Anti-gay-marriage forces lead in cash just weeks from election *

As this endless election cycle grinds to a mud-slinging close, the tug of war continues over Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would write a ban on gay marriage into the California Constitution.

High-profile donations have flowed to both sides of the debate. Last month, Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg gave sizable chunks of change to oppose Proposition 8. In August, the Knights of Columbus kicked in a cool million to ensure that only a man and woman can ever say "I do" in the Golden State. Even Google has weighed in.

Now, with less than a month to go, fund-raising by Proposition 8 supporters has outstripped that of opponents. What does this mean for Nov. 4? Our own Jessica Garrison has the details:

Although the Yes on 8 campaign has not yet posted its latest fund-raising report, supporters said Tuesday that they have raised at least $25 million, compared with $15.75 million raised by the other side.

"As a result of not being able to match dollar for dollar, we have seen a change," said Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California, which is fighting Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The announcement pleased supporters of Proposition 8. "I can understand their concern," said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage Coalition.

Although other polls throughout the summer have consistently shown Proposition 8 failing, she pointed to another recent poll, from CBS and SurveyUSA, which showed the measure leading slightly.

Behind the dollars and sentiments the question remains -- is marriage a state of the soul, or sole discretion of the state?

--Veronique de Turenne

Photo: Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times

* An additional hyphen was added to the headline of this post for clarity.

Comments

[Doug]

This is a human rights issue, most importantly.

[Michael]

This is a great example of how the gay rights movement is totally out of touch with the rest of the country. The definition of a gay person is whom they choose to have sex with. Since it is illegal to have sex in public, then sex in private is "legal". Sex in private is not a constitutional law issue. Simply put, your private sex lives have NO RIGHTS!!!

Nor is this about “Love”. A bird may love a fish, but where will they build a home?

[Ian]

Okay lets talk rationality people for one minute. This is America right. The land of the free. Our Country based its belief system that law and religion should not be mixed. Okay so anyone one that uses religion as a means to say no to gay marriage SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN. Okay next on line, people who are think being gay is wrong. Okay so being gay is a out of the ordinary but so is birth defects, should we kill a mothers child just because it has down syndrome or it was born without eyes? So anyone saying gay marriage is wrong because it is unnatural you SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN. Now for people who say no to gay marriage because they are worried about the children. Are you perfect, do you raise perfect children? You just like the other parents that care try your hardest to raise your children right. So how are you raising your children right if you show your children that you don't want gay people to get married. Isn't that prejudice? That isn't what we should teach our children. If you teach children that we tolerate people for who they are as long as they don't cause physical pain and emotional pain of others then whats wrong with that picture? So the people who say no to gay marriage because they are worried about the children you SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN. So basically there is no logical explanation as to why we should deny gay people the right to marry their soul mates. That is what are government needs to do is have all the people that oppose gay marriage to gather and have these questions asked to them. If they respond irrationaly they should be told to SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN. Any bucks that there wont be anyone standing to oppose gay marriage because they oppose for selfish fear induced paranoia.

[Andrea Ventura]

To REVREND MOTHER and many other against PROP 8

Obviously your not a Revrends mother, BECAUSE CHRISTIAN people are against same sex marriage! I myself happen to be Christian. Now we are not against gay people but we are against same sex marriage. Im a 15 year old in high school and i have gay freinds and bisexual friends, but i still say YES TO PROP 8! Just because i have friends doesnt mean im going to say no. Many young people who can vote are only voting no on prop 8 because they have friends who are gay or lesbian or bi even tho maybe deep down they know its wrong. I for one don't want my child to knowing that its ok for gays and lesbians to get married. Its wrong. i love my friends but i just dont think it should be exposed to little kids, thats just going to confuse kids and we will have many confused kids.

*VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8!*

[Christy]

I vote NO for Prop. 8. I'm a strong believer for any human being in love, wanting to be married, that's fantastic, straight or gay. Period.

[isiah]

Vote NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO on prop 8 because it doesn't matter if you are gay if you love someone that is the same sex as you and they love you, you should be able to marry whoever you want to. if you vote yes on prop 8 you could be hurting someone around you and might not know it and you are hurting the people that are gay.

[stephanie]

When i was younger one of the first things i remember my mother teaching me was to treat people equally. To base people on their personalities not their race or religon. There was a point in time where marrying a person of a differnt religon was highly frowned on. My mom is Catholic and my dad is Jewish, i turned out fine. There was a time when a black person and a white person were not to be married. Obama's parents were of two differnt races and now he is running for president! So today's "race" problem is in the form of sexuality. It shouldn't matter who a person is marrying, just that they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Despite how people say it is against the bible, not everyone believes in the bible and our country is suppose to have a seperation of church and state. america was based on equality of human beings, so think about that before heading to the polls. i urge you, put your religous views aside for a moment and think about how you would feel if you were to be stripped of your rights. please vote NO on prop 8 and help our nation set an example of equality for the rest of the world.

[Matthew D.]

Mageos - And the Constitution is the standard for ensuring equal rights to all its citizens. That was molded to be all inclusive.

[Mageos]

Matthew D. - Marriage is the standard for beginning a family. Not all relationships will live up to that standard, but that doesn't mean that we should change the standard. Standards are meant to be firm and unchanging, not molded and deformed to be all inclusive.

[Matthew D.]

Mageos, now I have would have to pose the question then that if marriage is about starting a family and creating the most important institution of society, then why is that straight couples that do not wish to have children can still have a marriage? Your argument holds no weight since we all know there are married couples out there who have never had children and don't plan to. While marriages like this are definitely in the minority, the point is again that marriage, as far as the state definition is concerned (which is what Prop 8 is about) has nothing to do with procreation and raising children.

Also your argument comparing the immorality of having sex with children not being in the Bible, but still being a law because it's based on morals has nothing to do with anything here. Yes, you're right right, pedophilia and molesting children is despicable, but using it as a comparison to prove your point of the immoral nature of homosexual marriage is ridiculous since a marriage between two men or women involves (keyword coming up) consenting adults. It's the same reason why necrophelia and bestiality are deemed wrong because we're not talking about consenting individuals, but rather one who is exerting aggression on another to force them against their will. The reason incest is wrong is because of the health risks concerning the offspring, although we can have a whole other debate about this alone. Let's also point out that the "immorality" of homosexuality is not a universal belief. The "wrongness" of gay people and what they do is learned, which you could see is true, when you see that this perception of immoral behavior is not common in some other cultures. The fact that we are debating whether or not homosexuality is in itself immoral is evidence enough that that its "immoralness" is learned because whole populations (or large majorities anyway) of it don't share this belief the same way whole populations do about the other acts you have cited (bestiality, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, et al).

I would have to agree with you that yes, Prop 8 is a moral issue. The morals in question are the ones that are promised by the constitution: equal rights for everyone. It's about fairness, respect, and doing the right thing. To say "You can have this, but not this, even though you're no different from them" is immoral in my book.

[mageos]

Matthew D. If marriage were just about committed relationships, then you are right, but marriage is not about relationships. Marriage is the beginning of the most important institution in society, the family. The family is ideally headed by a mother and a father. This does not mean that two men or two women could not make good parents, but the ideal is a mother and a father and has been generations. Changing the definition of marriage places homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships. Now most against prop 8 are going to read this and claim that I am a right wing Christian fundamentalist, which you have the right to do, but let me point out that every law that our great nation has supports some moral value, religious or not. No where in the Bible does it decry sex with children, but that is seen as immoral and wrong by all but those who wish to be with children. We also generally hold that it is not right to have a sexual relationship with immediate family, animals or dead people. Why is it OK do deem their sexuality as immoral and wrong but wrong to view homosexuality as immoral. If you were to ask a pedophile if it was their choice, they would say it is not, but that they were born with that attraction. Our nation is currently suffering from a major decline in moral values. This is leading to the disintegration of the family, the core of our society. Yes on prop 8 does not remove rights from homosexuals. Equal rights are granted to domestic partners and married couples, so it is really not about rights. Prop 8 does not outlaw homosexuality or demonize it. All it does it preserve the definition of marriage as being between a man and a women. Is this a moral issue, yes, just like any law, that doesn't mean that it is a religious one. Morals and religion are linked, but you can have morals without religion.

[I Now Pronounce You in a Relationship]

Mageos and Matthew D. I have an idea, let's dump the word "married" and "domestic partnerships" and call it something else. Let's just call it "relationship". The state of California now recognizes you both are in relationships. Now, good luck staying in your relationships, that's the truly hard part.

[Robert S.]

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. The majority of gay people can no more change their sexuality than they can change the color of their skin. Only when gay people are allowed to live and love on par with everyone else, can we as a society truly begin to heal some major social problems. Families that have been devastated by this inequality will then feel free to accept and love their gay children.
With equality comes respect for all and a responsibility to all.
Its time we started the healing process.
I know what I am talking about. I am a gay man.

[Matthew D.]

Mageos, I don't understand how you can say quote, "[I am] all for homosexuals being able to commit and love one another, but they should not need marriage to do that." Well then by that same logic and your argument that we should pass Prop 8 because marriage is "just a word" so let's not change it, then straight people shouldn't need the word "marriage" to show they are able to commit and love one another either. If this is the case, how much do you agree with the notion of removing the term marriage as defined by the state (a state that is separate from the church) from all of its citizens?

[mageos]

Fight for a Chance, I did not see or read Wes claim that homosexuals were not viable members of society. There are those who are heterosexual and cannot have kids through natural means (I am one of those) for various reasons. Marriage is about sociological ideal family and that is a union between a man and a woman. Most who support proposition 8 do not wish to outlaw or vilify homosexual couples, we just do not want to see the definition of marriage changed. I am all for homosexuals being able to commit and love one another, but they should not need marriage to do that.

[Dan]

It should come as no surprise that the Mormon religion which used to forbid blacks from joining their cult are the main group behind the proposition that will eliminate the rights of another minority group. Also, does anyone know if the rumor I heard is true? Are the Knights of Columbus (another big sponsor of Prop 8) aligned with the Ku Klux Klan? I heard that they are the Catholic version of the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone who supports Prop 8 should think twice before adding their support to groups such as these. They are NOT about personal liberties and freedom. Quite the opposite, their goal is to take away civil rights. They need to be exposed for who they are....

[Fight for a Chance]

Wes (above) uses the oldest argument in the world against homosexual people, that because they cannot reproduce, they are not viable members of society. He also argues the only reason we should allow gays to marry is if they can reproduce. This is discrimination in its truest form.

I really ask any of you who are black, female or handicapped to really think hard about how throughout your life you've been discriminated against in all the various ways. You will surely VOTE NO ON 8 so 1.) people like Wes do not have legal basis for their discrimination, and 2.) people like Wes will not attack you for whatever crazy logic they can use for discrimination and as to why you are not a viable and worthy member of society. I'm sure people like Wes are behind the mean ads about children being exposed to gay lifestyle in our school.

The truth is, Wes is the kind of person we want to keep all of our children away from, gay parents and straight parents.

VOTE NO ON 8 !

[Wes]

It would be ridiculous to argue that same-sex couples couldn’t provide a loving environment for children. But Prop 8 is not about judging the heart of an individual. It is about preserving the only sustainable model for the human family.

When we consider whether an action is good for society, we should ask ourselves, "If this act were done by everyone . . . what would be the consequence?" In this case, the answer is simple . . . eventually, MANKIND WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.

Is this a real risk to humanity? Of course not; but the principle stands . . . If an action cannot produce a positive outcome if done by everyone in society -- then why does it make sense to institutionalize it under state law?

Respect those with different lifestyles, but Vote Yes for sustainability of the human family.

Vote Yes on 8.

[Mageos]

Mageos, your argument is flawed because you are confusing sex with sexual orientation. I agree sex is defined as a man and a woman, but sexual orientation is who you orient towards as your partner. We all know this. Marriage is about who you choose to be your partner and who you choose to stay with for life, this decision has implications as to how society views such a relationship and treats the relationship. Durring the days of Jim Crow segregation white people arguged that there can be segregated class rooms, lunch counters, and seating on buses. White people argued that as long as blacks were provided the same services, but in a segragated way, there was no harm done. We all know there was harm done, ultimately the seperate class system becomes a second class system. You can continue to argue that rights are not removed from homosexuals, but what I've learned from the era of civil rights in this country, is that harm is done from having a two class system. As someone mentioned above, even the California Surpreme court judge who ruled on gay marriage agrees and from what I understand he is very conservative but fair. This is why I'm very comfortable with my decision to vote no on this proposition and I hope you will go back and learn more about the civil rights history in this great country of ours.

[Mageos]

Rob, I still don't see the parallel. Having marriage defined as between a man and a women does not remove any rights from homosexuals while allowing someone to own slaves intrinsically denies basic rights to the slave. Blacks did not fight to be called white. Women have not fought to be called men. To me there is enough difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship for there to be a legal difference (there is a legal difference between a man and a woman). This difference can be in place without denying rights to either side. I agree that denying rights is a bad thing, but to change definitions of long standing traditions that don't deny rights is a bad precedent.

[Rob]

Mageos, I respect your opinion, but slave owners were also denied their rights to hold slaves as property when slavery was abolished. I think the parrallel is strong, sometimes rights shift in order to create a more just society. You may remember that slavery was seen as a God given right at one time. I doubt many people would argue that today. I don't think it's correct to have two systems one called "marriage" for straight people and one called "domestic partnerships" for gay people. The fact that you are so hung up on a word just seems to me to be evidence that you are interested in creating a two class system. I think people seem to forget what it was likes this when we had Jim Crow laws and segregated schools in this country. Two class system. I truly believe this is a civil rights issue and it always will be. It really bothers me that people turn this into a religious issue, I don't see it that way. As people above have commented the state should not be in the business of sactioning religion. I'm sorry, but that's my opinion. I really don't want the state of California defining state constitution words on religious grounds, it just gets all of us in trouble. The way I like to think about it is that I have learned from history and that includes lessons about slavery, interracial marriage and segregation. I'm sorry if you don't.

[Mageos]

Rob, Your analogy to slavery is flawed. There were distinct rights that were denied blacks, there will be no civil rights denied homosexuals if prop 8 passes. We are talking about the definition of a word, not rights. Why should I have to change my definition?

[Rob]

I forgot to add to my comment above about my research into this issue and civil rights for blacks in the Loving v. Virginia case. This really helped me make up my mind. California was the first state to allow interracial marriage. It seems crazy that we would even consider this to not be allowed back then. But the trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." People really believed this based on religious grounds. So again, I'm comfortable I'm making the right decision voting no on 8 because someday we will understand prohibiting this right in our state constitution is wrong.

[Rob]

I respect Brad O. for doing research and making his own decision. I also have done my own research and have concluded that Prop 8 should not pass. I see this as the major civil rights issue of our time. I'm sure it's hard for people to agree in the heat of this discussion, but I really think if this prop passes, we will look back in 50 to 100 years and regret this move. It will be seen as something like the Dred Scott case which upheld the instutution of slavery and that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—could never be citizens of the United States. I know this all might seem a bit hyperbolic now that we accept the idea that slavery is wrong, but remember, our country was divided on this issue not more than 100 years ago. It really takes courage to do the right thing when the tide is against you, but I really think the correct thing to do is vote no on proposition 8. I'm sure most black people would agree with me about this now! I'm happy with my decision.

[Bex]

I am all for adults having the right to do whatever they choose, but here is a big problem that has not been discussed with Prop 8; Currently there are domestic partnership laws in California that gives both hetero and homo sexual couples legal rights with regard to relationship in CA. If same sex marriage becomes legal, won't we lose the domestic partnership laws? Since many couples choose to not marry but still want to be able to share health benefits etc...Won't more people be punished by losing rights they currently have?

[Brad O.]

I researched this issue for months and I finally came to a conclusion that I am confident and proud of. I love gay people and I feel for them. But it is absolutely wrong for gays to insist on changing the definition of a word that means something to straights. It is not gays rights that are being violated... it is straight married people.

The NO on 8 croud insisting that YES on 8 people hate gays is nothing but an unfounded guilt-tactic to try to coerce and manipulate.

I say, "Be gay, make your own choices, and enjoy equal rights with civil unions (or make up your own new word for your unions.) But do not try to impose your beliefs on others."

I am 100% confident in my YES vote on 8.

[Mageos]

Hannah, I appreciate you comments, but prop 8 isn't about rights. Your Dads would have the same rights if proposition 8 passes or not. Domestic partnerships provide the same legal protections and rights as marriage. All I want is for marriage to be defined as between a man and a women and that is all proposition 8 does. It does not label homosexuals as wrong. It does not prevent them from being together or having a strong committed relationship. Homosexual marriage will not hurt my marriage, but it will change what others think of as marriage in California. I want marriage to be what it has been for centuries, the union of a man a woman. Allowing gay marriage changes for me what a marriage is. As I said before, I am not wanting to remove rights from homosexuals, but why should they get to change what my definition of marriage is?

[Hannah a 16 yr old girl just stating the facts]

I'd just like to say that I think it's sad that someone would want to limit the rights of another based on their sexual preference. I'm not here to hate on anyone based on their beliefs. I understand that many religous people do not believe in gay marriage because it offends them and goes against what they belive. But have you ever thought that maybe there are those who don'tr believe what you believe and that maybe you are offending homosexuals by saying their love isn't equal to a straight couples love? Church and state is supposed to be separate so why is this topic even allowed to be on the ballot? Allowing gay marraige wouldn't affect anyone and it wouldn't change ANYTHING. All this talk about teaching kids in school is a complete lie. Schools have a hard enough time teaching straight sex! And even if for some odd reason schools did begin teaching gay sex or whatever religous fanatics are saying, parents reserve the right to take their child out of class. And saying that the gov't won't allow it is bull. A parent always reserves the right to take their child out of class based on anything. Voting yes on 8 would be like saying no inter-racial marraiges or that Christians can't marry Jews. What if it was like that? What if you couldn't marry the one you loved because they were of different color or of a different religous belief. And what of those who don't believe in church at all? They still get to marry. Why is it that a couple who doesn't belive in God at all can marry, but say a gay couple who does believe in God and goes to church can't marry. What makes that right? I'm 16 years old and even I know all this mumbo jumbo over gay marriage is a joke. I have a gay dad and he and his partner plan on getting married if Prop 8 doesn't pass. I'm sorry but, if you're a straight couple and you feel that two guys or two women getting married would threaten your marriage, then I'm sorry but you must not have much of a marriage at all. Again I believe that everyone has the right to think what they want and believe in what they want, but since when did everyone have to start living by the standards of others and by what was considered "right" or "moral"?

[Mageos]

To some of us who lean right, we would be just as justified in saying voting yes on prop 8 saves our country from liberal extremists who wish to destroy traditional family values. Marriage is not a right in and of itself. The rights most complain about are rights associated with marriage. In California those rights are granted to homosexuals through civil unions. Proposition 8 is about the definition of marriage. A yes on 8 does not keep two people from living a committed life to each other. High divorce rates are an example of how marriage does not equal a committed life to each other (although it should). What matters is the two individuals commitment to each other and a title or ceremony does not change that. So if prop 8 does not remove the rights of homosexual couples to be together or receive the rights associated with marriage, why am I being vilified for not wanting to change my definition of marriage?

[Save Our Country from Right Wing Extremests]

With people like caasduit, Mark Hara, Jason G in the world who wrote the above comments, it's clear there is still hate and discrimination in the world. That's why a decision like this should not be left to a referendum. People's rights should not be left to a referendum because all it takes is a bunch of right wing zealots to pump a ton of money into a campaign and scare everyone with fear tactics like school indoctrination or church tax emption loss - then boom you wake up and a minority group looses their rights. The Mormon and Evangelical Church is behind most of these campaigns if you haven't been reading the news. The same Evangelicals who have high jacked our country for the last eight years. VOTE NO ON 8 Save Our Country from Right Wing Extremists!!!

[Jack]

George please refrain about lying about the catholic church - the catholic never has and never win recognize same sex marriages - and thanks for sending me to s site that doesn't exist and your name being a hit for advertiziing against prop 8 - if this stuff gets out people that are undecided are going to vote for it.

[Jack]

Wow! Strong feelings about this one! Why don't we say give gays equal property/health care rights but leave the sacrament of marriage to the straight people. Civil unions equal to marriage under the law but not promoted as an equivlant life style sounds like a good compromise! Norway and Denmark pay 9 dollars a gallon for gasoline. Canadian kids look ten times weider than ours. All of europe has such a low birth rate that many nations will become muslim countries by 2050.
This is America - and nobody cares what stupid things they do in europe.

[caasduit]

Let gay men and women find something else of their own, instead of butting in on what belongs and has always belonged to a man and a woman. Sorry but I have gone up and down with this. and that is my conclusion.

[Msaucey]

Vote No on Proposition 8!!!

- "Our California Constitution--the law of our land---should guarantee the same freedoms and right to everyone. No one group should be singled out to be treated differently."
- "Equal protection under the law is the foundation of American society."
- The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment that a couple makes. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples the opportunity that same dignity and respect.
- "The freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech."
- Laws should treat everyone equally.
- It should not be up to the government to say who can and cannot get married.
- When domestic parternships are held out as an acceptable substitute for marriage, this is misleading. Domestic partnerships are not a substitute for marriage

and this argument about kids being taught that gay marriage will be taught in schools is okay... What is the problem? If you are such a fundamental religious freak, then put your child in whatever religious school you want them to attend... Separation between CHURCH and STATE.. Did you happen to forget that little detail?...

Canada, Norway, Belgium, South Africa, Spain, Netherlands... These are all COUNTRIES, not states, COUNTRIES that actually have Gay Marriage throughout their regions, are they mass producing homosexuals?... NO, they are teaching Human Rights, they are teaching Acceptance, they are embracing diversity as our cultures continue to evolve...

The more you fight Gay Marriage, the more you promote Violence Against Homosexuals...

Open your eyes... Look around... The WORLD is evolving, why must the US continue to stay on the "Righteous" road as the world continues to progress forward?...

[Mark Hara]

If anyone thinks that this is not a moral issue, than they are sadly mistaken. First, the Bible is not a book of opinions, it is the word of God. The fact that you don't believe in the God of the Bible does not make Him any less real. Ask yourself this, if homosexuality is OK and if the marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is acceptable, than why not a son and his mother. If two consenting adults agree to this union and they are not affecting anyone else, what is wrong with this scenario. All of us know that it would be wrong. It is imprinted on our hearts. Whether you believe in the God of Abraham or not, He sent His son to die for you. He loves you that much, whether you are homosexual or not. Proposition 8 affirms the will of God, the creator of marriage. The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. I may not agree with it, but who am I to question God?

[Jason G]

Unbelievable. The head line in this article says "Anti-Gay marriage forces..." Interesting: notice the dash is between "Anti-Gay" as opposed to "Gay-marriage" which is what this issue is about. So I guess if you want the definition of marriage to be limited to one man and one woman you must be "Anti-Gay" how about Homophobic? Gay-Basher? Is this really where we are, name calling? I don't know what I find harder to believe: the fact that this headline is so mis-leading or that the person who wrote it actually gets paid to write for a living.

While I'm fairly certain she won't post this (If your reading this I'm wrong of course) I'll go on. This issue is not about rights or equal treatment. Remember that under domestic partnerships, homosexual couples have the exact same rights as married couples. In fact when domestic partnerships were being advocated for in CA that was their argument "give us the same rights." So now they have them. So this (allowing gay marriage) is not about rights or being treated equally, its about being viewed equally. In our desire to make everyone not feel marginalized should we redefine our most sacred institution, the cornerstone of ever great society in the history of the world? We should think long and hard before we do that.

[Mean TV Ads]

All I see are mean TV ads about this proposition. Think about it people! The messages being sent to children now by the religious right on TV is that if you are gay you are bad, you are second class and you should not be around children. The religious right wants to alienate gay people and send the message to society that gay people are monstors. Is that what we want in California? Vote NO on 8 for a just society in California.

[No on 8]

I can personally attest that being gay is not something you choose to feel or act on when you are a child. It's something you start to understand about yourself. That's how it was for me. Every gay person (and I know thousands) I've ever spoken with has told me they never felt it was a choice. There is nothing a techer can say in school that is going to determine if a person is gay. I will tell you what a teach can say, that will affect a child is to say things that make a child feel they are subclass, not accepted because they are gay. And a teacher can send the same message to that child's peers. Believe me, other children know if a child is gay, and they can be mean. So absolutely mean. If a teacher indicates in anyway that there is something wrong or different about being gay, other children will take that up and pick on a gay child unmercifully. I know someone's who's friend did committe suicide because of it. I never told anyone about myself and suffered until I was an adult. When I told my parents the freaked out on me and called me horribile names and kicked me out of the house. And I had done nothing. My life, young life was ruined. Of course this was back in the 70s. There were no role models on television. Children are not converted to be gay in school, but if things are handled wrong by a tacher, it can destroy a whole childs life. I think the message that needs to be sent by NO on 8 is that gay people should not be treated any different than straight people. And this is why No on 8 should allow gay people to marry and live the same life as straight people. Gay people need to be able to be married the same as straight people and become normal members of society. Not second class members with a seperate system to create relationships. We need to stop sending the message that gay people are second class citizens!!! Children are smart, they know when we are creating second class citizens in our society.

[YES on 8]

The way i see it if a gay couple wants to get marry by any means do so, but the fact that the teachers in school are going to be allowed to talk or give a class about same-sex marriage is ok, I'm not in favor of that. Because as soon as a child's hormones starts changing they're going to be lost. Now I don't know if there's a law that a gay couple could go down to city hall and get a marriage certificate?, But If there's NOT they should pass a law that will let them do it. They should let the religion keep their beliefs on gay marriages.

[Good people vote No on 8!]

The Yes on 8 people are ignoring the basic truths espoused by the California Supreme Court, which by the way is not a liberal institution by any means. In reality, Chief Justice Ron George and his fellow Justices of the Supreme Court are largely Republican nominees and the court is widely considered and understood to be moderate to conservative, which the Yes on 8 campaign has chosen to distort when the truth was spoken by them. In any event, the California state constitution, which Yes on 8 proponents now seek to undermine with their Anti-American hateful and majority versus minority positions, specifically protects the rights of all people to legally marry the unrelated adult person of their choice. The attempts to argue school indoctrination or church tax emption loss are complete red herrings designed to falsely appeal to the emotions of those who rightly seek to protect their own religious values. Good christians should be ashamed by the un-Christian attempts to use lies and fear to guide them to a hateful and discriminatory constitutional amendment that will take years and enormous tax dollars to undo. And trust me, if Prop 8 passes, it will be undone.

[Julie B.]

NO on 8!

Having read both sides, and, knowing that I do not want Prop. 8 to pass, this is what I conclude.

Why does anyone care if a couple to be married is two men, or two women, or a man and a woman or even a hermaphrodite, and a man, etc.???

No one is hurting anyone!

If you think that letting same-sex marriages be legalized, and recognized will be leading to other "Pandora's Boxes" being opened, then what about the original institution (I stress the word, "Institution" --- where we commit the insane), why have we ever even had marriage between ANYONE? Really! Divorce in California is so high, why would anyone in their right mind, want to be contractually bound to another person?

Why? Perhaps they want to share their lives together in love, friendship, harmony?

Let us quit wasting time trying to make things like gay marriage illegal, when it's no one's business but the people involved. And, to those upset by what they want their children to know as "traditional" family values-- think about this. What happens one day, when your son or daughter approach you and tell you they are gay? What then? Are you going to shun them, and throw them out because they cannot help who they love? I should hope that you would hug them, tell them that you love them and will support them.

Let's let our children know that there are choices out there. Part of life is learning to make choices and having to live with them.

Please, if we are going to go to court over issues, let's hope these issues are truly important, like better screening for childcare givers, better laws protecting children from predators, and more money for better mental health care which we are strongly lacking in.

Take a good, hard look at those who are so quick to judge others before doing their homework or knowing the facts. Why do some speak harsh against same-sex ADULT relationships, yet turn around, and commit acts of molestation against CHILDREN?

Please, no matter what your position on 8, please take time to consider the big picture.

Peace to all
No on Prop. 8

[Mageos]

While I understand how this is an emotional issue, I fail to see the parallels between proposition 8 and slavery or woman's suffrage. Proposition 8 is not about rights at all. California law protects civil unions as equal to marriage. We are dealing with titles, not rights. There are many titles that are reserved for those who meet certain requirements. Marriage should be one of those. I in no way want to prevent a homosexual couple from having a happy life together, but I feel they should be able to do that without having the title of married. As long as the rights are equal, why is one definition of marriage better than the other?

[SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL]

In the mean time, people's lives are put on hold waiting for equal rights. If this referendum passes, California will be on hold for another decade waiting for other states to make their stand as the country catches up. Look at Hawaii, they rolled back and gay couples have been denied the right to marry for a decade now.

How long did blacks wait for Jim Crow to be abolished, how long have women waited for equal pay? I am appalled how little people seem to be fighting for their basic rights. My partner and I got married this year. What's going to happen to our marriage? Is it going to be taken away? Shall we take away equal pay for women? Shall we take away civil rights? Shall we wipe away all these equal rights that have been won over the last 100 years? The simple fact is that SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL.

[Very simple]

It really doesn't matter if these religious so-called "Christian" lunatics get Proposition 8 to pass. Equality always has a way of defeating bigotry in the end. Always.

[Mageos]

SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL - I understand where you are coming from. I am sorry that you have to jump through hoops to have your domestic partnership recognized at hospitals, that is definitely wrong. As for the tax returns, the Federal government does not recognize homosexual marriages even if the state does. I agree that you should have equal rights, but a title (marriage) is not a right, it's a title. I am voting yes to preserve the title.

[SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL]

Mageos - You may not think of your actions as hateful, but they are. SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL. I have a domestic partnership and I took my partner to the hospital and I had to jump through hoops to make the case I had a legal right to be with him during surgery. I have to fill out 4 tax returns (3 State and 1 Federal) because the Federal Gov does not recognize our joint domestic partnership tax return. This is the very types of hateful discrimination this referendum attempts to preserve.

Many slave owners felt they were not hateful masters to their slaves and treated their slaves good, but also felt they had a God given right to maintain the institution of slavery.

Woman feel they should get equal pay for equal work, but many don't, even with laws that protect this from type of discrimination.

THINK ABOUT IT. If you do not “VOTE NO”, you are institutionalizing hate and discrimination in the Golden State.

[Mageos]

I am voting yes on 8, but not out of hate. While I will openly admit that there are those who are voting yes out of hatred, most are not. No on 8 advocates like to toss around the word "tolerance". Tolerance does not mean accept or condone. All proposition 8 aims to do is add to the constitution a sentence declaring that only a marriage between a man and a women is recognized by the state. It does NOT try to prevent homosexual couples from having any of the legal rights they already have through domestic partnership which by law is required to be treated with all the rights of married individuals.

[R Marohn]

My Partner and I were married this year in California and it fulfilled a lifelong dream for me. After it took place, the strangest feeling came over me, a feeling of peace and serenity, like I had come home, like I was no longer on the outside looking in, that I was not the exception, but the rule. I thank God for fulfilling this dream that no one can ever take away now.

[josh]

Hey foreigner "miriam" just letting you know that yes on 8 is banning homosexuality not no on 8 you have it wrong. Do some research before you look stupid online. And its not about our economy our morals matter more than money.

[bfreeman]

I don't understand why 5% of our population should have the right to disrupt the 2000 year old tradition of Marriage...which has always been defined as a man and woman.

Call it a civil union, provide every right married people have and call it a day. The gay movement is so hell bent on "social acceptance" they have forgotten that government acceptance IS NOT social acceptance. This is really the maslowian under current to this issue.

[Caral from SoCal]

The idea of this being an "equality" problem is nonsense. Everybody has a right to marry. BUT the definition of marriage means one man and one woman. IF that is not what you would like to do (ie, you would like to form a lifelong relationship with another of the SAME sex), then what you want to do is NOT marriage. You are certainly able to form a civil union, however.

Yes on 8. No re-definition of marriage.

[J. J. Lowe]

Leslie,
Please reconsider. You sound like a very intelligent person. At least you encourage people to do their own research. If Prop 8 passes, it will not prevent same sex couples from loving each other any less and enjoying a legal union that affords them every right of heterosexual couples. It's about status, not rights. Exept when it comes to having your right to have your vote count. Those judges said 61 percent of Californians votes are meaningless!

[J. J. Lowe]

No on 8 = No on hate. That's a good one. How about this one:
Gay or straight, Vote Yes on 8!

[JCC]

No on Prop 8.

For those mislead Christians brothers and sisters: "marriage" is NOT an exclusively Christian thing. There are lots of non-Christian marriages conducted every day. Christians SHOULD NOT force their definition of marriage to apply to people with different beliefs. What if there is a religion that allows a gay marriage? Will Christians try to redefine their religion? Christian religion DOES NOT have a right to impose their belief on others who have different beliefs. I think it's about fairness. If heterosexuals couples are allowed to marry, then so should gay couples be. If heterosexual marriage is forced to be taught, so should gay marriage be. If heterosexual people are not allowed polygamy so shouldn't gay people be and etc. My point is that EVERYONE should be treated fairly.

[Leslie from Newport Beach]

All I can ask of anyone even questioning prop 8 is to do your homework. I hope you will find like myself that it does not force schools to teach same sex marriage in schools or churches to perform same sex marriages. It is simply asking that same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I am a heterosexual female (if that is important to anyone) who is voting no on prop 8 because I dont feel it is my right to judge whether or not one person should have the right or freedom to marry another person. We are all equal. But if that kind of thinking is accepted, then what kind of world would be living in? If I really loved a friend, I would wish them EVERY happiness I had, no matter who they loved, wouldnt you?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[Michelle]

Stop being a hater and vote NO on Prop 8.

[Kypafish from Down Under]

Looking at this proposition from a foreign country, I find it nothing if not laughable that people would vote against this bill, because it is "wrong" for a couple of the same sex to be together. Canada, Spain, UK, Belgium and the Netherlands allow gay marriage, and they haven't been sucked into moral oblivion and seem to be doing OK. And as a foreigner, what seems to be hilarious is that although your financial system is crumbling and the economy will be in a prolonged contraction, having legal same-sex marriages in California will be good for the economy, having a monopoly on the market. California is America, it has everything the rest of the country has, and more, even though most people in the rest of the country would not like to admit it! Voting No to this proposition would set California aside and be held up as a beacon to the rest of the country, as a tolerant and forward-thinking state.

[Miriam]

YES ON 8 !!!! Allowing gay marriage will only get the snowball rolling to allow other morally reprehensible activities and behaviors. Marriage is meant to be between one man, and one woman. The end. It is a basic and not hard to understand. PERIOD. YES ON 8!!!

[Kylie]

YES on 8!

Organizations and people who refused to accommodate homosexual couples because it violated their moral beliefs are being sued. Some have even lost their jobs by standing up for their beliefs. By legalizing same-sex marriage, religious freedom is jepardized.

This website provides some examples: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Vote Yes on Prop 8!!!

[DSR]

Proposition 8 is not meant to be hateful. It is not anti-gay. It is about defining the term marriage. Marriage has been defined as being only between a man and a woman ever since Adam and Eve, and Moses, in the book of Genesis and the book of Leviticus. I am not homophobic. My religion teaches me to love the sinner and hate the sin. Proposition 8 does not take any rights away from those with same-sex attraction. California Law grants the same rights to Domestic Partners as to Married Couples. Please vote Yes on Proposition 8.

[Melissa]

Pro-8 Individuals Who Use Religion In Support of An Amendment, Can't you "protect" your families from diversity through your own words and choices without involving BIG BROTHER in this process? You seem pretty good at teaching your kids your value systems without the help of the government. Since when do we add a few more sentences to the constitution when we don't agree with the courts' interpretation? Last I checked, the United States celebrated a separation of church and state. When did the U.S. start to become a theocracy? The U.S. is a pretty young country in the history books. I'd be weary of turning this country into a theocracy, based on majority rule and an easily amended constitution. Who will protect your children in the future?

By the way, I'm pretty sure many citizens chanted, "Protect our children," at the time of Brown vs. The Board of Education as well. In the grand scheme of things, Brown & Prop 8 are just blinks of an eye in humanity's time frame. Yesterday's bigots had religious reasons to promote their causes as well. Today's bigots, throughout the world, still do.

[George]

NO ON 8 = No on Hate.

There are so many distortions and inaccuracies in the YES on 8 posts I don't know where to start. From using the dictionionary to define human rights. (I think dictionaries once defined slavery as OK too) to using Ancient Rome as a benchmark (which had plenty of same-sex unions actually), the arguments against giving all humans equality are just stunningly ignorant. The Christian church once blessed same-sex unions in the 4th century and the tradition continued in the Roman catholic church into the 19th century. Don't believe me...it's easy to look up on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions) if you care to go beyond your own ignorance. The point is, so-called "traditional" marriage is a relatively modern invention and is more about inheritance and property rights than anything else. Even as recently as the 19th century and still in some societies, marriage confers a man "ownership" of his wife. Literally. Do all you YES on 8 people want to go back to that? So marriage has survived many changes and will continue to adapt and evolve as society changes. There is no need to SAVE it as your self-righteous proclamations state. This is about giving all humans equality under the law as a Republican state court has affirmed. NO on PROP 8.

[Paul Blagbrough]

Why can't the "YES to 8" people just find something more important to worry about?
All people should be allowed to love and marry anyone they want and remember that people are born gay, they aren't taught to be Gay, so there is no chance of somebody becoming something they aren't!

If they are so uptight about this issue I wonder they are really worried about Coming Out and saying ;-)

[Cory]

YES ON 8!
Just as the opposition has a right for their moral beliefs I have a right to fight for mine. I want my children to be taught traditional sex in schools and public places and Don't want my bishop or minister to get sued because they refuse to preform a same sex marriage. Yes on 8.
www.protectmarriage.com

[Chris M]

PLEASE VOTE NO on Prop 8!

Lie #1: Churches lose tax exempt status and must marry gays.
Currently, the law is that same-sex couples can marry and this has NOT occurred in either California or Massachusetts. Churches can refuse to marry anyone that doesn't fit into their definition. Two Catholics could not go to the local orthodox rabbi and ask him to marry them and vice versa. Similarly, gays cannot force a church to sanctify their union if the church opposes it. The U.S. Constitution prohibits this through the 1st Amendment.

Lie #2: Schools will start teaching children about gay relationships.
Last I checked, any curriculum regarding family, sex, relationships etc must be presented to children only with the consent of parents. Even if the school was to change it's curriculum tomorrow(which is ridiculously unlikely), no child is going to be forced to learn about gays.

Lie #3: If gays can get married, what about polygamy? People marrying their pets?
This is the most preposterous--this is about two committed adult HUMAN BEINGS who love each other having the right to have the state they live in recognize their civil right to get married. This is no slippery slope...it's about justice for all.

What I'm saddest about is that the pollsters say this has a good chance of passing...I'm shocked that the same people I live with, work with, go to school with, see at the dog park could secretly harbor so much bigotry and prejudice.

Folks, this has nothing to do with your god--it has to do with the secular right that all Americans--er Californians should enjoy on an equal basis. No more nor less.

[Heather H]

The passage of Prop 8 does not only allow same sex marriages to wed. It will affect the education children will recieve in school, it will affect the rights of religious institutions to adhere to their teachings with tax exemptions. While rights to marry will be given to a few, the rights of many, many more will be denied to teach and live in accord with Bible-outlined morality.

[Cassiopoea]

It's sad that most of you who say to vote yes on 8 don't even have a reason -- your are just afraid of people who are not exactly like you. Diversity is one of the things that makes this country great. Shame on you. You are just mean and bigoted.

As a society, we have to protect the rights of people, even if they are a minority. It's kind of like the poem about the Nazis:

First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

What if it was your rights that were being taken away? How would you feel? Would you want someone to stand up for you?

[Jessi]

Legalizing homosexual marriage will void parental rights to choose whether or not their child is educated about homosexual relationships in the classroom. Regardless of a parent's opinion regarding the subject, it should be reserved for the parents--not the school systems. This link shows this effect in Massachusetts, as a result of legalizing homosexual marriage:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319

VOTE YES ON PROP 8

[MIchael in Merced]

I did a little reading on the case I've seen discussed here. As I suspected, it's hardly a sign that churches are being forced to change their policy on marrying gay couples. (More LIES.)

The religious organization in question took advantage of a state program allowing tax breaks for groups who open their private facilities to public use. So far so good. Then they refused the request of the gay couple to hold their ceremony at the group's pavillion. State law there forbids those who “offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public” from “directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual” on the basis of sexual orientation.

They can't have it both ways. They can either keep their facilities private, and thus retain the freedom to set their own policy and do whatever they want with it, or they can make the facilities public in which case they are subject to public laws like everybody else.

Nothing scandalous here, folks. Just common sense.

For more info:
http://www.noonprop8.com/

[No nonsense Dan]

There is a lot of trickery and baseless inciting of fear here. That's all the Yes on 8 folks have. They hope you don't know better.

People are mixing up the religious ritual with the civil contract (both called marriage) as if they are one and the same. Those of us with adult brains know they are not the same. One hapopens in a church and the other involves a license obtained from city hall.

No one is doing anything to infringe on religious freedom. Those who imply otherwise are outright lying, trying to incite fear in you, hoping you don't know better and don't find out for yourself. Shame on them.

Prop 8 would take away the right recently granted gay couples (who already exists anyway folks) by the California Supreme Court to get a marriage license - the same one any atheist can get...so we know it has nothing to do with religion.

A legal marriage is something every committed, loving couple deserves access to whether gay, straight, religious or non-religious. We should applaud the choice of those couples--all of them--to take on the responsibilities that come with marriage.

After a lengthy legal process, during which time access to legal marriage for gay couples was passed in the California legislature not once but twice (only to be vetoed by a single man, our governor), the Supreme Court--our great state's ultimate authority on legality and justice--ruled that under our Constitution gay couples ought to be able to get legally married.

Don't believe the lies about this changing education curricula or infringing on churches in any way--those are LIES.

Don't eliminate the right to legal marriage. How would you feel if someone eliminated a right that the Supreme Court ruled you were entitled to?

http://www.noonprop8.com/

[Jess]

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman!
Vote Yes on Prop. 8!

www.protectmarriage.com
www.whatisprop8.com

[Emily]

Marriage is a social institution created by the people, and the people of California have the right to define marriage. I believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. In order to protect marriage and more importantly families, vote Yes on 8!
www.protectmarriage.com

[Elizabeth]

I am from Newport Beach and I am voting YES on Prop 8!

If Prop 8 fails, school curriculum will change to say that gay marriage is just the same as heterosexual marriage.

Both presidential candidate teams unitedly view marriage as only between man and a woman.

Individuals and business could be sued if they do not support homosexual weddings.

Vote YES on Prop 8

[Eric]

Nicci, nice point about the founding fathers. Remember what they based our country on? Democracy! Like the 61% majority by which proposition 22 passed, with the exact same wording as proposition 8. Let's stand up for democracy, and not let our opinion by overruled by only 4 judges.

Yes on 8!!

www.protectmarriage.com

[Nicci]

First of all, allowing gays to marry should basically be a law. What ever happened to "all men are created equally?" If straight people can marry, gay people should be able to as well. We are ALL humans, and we ALL have the right to love and be loved, and be bound to the ones we love. Teaching about gay marriage in schools can be a GOOD thing! It will teach children to be more accepting, and to look at love with more than one perspective. All of you out there voting YES on prop eight are all just prejudiced. Have you ever met a gay person? Have you ever talked to one? Become friends with one? Obviously not, because if you have, you would know that they are just like you and me. They have feelings too! It makes me angry to think that THEIR happiness depends on the mercy of homophobes. Its just WRONG.

vote NO ON PROP. 8

[Cassiopoea]

Please vote NO on Prop. 8

Several of my friends have been able to get married in the past few months and they are so happy about it. I just don't understand how anyone can deny love and joy to other human beings. It's mean.

Churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages. We have a separation of church and state in this country (another reason why rights shouldn't be denied based on religious issues), so that will never happen.

As far as teaching homosexuality to children -- that's just not correct. Children are already taught about diversity. Just because they might learn that one of their friends has two mommies or two daddies won't make them gay.

Please... don't hate. Please just let people be... let people love. No on 8

[Devlin Houser]

VOTE NO ON PROP 8
Restricting civil liberties and oppressing a portion of the population is morally wrong. In the not-so-distant past, interracial marriages were illegal. Hell, slaves couldn't marry each other in antebellum America. Is this the direction we want to move in? Oppress anyone we disagree with?
California is a progressive state, a leader in this great nation of ours. California stands up against discrimination and inequality. Let's not fall backwards.
And by the way, Emily, according to Webster's New World Dictionary 4th Edition, there is absolutely no mention of gender. And what a hassle (and surely a mistake) that we had to change the definition of "men" in "...all men are created equal..." to include men include men of color. Yeah, marginalizing and oppressing people is really cool.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8

[Sally]

Marriage is a partnership licensed by the state. Wedding is a religious sacrament. There are no laws governing weddings -- what vows must be said, what symbolic gestures used. Each state deputizes ministers, notaries, and city clerks to legally witness a marriage certificate. No ceremony is required. No government can make that civil contract holy. No church, temple or mosque can legally authorize the dissolution of a marriage. It is left to the courts to adjudicate the division of property, spousal or child support, and custody. The Catholic Church did not recognize my grandmother’s divorce, even though my grandfather deserted her. My brother converted to wed his Catholic wife before a priest. Many Jewish sects require conversion for a religious blessing. I suppose non-converts could sue, but I doubt they’d prevail.

Traditions change. If we have to base everything on Biblical “law” every woman in jeans and everyone eating shrimp for lunch would be in jail. Rape was legal as long as the rapist either married the woman or paid a fine to her owner (father, husband). Polygamy and concubines were condoned. Slavery was legal in the Bible.

In medieval times, a Catholic couple said vows and signed a property contract on the church steps, then entered the sanctuary for a wedding mass. Plymouth Colony did not recognize a wedding sacrament; the governor witnessed a contract and later decided whether a couple could divorce. My church has been blessing same-sex commitments for many years, but those couples -- until July -- were not married.

Being gay is no more a choice than the color of your skin. If my child was a lesbian I’d want her to have the same happiness and dignity as my other child. Marriage is a civil contract which should not be denied to same-sex couples who commit to share property, provide for each other and their children. They have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any citizen. Let each religion decide whether to bless that commitment. If we need a law saying no church could be sued for not performing a wedding of someone not of their faith or persuasion, fine. We should not enshrine in our Constitution discrimination based on mistaken semantics nor the blending of church & state.

Sally, heterosexual, married & wedded.

[ml]

wow.....never in my 28 years of life have I seen prejudice be so overwhelmingly blatant as I have since prop 8 was created. I guess my main question is, why is another person's relationship so important to anyone else? Besides the fact that homophobia was never endorsed by jesus and biblical texts have been taken completely out of social context, what on earth makes people think they can legislate love? If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to a gay person. If you believe in the Constitution's bill of rights then you should have a major problem with prop 8. Kids are not going to be taught some sort of "homosexual agenda" any more than they will be taught a "conservative christian agenda" in public schools. Schools teach diversity and acceptance of all people from different races, religions, social background, etc. This is so that we won't have a repeat of the LA Rodney King Riots and the Columbine massacre.....Jesus taught love and acceptance..........so the final question is, if you're christian, why aren't you?

[Langston Ball]

It really freaking sad to see you people acting like the reiligious right. Its dopes like you people who are'nt truly Americans. You can whine and complain all you want but at the end of the day, the constiution of this nation, hell the reason this nation was FOUNDED was religious freedom and freedom from taxation. GET THAT?!?!?! You have NO right to decide how others live their lives. WE do NOT live in a theocracy. And all you idiots rambling on about 'coverting children to homosexuality' and the like i say this: Are you that bad of a parent that you require the state to raise your children? If you are so damned worried about your children being 'converted' then maybe keep them at home until you learn some parenting skills.

Every last one of you taliban need to remove your head from your bum and realize this is America, not Iran.

[Wu Ming]

I feel very torn about Proposition 8. First, it seems very clear that the people against it have strong religious objections; viz. the Bible-quoter just above. (When will people learn that persuading non-religious people by quoting your own religious book does not work? "It says this right here in the Koran!") And many of them also seem to believe that homosexuality is something one chooses, like dyeing your hair. (Do THEY feel capable of choosing it, one wonders?)

On the other hand, even though I have gay relatives I love, and one of them has children (I've always wondered how),I do feel strongly that it's better for any child to be with its biological parents if at all possible. The woman above who has a child "with" her friend did not create the child with her friend. The child has a father who is not in the picture. What will it be like for a child, girl or boy, to grow up knowing there is no possibility of a father in its life? To know its mother didn't want it to have a father? Not great, is the answer. I don't mean the children will turn out badly, or that other children are not raised in far worse conditions. Gay parents are still loving parents like anyone else. But it still seems sad FOR THE CHILD to deliberately deprive a child of its other parent. I don't like to see the sanction of the state given to that.

In France, there is a civil union called PACS that offers inheritance and insurance and other rights to any two unmarried people who wish it. I think this, and not marriage, is the solution to this issue.

I haven't decided yet how I'm going to vote.

[Byron]

I say lets go for it. And since there is no "moral" reason for marraige between two men or women why not triples. If there isn't any moral reason to keep the sanctity of marriage between man and wife then there is no reason we shouldn't be able to marry seven or eight people if we "love " them so they have all of our benefits.
Gay is wrong, gay tendencies aren't as long as there not acted on and prayer counselling can help. If a person is attracted to little sheep that doesn't make it natural or right. But this is the same crowd that suck thier half born, warm, wiggling babies brains out of the skulls with a vaccum cleaner and call us HATERS!

[Paul]

To the people who cite the bible as their reasoning for passing this rediculous amendment...The bible is not law. The bible is an opinion. Do you approve of the strict muslim koran law being enforced is nsome countries? Oh wait..probably not. It's not Christian.

[Mike B.]

The Bible defines homosexuality as a sin. (I Cor 6:9-10) This is what Christians believe. For a Christian to condone same-sex marriage would be to go against what we believe is the word of God. If we are bigots, then so was Jesus. Jesus said to love the sinner but not the sin, and we are all sinners. If Prop 8 passes, many gay activists plan to test churches by insisting on getting married there. One group already has a lawsuit pending against a Bible printing company in an effort to have verses against homosexuality removed from the Bible. The church will then have to choose to bend to the will of the gay agenda, or risk lawsuits that could drive it out of business. However, in America the majority rules. Either the church will win this battle, or the proponents of gay marriage will, but not both.

[Hal Prince]

If Prop 8 passes, people who voted for it should be required to go and visit same-sex couples and families, and explain to them in person why it is that their marriage is being dissolved, and their children put at risk. The so-called arguments for the proposition are just ridiculous. We have legal same-sex marriage now; no church is losing its tax-exempt status (except possibly for endorsing political candidates), and children are not being taught anything that they wouldn't be taught anyway. You have the right not to approve of gay relationships, just as you have the right to disapprove of jews, or people who like country music. But it is cruel and immoral to punish jews, or gays, or blacks, or whatever group gets your goat, by denying them equal rights under the law.

[Greling Jackson]

I doubt any of these people for Prop. 8 have gay friends or family, unless they're like the homophobic Senator Pete Knight (now dead) who have personal beefs with their relatives and only want Prop. 8. to pass so that they can teach their relatives "a lesson" by writing discrimination into the Constitution against them.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Constitution for crying out loud! If there is even any speck of a doubt in your mind as to what you are voting on, then I suggest you vote "NO". Better to vote this amendment down and revisit the issue later on than to vote it in and be oh-so-sorry later that you brought harm onto millions of innocent people who did nothing but love one another in a very prejudiced world.

If you have even an ounce of Christian compassion within you, if you call yourself a believer in the American ideals of "live and let live", then you'll VOTE NO ON PROP. 8!

Just ask yourself why the NAACP, MALDEF, ACLU and other civil rights organizations are against this and why 38% OF THE FUNDING FOR PROP. 8 COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE MORMON CHURCH, OVER HALF OF WHICH IS OUT-OF-STATE!

[Emily]

Vote YES on Prop 8! I am the last person to get political but here I am commenting on this article. It seems that this is an extremely sensitive issue, as it should be. I have family members and dear friends who are gay. I love and respect them a great deal. I can't begin to imagine the trials they face that I do not even think twice about. Here is the problem with this issue- defining marriage. The last time I looked in the dictionary marriage was between one man and one woman. It does not discriminate against race or status- just gender. A husband and wife joined together is a marriage. Now if we are to redefine marriage then how far are we to let it go? How about two men and one woman? Where do you and I draw the line? Redefining the english language is not how we should be operating. That is the same tactic Bill Clinton tried to weasle out of lying about being an adulterer. Let's take all the emotion out of it and think. Marriage- one man and one woman. End of story. Then we take into account the ripple affect it has one our society and our value system (a value system that may not be everyone's but it was the majority last time I checked).

VOTE YES ON PROP 8- Protect your rights!

[neta]

All who are for prop 8 should be ashamed of yourselves. Slave owners once said that black people couldn't marry because they weren't real people. Then they said that interracial couples couldn't marry. Now they are trying to keep fear and hatred running through america---it is bigots and undereducated zealots who have to hate SOMEONE in order to be satisfied with their lives. And who gets hurt--people like my precious, kind, and loving 15 month old son who has two mommies who have loved each other truely and deeply for 5 years. He and the MILLIONS of children like him are the ones who are going to pay for the hatred. SHAME on you--on all of you, who say they are thinking about "the children." Yes, maybe my son would learn in school that his family is unique and beautiful, like any other loving family. Shame on you.

[Reverend Mother]

This issue is far beyond sexuality, the definition of marriage, or whom one can love with legal protection. If Prop 8 is passed, there is no telling who's rights are the next to be eliminated.

Our state's and country's constitution have never voted to eliminate an individual's or group's rights - they're there to protect everyone, especially minorities.

VOTE NO ON 8!

[Reverend Mother]

This issue is far beyond sexuality, the definition of marriage, or whom one can love with legal protection. If Prop 8 is passed, there is no telling who's rights are the next to be eliminated.

Our state's and country's constitution have never voted to eliminate an individual's or group's rights - they're there to protect everyone, especially minorities.

VOTE NO ON 8!

[M Phelps]

Vote Yes on Prop 8. I rarely get involved in political discussions. In fact, this is the first time I've ever posted a comment to an article online. Yes on Prop 8 is critical to the future for my children. I feel strongly that my children should be taught the values of traditional family. We should focus all our attention and effort on how to improve the basic unit of society, the traditional family; not on the selfish desires of a few individuals. Vote Yes on Prop 8 for our children and for their future.

[Stephanie Schuetz]

One would think that with the implementation of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, everyone would be feeling "equal" now. Isn't same-sex marriage enough?

Apparently not.

Well, why not?

Because converting children to homosexuality seems to be the order of the day. This is what comes next after same-sex marriage laws are passed, in spite of what you or I think about it: www.massresistance.com

Be sure to check out the "instructional video" shown to teachers about teaching same-sex relationships in the classroom.

Be sure to check out the pamphlets passed out to local high school students that are pornographic in pictures and words, and that list local gay clubs in which to meet adult gays (yes, IN school, as part of the curriculum)

Be sure to check out the video about David Parker, who was put in handcuffs for protesting at a parents' meeting in which he was denied the right to opt his six-year-old out of the indoctrination exercises.

[murky waters]

Many people would have no problem with granting gays Civil Unions, for purposes of insurance and other legal matters like inheritance. Although some do object to this for financial reasons, claiming that insurance and other financial costs have never been factored into the debate. -- However, since liberals also refuse to allow any objective accounting of the enormous costs of illegal immigration on our society, especially LA where half the population are Latino mostly illegal immigrants, making everything a matter of "human rights" and ignoring financial costs is a liberal trademark. And gays contribute significantly to our economy, usually being well-educated, so personally I don't think the argument that this is a net financial negative carries much weight.

But to call civil union "marriage" crosses into the sacred, religion and a host of emotional and religious values. It also can be seen to discriminate against heteros living together without being married ("in sin") since they wouldn't get the legal benefits that "married" gays do. If what gays want are the financial benefits, they should have not used the emotional "marriage" wording, which sets off even moderate religious people who could accept civil unions.

About gay "marriage" being taught in schools: Joseph is only half-right. Books like "Joe has Two Mommies" are already being used in schools to tech "tolerance," and once gay marriage is legal, parents who object will have a harder time trying to keep their kids from having to read these books than they do now. Gay parents will argue that NOT to include them violates the law. While this isn't a big issue to me personally, from a legal perspective, I think it's naive to pretend there won't be broader implications we're not discussing.

[Joseph B]

California public schools (non-private and non-religious) DO NOT teach any sort of marriage to children. It is expected of parents to teach their children and their responsibility at home. The arguments that "Gay marriage will be crammed down my children's throats" are invalid and a fear tactic to used by typical conservatives to lie to uninformed voters to vote for intolerance and typical institutionalized American discrimination. LA Times, San Diego Union Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle and the citizens of those cities say NO to Proposition 8.

[Robert Smith]

In 1974 the APA decided to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder . Nicholas Cummings the President of APA said at that time "a proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." Unfortunately this research was never conducted. Since then there has been a continuing effort to prove that people are born that way. Each time a study claimed to find such proof it would later be dismissed. Until now in 2008 the new APA Pamphlet admits. "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

[Matthew]

Some will just have to learn that just because something is viewed as being politically correct does not mean that it's good or even acceptable.

Prop 8 will pass, thanks be to God.

[Allen]

I don't want my children to be taught things in elementary school that will most certainly be taught if Prop 8 is defeated and gay marriage is legalized. Look at what happened in Massachusetts recently: after gay marriage was legalized, the parents of a second-grader requested that the school notify them in advance when teaching about same sex marriage was to occur so they could remove their child (which should be the right of any sensible parent.) The state appeals court ruled in favor of the school, which effectively eliminated the right of the parents to have control over what their children learn based on their own religious beliefs. If prop 8 passes in CA, the SAME thing will happen here because it is already mandated that marriage be taught in schools; gay marriage will naturally be included in that. We will start to see religious rights impinged upon as well, as there will inevitably be conflicts with religious liberty and free speech rights. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family.

[Sherida Raddigan]

For all of those who love to say that gay marriage changes nothing but allowing others to marry, you need to do more research. Try asking people in Massachusettes if nothing changed after they passed gay marriage. Religious adoption organizations are now froced to allow adoptions to gay couples or else close their doors, kindergarteners now get "diversity" training in school, including teaching about gay couples, over the objections of their parents. There is no option to opt out because they are teaching about a "legal" social institution. Wake up. It's not just about marriage, and people that tell you it is are either liars or seriously misinformed.

[Kate O'Hanlan, MD]

All this worry about the children. Do you know that America's child mental and psychological health experts all endorse marriage equality? The American Psychiatric Ass'n has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work, or to contribute to society. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Ass'n, and the American Psychiatric Ass'n have all endorsed civil marriage for same sex couples because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors. When Americas premier child and mental health associations and their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is thus no ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their children. On what facts will you base your vote? Or will it be bigotry?

[MikeNYC]

Unfortunately the hate based groups are spreading lies about gay marriage being taught in the schools and other nonsense that more uneducated people are buying into. The anti-marriage crowd will stoop to any lies and deception to win their agenda of hate. To David from Livermore Ca. Why would you support the destruction of thousands of people's marriages with such a hateful amendment? How would you feel if an amendment destroyed YOUR marriage? Think!