America won, but gays lost

I am not sure if you had been paying attention lately about the historic wins of Senator Barack Obama as president elect of the USA with high voter turnout rates, but it look like America won.

Yes we can, and we did. Anyways, here is the bad news. Many homosexuals lost their rights in many states. In my home state of California, voters voted to restrict marriage rights to homosexuals. The youth votes, between the age of 18 – 25 voted 61% against it but they only made up 20% of the voting population. The group that voted to deny homosexuals their rights was those over the age of 65, with a 61% in favor of the ban. So, lets us not be upset of angry. Within 20 years or when the demographic of the senior citizen voter’s changes, the future of California and homosexuals lies with the youth voters. 61% of them voted against the ban on gay marriage and was the only group that was largely in the no column, while each age’s groups that continue are in the Yes side.

Proposition 8 (yes means to restrict marriage rights for homosexuals, no means to allowed homosexuals the right to married)

Age Yes No Voter Populations
18 – 29 39% 61% 20%
30 – 44 55 45 28%
45 – 64 54 46 36%
65+ 61% 39% 39%

Total 52.5% 47.5%

Gays in California had a long way to go but it is a positive thing because younger voters are more tolerance of homosexuals. Gay marriage ban was also passed in Arizona and Florida. In the 2006 election, Arizona narrowly passed a gay marriage ban but it passed this year. Florida had also ban gay marriage in their state.

Gay had also lost in the state of Arkansas. Although a democratic senator won reelection without any opposition and senator McCain won the state, homosexuals and single women lost. The measure 11, a proposition that would deny homosexuals and single parents the right to foster or adopted children. At first, its purpose was to only denied homosexuals the right to foster or adopt children but than someone got the ideas that homosexuals might challenge the bill in court, saying that it violate their 14th amendment rights, since single parent can foster or adopt children but homosexual can’t, therefore they had not been treated equally under the law, since it goal was at a particular group not the whole people. So, they made it illegal for both single parents and homosexuals to foster or adopt children.

So let said, two parents are killed in a horrible car accident; their child cannot be foster nor get adopted by an aunt if she is single. Or lets said that a woman wants to have a child but she cannot adopt nor foster a child if she is not married. If a gay monogamous couple wants to adopted or foster a child that are related to them because their parents had abandon them, they too shall be denied that right. I am not sure how this law deals with single parents, who had a child out of wedlock or are divorce. My guess would be that single parents who had children out of wedlock or had children though a divorce should also be deprived of their rights to raise their child? I think that is how this bill will affect them. These people would much rather a child live in an institution with other children who had suffered psychological pains than live in a loving environment just because that foster or adopted parent is a homosexual or single, even if they are related to the child.

The supporter’s reasoning in denying single parents and homosexuals the right to foster or adopted children.
1. The child shall be denied or deprive of a proper role model. They reasons that many children that are born or raise in single parent homes are more likely to commit crimes or behave irresponsibility. Therefore, a child should be raised in an environment where both parents are present or married. They reasons that a child raise in a household where the father is absent or the mother (a less likely scenario), that child is more likely to be influence by outside force, and become criminals.
2. Children raised in an instable household also suffer emotional distress. It is important that a child is raised in a stable household and the only way for that to happen is though marriage. If a child is raise by non married parents, than they are more likely to be criminals if they are raised in a house that is not stable, such as the parents not being married to each other. Since the parents are not married to each other, there is no guarantee that the child will live in a stable environment.
3. Children that are raised in a gay household are more likely to face ridicule and bully by other children. It is wrong that a child should be force to endore should pain and suffering at the hands of other children simply because of the sexual preferences of the parent.