I don't need to report the election results--if you've made it to my blog, you've made it through enough of the internet to know the results in elections that are significant to you.

One election result that's significant to me, however, is the one in California on "Proposition 8", which I've talked about and made national news. Basically, the CA Supreme Court said anyone could marry and it was unconstitutional to deny them that right because the state's constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all its citizens. Proposition 8 sought to close what a particular group of people thought was a loophole: the constitution doesn't define what marriage is, and therefore everyone who wanted to get married, could. This didn't sit right with people who don't believe that marriage can be just any two adults, but should instead be one man, and one woman.

Here's the little wrinkle, though. Amending the constitution in California in this way--where all citizens had been given the go-ahead to get married based on the Supreme Court's decision--meant actually stripping rights away from people who already had them. Where there had once been no restriction on which people could get married, there now was.

The bottom line is this: you have rights that have been tried, tested, and confirmed by the Supreme Court in your state. A bunch of people decide they don't like it, and decide they can either fight the decision of the court (which would require getting the Court to address another case with similar circumstances on the same matter of constitutionality that would subsequently cause it to overrule its previous decision on the matter, not to mention the fact that there has to be actual merit, validity, and damages behind your claim) or change the constitution.

That's a tough decision to make, because neither road is an easy one. I imagine you'd try both, but which is really more likely to happen? That one-in-a-million shot that just might make it through all the lower courts just to make it to the Supreme Court and still have to run the risk of losing, thereby further cementing the decision you didn't like in the first place? It might be easier to drum up votes. Here's the recipe in this country--it's used on both sides of the aisle: tell an American that his church believes something, and that not doing anything could affect his children, you've just bought yourself a vote.

The proponents of Proposition 8 say that it will restore "traditional" marriage. I would ask this question: What about restoring other "traditional" values? If an amendment were proposed to redefine who can "bear arms" as the traditional bearers of arms (e.g. police, military, and militias) and that, by exclusion, no one else would be allowed to own weapons, there would be mass public outrage and it would likely never even be placed before voters.

And what about the "traditional" restrictions on marriage as imposed by the Church itself (since the proponents of Proposition 8 cite their religious beliefs and traditions in their argument and the Mormon church donated over $25 million in support of Prop 8)? Should not the amendment further define marriage--in addition to being between one man and one woman--as being only available to those who have not engaged in pre-marital sex? Or who were previously married? Or who are members of the clergy? And should there not be legal ramifications to those who break their vows? Those who say their argument isn't about members of the same sex getting married (when that's really the only issue this amendment addresses), but instead about "restoring tradition" are lying to you. They're just politically savvy enough to mask their lies and discrimination behind the images invoked by their sanctimonious babble.

So here's my problem: the issue isn't about gay marriage. It's about the constitution, and putting something into it when the state's Supreme Court (not to mention its elected governor, the majority of its elected legislature, and countless large constituents) has ruled it fine the way it is. It's about putting discrimination into the constitution, where it clearly didn't exist before.

It ain't over, because there are an estimated 3 or 4 million votes (absentee and provisional) that have yet to be counted. And, as of this writing, with a separation of 400,000 over 10 million already counted, it still might be just too close to call.

I want to share a conversation I had with someone I know on the topic, which will perhaps shed some light on the type of people who buy into this propaganda as spread by the discriminating people who would choose to take rights away from people instead of working for equality, liberty, and justice for all.

UPDATE: I've deleted the conversation I had because it was very long and really didn't say much except how ignorant some people can be. Also, the vote is over, and Prop 8 passed. The protests continue. Visit noonprop8.com or invalidateprop8.com for more information.