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

[GEAH]

Blacks and Latinos supported Prop 8. Are they now hate groups?

Whites and Asians opposed Prop 8. Are they now the good guys as far as the races go?

Oh, and poor people voted for Prop 8, the rich voted against it. Should we give tax breaks to the haters?

[Very simple]

No, it just illustrates the level of ignorance of those who voted against it

[Xenia]

I don't understand why people who choose to go against the Almighty God want so much to enter into a union that he created for man and woman. Oh wait, yes I do...

Because people are more concerned with the worldly twist that has been put on marraige. It is now about benefits at tax time and after death. If this battle was about the ability to be with someone you love, there would be no battle. I can't, nor really want to, stop anyone from being with who they want to be with, for the path to damnation is broad and str8, but I can't for the life of me understand why they want the same status as a man and a woman when they are clearly not a man and a woman.

Why would someone choosing to be different be fighting to be the same? No one has ever prayed their way out of their skin color or nationality but many have prayed their way out of homosexuality and polygamy.

[gtm]

I support marriage. California, like every other state, supports couples that choose to build a life and a family together by getting married. That's a good thing.

Passage of proposition 8 will deal a fundamental blow to marriage in California. Voters have changed the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman only. Now every tax break, every social program, every single benefit provided to married couples is a violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution and must be terminated.

When marriage is for straight people only, then benefits for married couples violate the state constitution. That's the law - it has nothing whatsoever to do with any religous beliefs or opinions about homosexuality. The California Supreme Court has ruled that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection - if they can't get the benefits of being married then nobody can.

Our only hope for rescuing the benefits for married couples is that the Supreme Court will recognize the Proposition 8 is invalid and throw it out. It was a mistake to ever allow it on the ballot.

[Very simple]

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Please keep your "Almighty God" out of my civil rights and keep it in your parish. You can freely damn everyone to hell as much as as you want. No one is forcing you to marry a gay person

[Doug Peterson]

Opponents of Prop. 8 have asked, "What happened in Los Angeles County?" The answer is people still know the difference between lifestyle choices and civil rights. A majority of them are apparently sharper than those who live in the Coastal Counties up north. Stop wondering and start thinking. Give other people at least half of the respect you claim you deserve. Leave the Mormons alone. They would be the first to help you in a time of catastrophic need. Check the record - they are always there to help!

[Madeline]

I am amazed to see the kind of vitriol being expressed here. I had convinced myself that this was a case of confused voters, who really weren't homophobic, but had deluded themselves into thinking their lifestyle was at risk.

Clearly, I was wrong.

Yes, this is denying a fundamental right. That right is not the right to marry - the denial of marriage is a symptom, not the root. This is denying the right to be treated as the same. The right to be judged solely on competencies and interactions with others. This is saying that because you chose to have a loving relationship with someone of the same gender, you are different. And different in a way that means you shouldn't be allowed to do the same things as others.

That's not protecting religious freedom. That's not a matter of the definition of marriage. That's discrimination.

And I suppose all those people out there yelling about how it was just about the definition of marriage must be inclined to listen to those bigots of a century ago who declared that it wasn't that they had anything against people of colour - it was just that they weren't really people. It was a definitional matter, of course.

And if it is a choice, why should that matter? We don't accept discrimination on a basis of religion - and that, surely, clearly and scientifically, is a choice. Are Hindu marriages, or Muslim marriages, or atheist marriages somehow not marriages; simply because they fail to meet your narrowminded standards of what a marriage looks like? And don't talk to me about alternative religious traditions - I'm happy to create a religion right here and now that accepts same-sex marriage as the only real marriage. Freedom of religion, remember?

And don't get me started on the bigot who declared same-sex relationships to be on the same level of paedophilia. Your lack of respect for the victims of sexual abuse and molestation is astounding. To suggest that their "relationship " with their abuser is somehow identical to a loving and consensual relationship is utterly disgusting.

And no, a civil union is not the same. That's still saying that same-sex relationships are somehow different - and still carries the implication that they're less valid. The point of same-sex marriage is not to give the same access to financial rights, and so forth, but to give the same access to validity.

Finally, on the matter of the Supreme Court. Your constitution is not there as a vehicle for tyrannies of the majority. It's there to prevent them. Yes, it is unconstitutional for 52% of the population to ban something that harms noone. If the Supreme Court overturns this amendment, it's not because they don't see the will of the people as valid. It's because a discriminatory amendment is unconstitutional - and as a result, you never had the right to make it.

This tells me one thing about the American people. It tells me that on the 4th of November, the American people did not vote to end bigotry. They voted for black to no longer mean "target".

[Clear thinker]

As a homosexual myself, for those that say this is a 'choice'...look around. Do you think this is an easy 'choice'...or that were bored and have nothing else to do but be despised, hated, attacked and persecuted by others? People don't make choices as a rule that brings these kinds of things upon them. Wake up. We are who we are...just like you that have certain attributes that you might like to 'choose' away - you can't. You do the best with what you have. It's so ironic that non-gays 'cling' to this word - marriage. Like they own it. They don't. They have spit in the face of the word. With divorce rates at an all time high, and 'shack-ing up' has become as common-place as breathing...who are you fooling or trying to convince - yourself? In a way - if given the opportunity...I would rather not label myself with a tarnished name like marriage. I wish we could think of another special name - a name that dignifies a union between loving people for all people that truly respect and honor the institution - gay and straight alike. LDS people - hello - did you forget that you promised to live the higher law of polygomy? That law was never revoked - only put aside in order to conform with the law of the land. Given the opportunity and acceptance, that practice would be widely used today in the Mormon Church. If you doubt me....ah...review your own history and doctrine. Why do you think women today can only be sealed to one man. Men can still have many sealed wives. Check it out. I speak the truth. Ask your Bishop. Ask any temple officiator. The world thinks this practice is the worst sin ever - but - you believe it is a very high blessing. See - it's all one's perspective. And pluze...anyone who has gone through the church's disciplinary processes for adultry or fornication know that it's a slap on the wrist compared to declaring oneself homosexual. I don't know any LDS man that is homosexual who 'chose' all the crap the is wrought upon them by the church. Both are sexual sins - but - because there is much simpathy in the hetero thinking...the consequences are sooo much different. I would give anything to have avoided all that. But...I can no more change my sexuality that you can. Please don't lecture me on therapy techniques. I tried. I really tried. The sucesss rate is super low. The reason is - this is not something you can change like dying your hair. So, please...consider yourselves fortunate that you do not have to confront the issues that I do on a daily basis. But...I would like a little joy in my life to and if that means sharing the word 'marriage' with you...I don't think that is so much to ask. I don't know a single gay person that ever was informed about homosexuality and changed from hetero to homo. It doesn't happen. It has NEVER happened!!!! You can continue to 'push us down' and pretend that 'it's just a choice' - but - I can tell you...from the bottom of my soul...I didn't choose this life...not ever. I don't need your permission to use the word marriage. I demand it...yes...as a person....I deserve to be dignified and treated as an equal. I won't mis-use the marriage union - any more than you already have. I promise, you can continue to abuse your union, you can continue to cheat, sneak around and lie - I won't tell. Your little secrets are safe with me. The more I think about how selfish people can be - I barely can stomach the thought of receiving the label marriage even if I could. The gay lifestyle may indeed lead me to eternal damnation - so why are you trying to stop me? If your that wonderful that you have so much concern for me that stopping me from using the word marriage will help 'save' me? I am very comfortable with my relationship with God. We speak with eachother often. He is my father...and he loves me...and I don't need your input on that - I am doing quite nicely, thank you. I can think of plenty of other behaviours that you should be more concerned about in your own lives and in the lives of your children. It really comes down to this - some people..lack understanding and compassion for others....It's almost childish...like a child that mis-uses and never plays with a toy...but..the minute another child even thinks about using it - suddenly the toy owning child claims the toy is the most important thing ever and can't life without it. Your right...goodness & mercy shall prevail. If not today, it will come in a day when those with closed minds and hearts pass away and a new - more compassionate and empathetic generation emerges. On that day...I will say a prayer for you and will revel in the beauty of those understanding minds.

[anon]

I understand the upset or even the anger that has been generated by this vote but I think the protests are attacking the wrong areas. Picket city hall or the state capital not your nearest church, synagogue, or other religious venue. Some of the people that attended those institutions voted against 8 and some voted for 8. By attacking these places you are only going to turn all of them against what you wished. These places may influence votes but they in the end don't cast one. You may not stop the influence but you can convince people to change the way they vote regardless of the influence. If they pass an increase in school tax I would not stand in front of a person's (who has children) house and protest. It is far better for me to either see the reason for the tax or seek to change it through the courts or government. Stop the shows of hate and anger and dare I say bigotry which you accuse the pro 8 voters of having and put your energy into changing peoples minds and the laws that now exist. You may not succeed but it is far more noble to pursue these routes than to attach a group because of their feelings, beliefs, thoughts, and even votes.

[mamafranz]

I was deeply offended, as were millions of Californians, that 4 activist judges overturned our vote (Prop 22) and imposed same-sex marriage on California. By voting "Yes on 8" we sent a message to gay activists that we the people are going to make our voices heard. San Francisco values are not welcome in Southern California! We the people are taking a stand on morality, traditional marriage, and family. You didn't see us yelling and protesting when the judges overturned our vote. We mobilized and got our voices heard yet again. How many times will it take for the gays to realize they can't shove their lifestyle down our throats. We are the silent majority and we have made our voices heard loud and clear.

[Kai Erlenbusch]

The election of Barack Obama as our President has certainly been the long awaited redefinition of the notion of citizenship for the African American populous and a reinvigoration of the belief of what is achievable to a people that have purposefully and, often times, violently been denied full access to the promises of individual liberty by all generations of Americans. Though I have studied the negative aspects of our history, there is no comparative emotion I could possibly call upon or invoke to try to comprehend the reaction of the minority community prior to the date of November 4th, 2008. To be a native of these lands amongst all those of equal deservedness of a government based upon the uniformed distribution of lawful and sovereign entitlements, yet be, in every sense of the word, beaten by and from the law in the name of ‘inferiority’; to contribute and bleed for the unvarying sake of self, family, nation, or God with the same degree of pride and earnestness, but to see the concluding fruits of one’s labors be ignored or stolen and forever deemed failures or undeserved on the basis of a ‘proper’ (the white male) prerogative; to have a lifestyle and moral system be revoked and terminated in order for the ‘true’ and ‘principled’ freedoms contracted under our constitution be returned to the ‘genuine’ stakeholders: These are evils and sufferings I will never have to face. I never felt so far removed from understanding such vindication of a real beginning defined by the removal of these wretched hypocrisies that came as such an intelligent, capable, and inspiring black man became the hope for the world as the 44th President of the United States of America.

But in the same hope and provocation of thought that got Barack Obama elected, I pose a similar challenge to us all: to what extent is this a time to celebrate? As history marks that date as America sowing shut a long and dark chapter of racism, did we conclude it with a vow to provide that necessary confrontation of those ideas that have held a black man away from such high offices for so long? Was there a call for our long know lessons to be practiced in a new light and the depraved indifferences be squashed in the final removal of the casted shadow? In the days that follow, I ask: To what extent do we deserve vindication?

Several propositions were put forth to people and could have been seen as the evaluation on the status of Gay and Lesbian rights and an exploration in America’s true tolerance, the results of which produced a harsh answer to our standing question: even with the slave mentality fought, hatred protested, and bigotry battled, the United States has fell into the repetitious cycle that it is know for. Rather than stand in front of the world theater as a leading democratic government that fulfilled its long awaited compact with its people to a free lifestyle, we as a voters have continued a process of transplanting a prejudicial and inequitable weight on to a lot of individuals that already know all to well the heaviness materialized by that age-old discrimination. California, Florida, Arkansas, and Arizona all put forth to their voters questions regarding the standing rights of the Gay and Lesbian community for marriage and child adoption. All voted for banning this portion of the population any sense of equality.

Certainly these issues do not come without a degree of intense personal sentiment. It involves all of our deepest and, often times, most sought after beliefs regarding pure contentment. The fulfillment of personal or religious practice and protection, commitment to the sacred vows of marriage, and the values we put forth for our loved ones to embrace deserve the greatest amount of respect and must be handled with a sense that the traditions of old can define us for the better just as much as current progress. But the protection of us all does not come through any proposition or constitutional amendment. The defense of our individual beliefs is not protected by anything a statesman could put in ink or lawmen could enforce with a baton. Our buffer against personal encroachment from either the state or from individual incursion begins with the self-evident truths that founded our nation: that ALL are created equal; that we ALL have unalienable rights endowed by OUR creator; and that among these rights are OUR entitlements to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Through true practice of these endowments, each of our most private and delicate situations will never be invaded upon. These rights entitle us to be autonomous and capable to hold, teach, and practice any belief and to be apart or associate with such communities only when inquired or invited. We need neither the permission of the state nor approval of the voters to seek out and defend our pursuits of happiness and such efforts to continue majority rule to enforce some national code of morality will only lead to the turmoil that our history has already portrayed. The laws of our country should be never be painted or designed with any ethical value system and should be colorless to any religious preferences. We are not a Christian nation. We are not bound to any of its causes or history. We are a nation of the free and the capable, independent to deserve any value system that we so choose on the basis that we shall always respect such rights for anyone else. That compact between citizens is what makes us free. Where our laws do not speak is where we find our liberty. We will the forgiveness within and the nobility abroad through these commitments alone.

Until that is seen, I see no cause for celebration. I see no deserved vindication. Keep the protests in movement. That is more than deserved, but required.

[Ash]

Prop 9 - Ban Divorce.

I am an Australian citizen, not an american citizen. I had no right to vote on Prop 8 and it had no direct legal bearing on my life. I was none the less horribly disappointed to hear that my american gay friends have had their right to marriage in the state of california removed by the passing of this absurd discriminatory referendum decision.

When I read about the campaign against gay marriage both directly centered around this Prop 8 vote and more generally around the western world the most frequent argument I seem to hear against gay marriage is that allowing gay people to marry will undermine or somehow devalue families and the institution of marriage. Not only is this argument ridiculous and based on absolutely no logic or evidence but more importantly I think it fails to recognize that the family and the institution of marriage are already undermined and being devalued by the present attitudes of our western civilization - not by gay people at all - but by breeders who now average an almost 50% divorce rate.

This frequent casual discarding of vows intended to be lifelong truly does do damage not just to marriage as an institution and to the value of families in our society but I think more significantly it does enormous damage to children raised by these split up families. I suggest that if californians genuinely care about marriage and family that they pass a 9th Proposition. If your so keen on banning people from their rights and you want to protect traditional values then for heavens sake ban divorce.

[Mark]

Hey mamafranz! Of course you weren't yelling and protesting when the judges overturned Prop 22. Nothing was taken away from you! You lost NO benefits because of it!

How would you like it if your marriage was invalidated overnight? I bet you'd be pretty upset, and I doubt you'd just sit back and shut up, as you seem to be suggesting the gays do.

You're on the losing side of history, baby. Equality for all. You may have won this battle, but you will lose the war.

[Hub Freeman]

I have been a member of the Mormon (Latter Day Saints) Church for 40 years…and I recently began questioning my membership in LDS due to their active role, and major financial support, to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. The LDS, and other proponents of Prop 8, weaved together a bouquet of lies and half truths to divert attention from the real Prop 8 objective, writing discrimination for same-sex couples into the Constitution of the great State of California.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, had at least 33 wives, countless children, married the wives of other men (we call that adultery today), and founded a Church by writing doctrines to support his own sexual addictions. Joseph Smith created his own bible, now called the Book of Mormon, by translating “golden plates” supposedly given to him by angels…golden plates which have never been seen since. The Mormon Church seeks to compare his “martyrdom” with that of Christ…the truth is, Joseph Smith was murdered by the jealous husbands whose wives he bedded!
Mormon doctrine states: “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified (The Doctrine and Covenants, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1966, 132:1-4, 19, 20, 34, 35, 38, 39, 52, 60-62).”
The Mormon proponents conveniently left out their polygamy and marital heritage in the righteous and judgmental political campaign to “protect marriage and children.”
The Mormon Church financed a campaign of hate and bigotry, against same–sex marriage, with the same tactics they used for decades to demonize and discriminate against African Americans.
In Mormon theology… a dark skin is a sign of God's displeasure. In the Mormon publication Juvenile Instructor (vol. 3, p.157), the following statement appears: "We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind.... We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white."
And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 12:23).”
It wasn’t until 1978, when seriously threatened with losing their tax-exempt status, that Mormons allowed African Americans into their temples.

The Reverend Desmond Tutu put all this hate, discrimination and bigotry in perspective when he stated, “For me, I can't imagine the Lord that I worship, this Jesus Christ, actually concurring with the persecution of a minority that is already being persecuted. The Jesus who I worship is a Jesus who was forever on the side of those who were being clobbered, and he got into trouble precisely because of that. Our church, the Anglican Church, is experiencing a very, very serious crisis. It is all to do with human sexuality. I think God is weeping. He is weeping that we should be spending so much energy, time, resources on this subject at a time when the world is aching."

[EduGreat]

To the Prop 8 protesters:

You want your vote to count but mine to be invalid

You accept money form the teachers union ($1Million) but
deny you have anthing to do with schools
Yet you criticize me for taking money from faith based groups
even though we have never hid our belief that traditional marrige is
based on God given ideas and values.

The people of CA have spoken (twice)
some sides win and some lose, that is the way it is a Democracy.

Your street demonstrations only show your own intolerance and prejudice and makes clear you lack of understanding of what it means to live in a Democratic country.

There is and was never any consititutional reason for the courts to throw out the peoples valid vote.

You talk of a violation of your civil rights but show little understanding of that legal definition. Under the Domestic Partners statues in CA law, all of you civil rights are protected. Having a marrige liscence will not give you any more rights then you already have except to pretend you are the same as us.

If the court caves into popular perssure and overturns Prop 8, then maybe the right wing IS correct and the US is moving more toward a Socialist state and away from a Democracy.

California,
Love it, Leave it or move to Massachusetts!

[Randy]

Alright, this is really simple. Marriage is an official validation of the love shared by two people of any ethnicity, creed, sex and (at least over 18) age. What are we really arguing here? Most of these posts seem to concern religious views on the traditional Judeo/Christian/Muslim version of marriage. Marriage existed before any of these religions. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman share an intimate bond with eachother and wish to declare that love to the world, they should have the right to do so as any straight couple does it. Through the institution of marriage.

Now why government at all concerns itself with this is a great mystery to me. I think any time we spend on issues like this, flagburning, or the right to pray in schools at lunch-time, is just another waste of precious time could better be spent on things that really and materially matter. We have dwindling natural resources, environmental disasters, water shortages, educational collapse, unapportioned taxes, a global financial collapse, ready and waiting alternative energies that have been on patent shelves for decades (geothermal/permanent magnetic motors {that means no solar cells}) and the people want to argue about whether Jane and Sally can marry eachother? Cmon people. Wake up. We have real issues we can deal with. What two people do concensually is their own business. Let them call it whatever they want. We all have different definitions for common words. Freedom for example..

[Tom Ryan]

Wow, California, you guys suck. And here we thought you guys were so open minded and all. And shame on the minorities of Ca. Low guys, very low.

[fgiles]

For discussion re: events reported this week

From Dictionary.com
ter⋅ror⋅ism 
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

From American Heritage Dictionary
ter•ror•ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

From WordNet

terrorism

noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear