Discuss Proposition 8

Weigh in on the Proposition 8 debate, and the lawsuits filed to challenge it, here.  Do you think California voters made the right decision?  How will it affect you, your family and friends, and others throughout the state?

*Earlier today, readers commented on this issue on a message board.  The board is now closed but we encourage you to read the comments left there and continue the discussion here on Comments Blog. 

Photo: Lawrence K. Ho/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Very simple]

We should ban Mormon and Catholic marriages for the next round of California propositions

[SickOfSods]

I'm going to try to appeal to whatever shred of logic that you sodomites might still possess; Keeping in mind that you comprise 2% (possibly LESS) of the demographic, it would be wise for your kind to shut up and accept simple civil 'contracts' to cover your so-called relationships.
Keep pushing on normal society and I promise you 'the people' (including those you half convinced) will backlash so hard you'll find yourselves back in your closets with no hope of ever getting out.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Unless your kind can proffer credible scientific proof that you're "born that way", sexual deviation remains a choice NOT a civil right!

[Kno Mudbath]

Why do you sodomite defenders pathetically rant on about "equality"? The method that one practices sexual behavior does NOT raise to the level of a protected right. Until anyone of you sods can produce one scrap of scientific evidence, raising to the level of a legal certainty under rules of evidence, that can demonstrate that sodomy is a condition of birth and not a learned behavior please... shut the hell up and just quietly pursue your particular brand of degeneracy.
The "people" of CA just told you NO AGAIN, don't piss us off.

[John M.]

I've always believed that proponents on both sides of this issue are fighting the wrong problem. The real problem is with the state issuing marriage licenses in the first place. Marriage is a religious ceremony which is performed by a house of religion, and recorded much like a baptismal certificate. The state should only issue civil union licenses, with the marriage certificate being a separate (optional) document. This would solve the issue for both sides and everyone would be happy if we just followed our founding fathers wishes - the separation of church and state. This way marriage would remain strictly a religious ceremony condoned and performed only by a house of religion. If gays were married by a church, then only that church's parisioners would have a grievance if they disagreed with the church's doctrine. In this scenario, everyone would be allowed civil unions regardless of gender. And marriage would be a separate religous issue, like it should be.
Why can't this country seem to get there?

Both sides should be pushing for the separation of church and state and asking the state to be issuing civil unions for everyone and leave marriage to the church where it belongs.

John M.
Las Vegas

[Paul Hernandez]

until 1967 it was illegal, in parts of this country, for blacks to marry whites. less that 50 years ago, racism and discrimination were the beliefs of the majority. that still didn't make it right. it's funny, when you think about it. ask anyone today and they'll tell you that what went on back then was despicable, hateful and wrong. that's how history views them. how will it view you?

[Furr]

If the proponents of Prop. 8 made a procedural or legal mistake, it's entirely correct for the opponents of the proposition to take advantage of that fact to get it blocked. Just because we have the initiative process, there's no excuse for sloppy lawmaking.

Did not the Yes on 8 lawyers actually read the SCoCA's decision earlier this year and note the language that could be interpreted to put this question into the category where it could only be addressed by either a constitutional convention or the Legislature (by 2/3rds) forwarding the issue to the people and requiring a 2/3rds vote there? Or did they just ignore the point and hope no one would notice?

Might have saved over $70m and a lot of work if they'd just realized they were done for and gone about making the change they wanted the proper way; of course, that's a lot more difficult, and given the results on 8 we now can be pretty sure it would be doomed.

However this issue shakes out now, the fact that young folks are on the side of equality is heartening. It's just a matter of time.

[BOBO HOTDOG]

ITS FUNNY, IF YOU GIVE A TREASURE TO SOMEONE THEY TAKE IT . BUT WHEN YOU GIVE THESE PEOPLE FREEDOM THEY DO NOT WANT IT , BUT FIGHT TO STAY IN SIN AND SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL APART FROM GOD AND LIE ALL THE WAY THERE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A HATE CRIME. GOD WILL BAN THEM TO HELL IF THEY KEEP ON SINNING THIS WAY. GAY IS HATE. GO STRAIGHT.

[Big Jim Slade]

You lost. Again.

Many of us have no problem with a civil union. You could have had that in an instant. Your insistence on redefining a sacred word is where you lose your opposition. As a refresher,

marriage

–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

[Tony]

I have a problem here. Noone suggests that gay people aren't allowed to live as they wish with partners of their choosing. What the voters have consistently said is the definition of "marriage" is the union of a man and woman. Therein is where the problem arises. The majority of voters believe in what they want "mariage" to be. This isn't the first time this issue has been voted upon and the people's answer remains what it's always been. It's not about discrimination. It's about what the definition of a true "marriage" actually is. Yet, people want to try and make it something it's not. The people of California have said that "marriage" is a union of two people that can be expected to create new life or lives sexually because of this union. Obviously, the "marriage" of two men or women cannot do so. And, the voters aren't discriminating by addressing this definition of what they believe "marriage" to be, they are simply expressing their beliefs in what they understand "marriage" to represent. Let's be clear here, what the majority of people have consistently said is "marriage" is the union of two people of opposite sexes potentially able to create life on their own, and is not a partnership of two individuals who want to be in a partnership, but lack the ability to create life on their own, through no fault of their own. Obviously people with different POVs can debate that. But, the opposite can happen, too. Like, Hitler suggested a supreme race based upon what he desired vs. what God or evolution commanded. Today, people prefer what reality suggests, period.

[ana]

why do they try so hard to make gay ppls life so hard i just hope one of there kids dont turn to be gay or lesbians because they are realy going to cry and they will know whats up!!!!!!! no on prop 8

[SUK TSANG]

"Equal rights" is an obfuscation: gays already gotten all the relevent rights.
Their real motive is to define marriage differently so that they can legally call each other Mr. and Mrs. G and then each legally goes to a different restroom.
The bottom line is, either don't use the word "marriage" in all legal codes or, accept that equal rights does not mean one can use the words "man" and "woman" interchangeably.

[Madeline]

I'm Australian, and on a day when I looked to the US to restore my hope that America had moved past bigotry and discrimination, this proposition put paid to that hope.

The existence of same-sex marriage has never threatened a religious person's right to view their marriage however they like. But this proposition has denied thousands of people the right to view their relationships as legitimate.

Today, we look back at the men and women who proposed - and voted for - amendments banning interracial marriage as racist scum. How shall history view the state of California in a hundred years?

To all the Californians who supported this because they felt same-sex marriage conflicted with their definition of marriage, I have nothing to say to you but to repeat the words of Thomas Jefferson: "I am for freedom of religion, and against all manoeuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." Religious freedom is not about making one particular view of the Bible the law. Religious freedom is about letting people hold whatever view they choose.

[Sarah]

I just don't think that it's right for voters to decide the law based on their religion. That just isn't right. Isn't that the whole abortion issue is about too? Also, I found it incredibly discouraging that people would be now willing to take away these rights granted. It's like dangling a carrot in front of them after they had a tiny bite. Is marriage such a valued and cherished institution when you can get married and divorced so quickly? When we live in a time of drive through weddings? Why can't gay couples marry after being together for decades but drunken strangers are allowed to enter this "holy" institution? It's just not right. And even though this battle has been lost, the new generation of voters clearly demonstrated that they're ready for change and for tolerance. But basically, religion and state do not belong together. Please next time, keep your religious beliefs from state laws. Not everybody believes in God.

[stevi martin]

Please put this in perspective. Government does not belong in my bedroom. Several churches have overstepped their welcome and taken up residence on street corners, others use our free hours to interrupt us and talk church rhetoric and cram their beliefs down the throats of others.

Push all this talk back inside the church, close the doors and let the paritioners talk as long as they wish. We all have our own views they do not have to use aggressive tactics and annoying phone calls to attempt to force their opinion on other. Hey guys, we have brains too and we are thousands of times smarter. We are confident in our decisions and don't need the squad backing us up.

[Eric Blair]

Since the amendment said, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", and the CA Court said you can't deny people the rights of marriage...

Then cities need to have two forms, one for marriage (between a man and a woman), and one for "merry-gay" (one word, between two people of the same sex). Both give the same rights as under a traditional marriage.

After all, the proponents claimed again and again that they didn't want the word 'marriage' to be used for anything other than traditional use, nor did they ban homosexuals from having the equivalent of marriage under a different name.

They got what they wished for. ;-)

[Jim Swenson]

I'm a Christian from the Midwest who is not Far Right. I struggle with the homosexuality issue, ultimately believing that God will judge each individual - not an entire segment of humanity. Who, by the Grace of God, will get to heaven- Faithful, devoted homosexual couples who believe in Jesus Christ or heterosexual people who continually cheat on their spouses but also profess belief in Christ? I don't know. Yet, I do believe "marriage" is meant to be between a man and a woman. NEVERTHELESS, and perhaps others have suggested this compromise, couldn't people on both sides of Prop 8 agree to sanction homosexual "unions," where the partners are given the same rights as married couples? Couldn't we agree to "tolerate" more things in life without demanding "acceptance?" Tolerate means "to not interfere with, allow; to recognize and respect." Compromise. It's the human thing to do.

[Marvin]

I always said there is no place in a normal society for "Farriage" or fag weddings. To me it is no different than being a pedophile. They have a strong desire to be with the same sex. Pedophiles have a strong desire to be with small children. It is not normal and I am thrilled that the people of CA finally said enough is enough.

[michael]

I am in an interracial marriage. Might I be next on the list, the target of next election's initiative to amend the constitution?

[Sandi B]

The narrow-minded, hating for no reason, terrified of something about gay marriage that they won't own up to, are going to find their celebratory bubbly turn to sour in their stomachs when Prop. 8 and all other similiar measures appoved by voters in other states get overturned by a Progressive Supreme Court appointed by President Barack Obama.

[stev_g01]

There are states in the Southern US that would support a referendum to amend the constitution to reinstate slavery in these tough economic times. The equal protection clause alone would invalidate such an amendment, and the supreme court of that state would not hesitate to act, despite the will of the voters. Straight marriages (mine included) have not been weakened. Religious beliefs have no place in the law. This is bigotry, plain and simple.

[Bob S]

How about respecting the rights of voters?

This is the 2nd time that the state has rejected the concept of gay marriage.

I was not an Obama supporter, but I respect the office and he will be my president. Why can't the lefty loon-bats get this. No respect, just a bunch of cry babies who will now try weasel in court.

Enough! Get over it. I fully support legal partnerships.

[Rights]

Why is the left trying to make this a "Rights" issue?
Since when was marriage a "right". Toy need a LICENSE to get married - you have to APPLY for it - you have to QUALIFY - IT IS NOT A RIGHT.
Your "rights" are: life, liberty, bearing of arms, the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is nowhere in there.
a "Marriage" requires a number of qualifiers (age, marital status, witnesses, an officiator) being one man and one woman is just one more of the things that makes a "civil union" be able to be a "Marriage" - THAT is the issue.
Gays/Lesbians may "Civil Union" all they want; but to be "Married" you have to be a man and woman.
You need a LICENSE to drive a car, but that is not infringing on your "Right" to be free and travel - ride a bike, take the bus, or call a cab.
There are differences between a RIGHT (for which you just need to be human) and a PRIVILEGE (for which you need a license).

[Raymond]

I want to know at what point does sexual orientation become a seperate group of citizens. There are gays from every race, religion, creed etc. This is not a issue about civil rights, every citizen has the same rights. Under California constitution as voted by the people of California marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman, and this goes for everyone. Why do gays feel a need to shove their sexual preffrernce down everyones throat. (No pun intended). Look, I could care less who you want to have intimate relations with, that's each individuals personal business, but stop trying to force me to agree with and accept the gay lifestyle as okay. In my view it is not and never will be. Doesn't equate to any hatred toward gays, just means I don't agree with it and don't want to be forced to accept it as okay.

[John Bryans Fontaine]

If Barack Obama had supported gay marriage and opposed, instead of avoided, Proposition 8, he would have lost the election to John McCain. The fantastic global celebration that is occuring over the election of a Black Man to the US Presidency would not be happening.

so unless gay marriage extremists wish to further marginalize themselves, they need to take a second look at civil unions which grant the same benefits of marriage.

[Very simple]

Ironic that the Mormon and Catholic churches, renowned for polygamy and molestation would push so hard on this issue