Reply #34: This explains the immediate issue, but not the historic one.

[qwlauren35]

I understand completely that there is intense anger about what happened in California, i.e. a city accepted same-sex marriage, it was overturned, then the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, and it was reversed by state referendum.

And I agree that this seems to be a repeating pattern, i.e. states are attacking issues that its citizens are divided on, even though the courts have issued clear rulings. You can see it with abortion.

However, it's not clear to me why the backlash was not anticipated, especially after what happened in 2004. Was it because California has a sizable gay community? Or because many consider the state liberal?

(When Affirmative Action was overturned, I stopped thinking of California as liberal.)

And more importantly, I am having difficulty understanding the decision among many gay activists to shift the focus from clearly explored civil rights such as housing and job discrimination, military discrimination and hate crimes, to MARRIAGE.

To me, it seemed as though there was a very clear forward movement in rights being gained. Until the marriage issue came to the forefront.

I think the reasoning was explained to me about 8 years ago, but it's just not clear in my mind right now.