexual couples and domestic partnerships for homosexual couples, even with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, is an act of inequality?

I see the point, though I think it's largely semantics. As I've said before, my marriage has little to do with the fact that it is or isn't ok in the eyes of the government. I'd presume that an overwhelming majoirty of married/partnered people would say the same thing.

It's not an ideal system, separating the idea of marriage from the government is, but if it's on my ballot, I"m voting for the option that defines marriage in a way that aligns with my belief of what marriage is.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

..but if it's on my ballot, I"m voting for the option that defines marriage in a way that aligns with my belief of what marriage is.

So going back to something you said earlier.. if there's a ballot initiative that says that only marriages performed in the Catholic Church are marriages and everything else is domestic partnerships, you'd vote "yes" on it?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I see the point, though I think it's largely semantics. As I've said before, my marriage has little to do with the fact that it is or isn't ok in the eyes of the government. I'd presume that an overwhelming majoirty of married/partnered people would say the same thing.

So then are you saying that it is because of your religious beliefs and that trying to ink religious beliefs into the California constitution is ok? Even though I know you voted No on Prop 8, that's what it sounds like to me.

It's comments like that, that cement it for me that this is the religious trying to get religion legislated into the California constitution and not actually based on any type of scientific arguments as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Because if it's not that, then it falls into the bigotry/discrimination category, which still makes it wrong.

[jeheinz72]

Yes, I would.

Now as I also said earlier, for practical purposes I wouldn't use that definition. Like I wouldn't go around disparaging marriages that aren't that, just like I don't do that now, but I would vote Yes on that conjured up situation aimed at making me look bad

*ducks*

[Telle]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yes, I would.

Now as I also said earlier, for practical purposes I wouldn't use that definition. Like I wouldn't go around disparaging marriages that aren't that, just like I don't do that now, but I would vote Yes on that conjured up situation aimed at making me look bad

*ducks*

Just want to make sure you're consistent

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So then are you saying that it is because of your religious beliefs and that trying to ink religious beliefs into the California constitution is ok? Even though I know you voted No on Prop 8, that's what it sounds like to me.

It's comments like that, that cement it for me that this is the religious trying to get religion legislated into the California constitution and not actually based on any type of scientific arguments as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Because if it's not that, then it falls into the bigotry/discrimination category, which still makes it wrong.

I voted Yes on 8.

And I'm not *trying* to do anything. I look at it like this.

I believe marriage to be X, as in X is what "technically" defines a marriage for me.

I have no problem with people who actually marry via A, B, C, etc. (as in I don't claim their union has no merit or anything). But if say my daughter was getting married (she's all of 3 mind you) I would encourage her (encourage, not force mind you) to get married in a Catholic church, if possible (if she couldn't then ok, but if she could, I would encourage it)

There is a proposition on the ballot that defines marriage as X, the same as my X. Since X = X, I'm voting yes.

If said proposition wasn't there, I could care less. I'm not *trying* to ink anything into anywhere. Someone else put it there, asked my opinion on the matter via a vote, and I gave it.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Telle

Just want to make sure you're consistent

And that's fine, and I understand why my viewpoint isn't a popular (or likely to win) one. And that's fine too. I just call it as I see it, and as I also said before, I'm not going to vote against something that defines something in a way I also define it. I didn't ask for that to be on there, I didn't ask for there to be a vote, but there is, so I'm giving my opinion in my vote.

If someone has a problem with my definition, then so be it, that's their perrogative. In an ideal world the government wouldn't be defining things such as marriage, but if they're going to and they're going to have us vote on it, I'm going to vote yes on the one that matches my definition.

[Sun Tzu]

I just saw a banner running at the top of FOFC...it read

"Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. YES ON 8"

[jeheinz72]

Yeah it's been up there all day. I think I mentioned it earlier.

I'm frankly shocked people aren't outraged

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I just saw a banner running at the top of FOFC...it read

"Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. YES ON 8"

Yeah, they've been doing the Google thing, one of the Webcomics I read got hit with it. He was... NOT AMUSED. One of the more profane posts I've ever seen on the net.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yeah it's been up there all day. I think I mentioned it earlier.

I'm frankly shocked people aren't outraged

jeheinz: FireFox+AdBlockPlus+NoScript is my friend

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yeah it's been up there all day. I think I mentioned it earlier.

I'm frankly shocked people aren't outraged

The Mormon and Catholic churches are against Firefox with adblocker/noscript!

[jeheinz72]

Nah, we're not, we're just way too lazy to care. Or at least, I am.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I voted Yes on 8.

And I'm not *trying* to do anything. I look at it like this.

I believe marriage to be X, as in X is what "technically" defines a marriage for me.

I have no problem with people who actually marry via A, B, C, etc. (as in I don't claim their union has no merit or anything). But if say my daughter was getting married (she's all of 3 mind you) I would encourage her (encourage, not force mind you) to get married in a Catholic church, if possible (if she couldn't then ok, but if she could, I would encourage it)

There is a proposition on the ballot that defines marriage as X, the same as my X. Since X = X, I'm voting yes.

If said proposition wasn't there, I could care less. I'm not *trying* to ink anything into anywhere. Someone else put it there, asked my opinion on the matter via a vote, and I gave it.

I understand your viewpoint on this jeheinz, but I think what you fail to recognize is that by voicing your opinion on it you are indeed participating in the process of trying to ink either religion or bigortry into the constitution of the state of california.

Not to go "there" with the popular analogy in full force, but you can't just wash your hands of it and say "someone asked my opinion and so i voiced it because X=X," and not expect to be called out for the fact that you are contributing to the bigotry/attempt to legislate religion. (aka the "i was just following orders" nazi death camp guards defense)

Just because X=X does not excuse you from understanding and considering the deeper ramifications of what you are doing.

[SirFozzie]

BTW, nothing against Jeheinz. but the tactics used by "Yes on 8" folks (including flat out extortion of people donating to no on 8 campaigns) make me want the propositon to get its ass kicked so hard that the next people who try to bring this up feel it.

[jeheinz72]

No, you're right. It's not fair to say I can completely wash my hands of it, but my justification for how I voted is still that I'm voting for the choice that fits my description of marriage.

Combine that with the fact that my personal opinion that the state's opinion of marriage has zero effect on my actual marriage leads me to a Yes vote.

I understand what you folks have said though and I understand why someone would vote No on 8, even as a Catholic or a Mormon. It makes sense and if that is the decision that voter has come to, then that's great too. I disagree but that's that.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW, nothing against Jeheinz. but the tactics used by "Yes on 8" folks (including flat out extortion of people donating to no on 8 campaigns) make me want the propositon to get its ass kicked so hard that the next people who try to bring this up feel it.

Oh I'll agree on this 100%.

Frankly this whole thing where they are tying the issue to kids and education makes me sick. It's a completely outlandish statement on both sides of the fence.

For one, it's just plain untrue that marriage isn't taught in most schools (shame shame No on 8's by having McConnell essentially lie in his ads, I've heard marriage is taught in 96% of schools, though I have no idea if that is actually true)

For two, it's just plain naive if anyone in our society thinks that our children aren't going to learn that same-sex couples exist, whether it's called a marriage or a domestic partnership, at a much much younger age than say my generation (all of 29 years old) was (shame shame Yes on 8's)

I hate that whole political trickery where any side, right or wrong just ties their argument to children (something everyone cares about) just for the sake of winning votes.

[SirFozzie]

it was worse then that, jeheinz: Where the Yes on 8 folks sent mail to No on 8 Donators saying that unless they got at least an equivalent donation to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would list their company as "Not a supporter of traditional marriage".

That.. as I said, is fucking slimy.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

it was worse then that, jeheinz: Where the Yes on 8 folks sent mail to No on 8 Donators saying that unless they got at least an equivalent donation to the Yes on 8 campaign, they would list their company as "Not a supporter of traditional marriage".

That.. as I said, is fucking slimy.

Agreed.

It's the crap like that which remind me why I really hate politics.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I voted Yes on 8.

And I'm not *trying* to do anything. I look at it like this.

I believe marriage to be X, as in X is what "technically" defines a marriage for me.

I have no problem with people who actually marry via A, B, C, etc. (as in I don't claim their union has no merit or anything). But if say my daughter was getting married (she's all of 3 mind you) I would encourage her (encourage, not force mind you) to get married in a Catholic church, if possible (if she couldn't then ok, but if she could, I would encourage it)

There is a proposition on the ballot that defines marriage as X, the same as my X. Since X = X, I'm voting yes.

If said proposition wasn't there, I could care less. I'm not *trying* to ink anything into anywhere. Someone else put it there, asked my opinion on the matter via a vote, and I gave it.

I mis-read then, I thought you voted No, my bad.

So, correct me then if I'm wrong, you feel it's The church (Catholic) that has governing authority over marriage? What gives the Catholic church the right to dictate what is and what is not a marriage? Or is it a 'in the eyes of God' thing regardless of what church it is?

No church or group has a monopoly on what is and what isn't a marriage.

Hypothetically, if the shoe was on the other foot, a ballot measure to void any and all marriages conducted and/or recognized by any christian/judeo church are to be considered religious partnerships, would you feel that you're being discriminated against?

On a side note, I believe if Prop 8 does pass, it will be overturned like Prop 22 (I think it was 22) by the California Supreme Court more than likely because it will be considered discriminatory.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I mis-read then, I thought you voted No, my bad.

So, correct me then if I'm wrong, you feel it's The church (Catholic) that has governing authority over marriage? What gives the Catholic church the right to dictate what is and what is not a marriage? Or is it a 'in the eyes of God' thing regardless of what church it is?

No church or group has a monopoly on what is and what isn't a marriage.

Hypothetically, if the shoe was on the other foot, a ballot measure to void any and all marriages conducted and/or recognized by any christian/judeo church are to be considered religious partnerships, would you feel that you're being discriminated against?

On a side note, I believe if Prop 8 does pass, it will be overturned like Prop 22 (I think it was 22) by the California Supreme Court more than likely because it will be considered discriminatory.

hehe, I've answered these before, but quick hitting

- I don't think the Gov't *should* be defining marriage period, but if it does and the definition matches mine, I'm voting yes. Realistically, anyone who needs the state to rubber-stamp their marriage/union needs to re-think what their marriage really is all about, given their marriage/union affords them the same rights any other "married" couple has.

- I wouldn't feel discrminated against. Or at least, I wouldn't really care. My marriage is about me, my wife, my Church and my God. That's the finite list of the parts that matter. No more. No less. I could frankly care less how the gov't defines it with respect to my actual marriage.

- I don't actually think 8 will pass (nor will I be at all dismayed if it doesn't).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

For one, it's just plain untrue that marriage isn't taught in most schools (shame shame No on 8's by having McConnell essentially lie in his ads, I've heard marriage is taught in 96% of schools, though I have no idea if that is actually true)

I asked my two step daughters (13 and 15) if there has ever been mention of marriage (any) in their schools that is part of the curriculm(sp?) and the 13 yaer old said, "Pfft heck no. They never said anything" The 15 year old said, "No, not anything that I can remember." So, for an ancedotal example, that's as much as I know about it being taught in school in San Diego.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I asked my two step daughters (13 and 15) if there has ever been mention of marriage (any) in their schools that is part of the curriculm(sp?) and the 13 yaer old said, "Pfft heck no. They never said anything" The 15 year old said, "No, not anything that I can remember." So, for an ancedotal example, that's as much as I know about it being taught in school in San Diego.

Further proof that when it comes to politics, I have no ability to discern true statistics from un-true statistics.

Though it's good to know that it's not being actually taught in school. Though I imagine tangentially some teachers could change references of stories that are Man-Woman to Man-Man/Woman-Woman. Which is fine by me, I could care less about that stuff, kids are going to figure it out sooner or later anyhow.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

hehe, I've answered these before, but quick hitting

- I don't think the Gov't *should* be defining marriage period, but if it does and the definition matches mine, I'm voting yes. Realistically, anyone who needs the state to rubber-stamp their marriage/union needs to re-think what their marriage really is all about, given their marriage/union affords them the same rights any other "married" couple has.

- I wouldn't feel discrminated against. Or at least, I wouldn't really care. My marriage is about me, my wife, my Church and my God. That's the finite list of the parts that matter. No more. No less. I could frankly care less how the gov't defines it with respect to my actual marriage.

- I don't actually think 8 will pass (nor will I be at all dismayed if it doesn't).

Sorry about asking repeat questions, thank you for answering them though.

I don't think it will pass either, but, you never know...

[jeheinz72]

No worries man!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Further proof that when it comes to politics, I have no ability to discern true statistics from un-true statistics.

Though it's good to know that it's not being actually taught in school. Though I imagine tangentially some teachers could change references of stories that are Man-Woman to Man-Man/Woman-Woman. Which is fine by me, I could care less about that stuff, kids are going to figure it out sooner or later anyhow.

Yes, all the BS and magical hand waving by politicians is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to politics.

I think if they are teaching it in schools, I hope it is prefaced with, "You should wait until after you graduate college and have a job."

[MrBug708]

Prop 8 is passing so far...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Prop 8 is passing so far...

that Heinze guy is a real dickhead

[bhlloy]

Is it too early to call this one over? The signs weren't good (or were depending on where you stand) when it only had a 52-48 edge in the exit polls. For such a socially desirable answer (I'm not a homophobe) that's not great.