A pre-Prop. 8 rush for the altar in California

As Election Day draws ever nearer and the fight over Prop. 8 keeps heating up, gay couples from throughout the state and the nation are headed for the altar in California to say "I do." Just reading the comments on this blog, where supporters of both sides of the Prop. 8 question passionately argue their positions, shows what an emotional issue same-sex marriage remains.

Most recently, a Catholic priest who revealed he's gay and took a public stand against Prop. 8 paid with his job -- he was removed as pastor of the St. Paul Newman Center, which primarily serves students and faculty at Cal State Fresno.

Prop. 8, if you're not familiar with it, is a ballot initiative to rewrite the California constitution so that same-sex marriage would be illegal. Prop. 8 proponents are winning the fund-raising race, having outspent opponents by $1.2 million.  Here's the AP story:

“Couples are making their plans to come in before November 4 because people are getting a little uneasy,” said San Francisco Clerk-Recorder Karen Hong Lee. “It's too close to call, basically, and it's legal right now, so why wait? Why take the chance and say, 'Let's get married on November 5?'”

Since same-sex marriage became legal in California in mid-June, at least 11,000 couples have exchanged vows statewide, according to the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, based at UCLA. That's more than the 10,400 gay and lesbian couples who have wed in Massachusetts since gay marriage was legalized there in May 2004, according to the institute.

The demand for same-sex marriage licenses has proven so great in San Francisco that Hong doubled the number of daily reservations her office accepts each day. And she assigned a second marriage commissioner to perform weddings.

Even so, the office is booked solid through Oct. 21 for license appointments and has no more coveted Friday ceremony slots available between now and the election.

California may lead the nation in gay rights, but a new poll suggests growing support for Prop. 8. Opponents of the measure include L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who helped open a "No on Prop. 8" headquarters, and actor Brad Pitt and director-producer Steven Spielberg,  who each gave $100,000 contributions to defeat the measure.

Meanwhile, it's still legal to marry the man or woman you love in California, whether you're a man or a woman. They're getting married in the morning -- this morning, if at all possible.

Read the rest of the AP story after the jump.

--Veronique de Turenne

Photo: Bob Carey / Los Angeles Times   

Community activists Davina Kotulski and Molly McKay, who exchanged vows on Sept. 1, have invitations to one or more weddings for every weekend before Election Day, but Kotulski said they would spend their free time working on the campaign to defeat Proposition 8.

    Apprehension over the forthcoming ballot initiative has taken a toll on many couples she knows, said Kotulski, a psychotherapist.

    “In any relationship, there is the pressure of where is this going. Do you commit now? Do you commit later?” she said. “But when you have a very small window of opportunity, it definitely adds increased pressure, and that could break up a couple before they make it to the altar.”

    Although California Attorney General Jerry Brown has said he does not think marriages solemnized through Nov. 4 would become void if the measure passes, gay marriage opponents could try to litigate the matter. So some couples have decided to wait until after the election instead of putting themselves through such uncertainty.

    Another unknown is whether same-sex marriages performed after the election would automatically not be recognized by the state. Allie Schembra, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state, said Proposition 8 would become effective the day after the election if it passes.

    But Hong and other county clerks say that because it usually takes a month for election results to be certified as final, they do not plan to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until they are directed by the state health department, which oversees marriage records.

    The election has forced Chloe Harris, 28, and Frankie Frankeny, 42, to make a series of compromises. The women would have preferred to have their legal ceremony Dec. 30, the anniversary of the day they married without the government's blessing in Paris two years ago. Mindful of the upcoming vote, they hastily scheduled their nuptials for Oct. 18.

    A little more than two weeks from the big date, the couple still had not contacted everyone they wanted to invite and were just getting around to selecting the caviar and wine for their reception. Then there was the conversation about what they wanted to be called afterward; Harris felt comfortable using wife, while Frankeny did not. They agreed “partner” sounded too antiseptic.

    The owner of the restaurant where their wedding will be held, Traci des Jardin, is a close friend who will be catering at least 14 gay weddings in October. Des Jardin assured Frankeny and Harris that what they jokingly call their “shotgun wedding” would be perfect.

    “We haven't had this privilege before, so something about that alone makes it special,” she said.

Comments

[Holly]

Marriage is about more than just two people who "commit" to each other. Marriage creates families which is the best way for children in our society to grow up. Children require both a mother and a father -- not two mothers or two fathers. Learn more at protectmarriage.com

[Richard]

Proposition 8 in most simplistic terms is whether we as a society accept the act of homosexuality or not. We have many rights for gays and recognize their great role in our society. If prop 8 fails we will be forced to accept homosexuality by mandatory education of our children without parental participation which means 5 year old children will be taught about homosexuality when and how they state sees fit without parental knowledge. Through education consistent over many years, acceptance of the act of homosexuality will be greatly increased. I feel the role of teaching values and sexuality especially with children should have parental involvement. I respect the love gay people share and desire for acceptance; but I cannot give up the right and responsibility to educate and teach my children, especially about precious values, I love my children too much. This Prop is truly about love.

[lee margot]

Holly, so are you going to stop marrying "straight" people who have NO intention of having children? Will marriages be disolved when a man has a vasectomy, or a woman a hystertectomy?After all, they can't have children anymore. your position makes no sense unless you agree with my points.

[Fransisco Orange]

So many articles on how gays are reacting to prop 8. So few on how pro-8 groups are feeling. The Times is totally in the bag against this, how can I trust it to give me objective information anymore? I've never seen a newspaper so out of touch with its community, and that's saying something.

Yes on 8

www.protectmarriage.com

[steve]

The difference between a liberal and a conservative? A liberal thinks "How does X affect me?" A conservative thinks "How does X affect society?" Clearly, a mother and father are best for the raising of children, and are the foundation of solid families - which benefit society as a whole. When someone says "gay marriage doesn't impact my life at all" they are revealing their basic orientation - themselves.

[Kyle]

I am against gay marriages and relationships because of my Christianity. There is no purpose in same sex relationship except to deviate from the natural use of the body for the purpose of perverted desires. I can freely say this because I was a practicing lesbian at one time. I hope California does the right thing. Nothing like Prop 8 would ever be discussed in the great state of Louisiana.

[Mike]

Holly, so are you going to stop marrying "straight" people who have NO intention of having children?

Not all hetrosexuals couples have children but it is this special combination of one man and one women that creates life. Hetrosexuals can produce children but homosexuals never do.

[Henry]

WHAT"S THE BIG DEAL?

whatisprop8.com
whatisprop8.com

[Brendan Dellerba]

Proposition 8 says NOTHING about making schools educate kids about gay marriage or homosexuality and also says NOTHING about churches loosing their tax exemptions. it is one simple line added to the California constitution that could cause harm to millions of Californian's, it says "THAT ONLY MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMEN IS RECOGNIZED IN CALIFORNIA". That is all the propositions says, the rest is a flat out lie, it says right out on Pg 55 of the California general election booklet, which is sent out to everyone who can vote to help sort through lies and give Californian's straight answer, if you dont believe me look yourself it says right on pg 55. PLEASE let California be a true democracy and a fair state and
VOTE NO ON PROP 8 !!!!!
Help bring joy and fairness to everyone who lives in our great state of California. Join me and millions of others and VOTE NO ON PROP 8

[Liane Marrgo]

NO ON 8. This is a hate measure created and supported by bigots and not anything else. Keep your homophobia out of our lives and quit with the scare tactics. Marriage is a civil right not a HETEROSEXUAL privilege.

www.noonprop8.com EDUCATE YOURSELVES

[Dexter - San Diego, California]

Proposition 8 is discrimination and inequality.

Please help tens of thousands of Californians defeat discrimination and inequality by helping with your vote and give a big, fat NO to Proposition 8 on November 4th. As stated on your official California voting ballot, [Proposition 8 eliminates rights of same-sex couples to marry by changing the California Constitution] to include discrimination, inequality and setting our Golden State ten spaces backwards on progress and the historic issue of Civil Rights in America.

In the honor and tradition of civil rights and equality for African Americans, women and cultural minorities, prohibiting same-sex couples to marry was ruled unconstitutional in June of 2008 on the basis that it discriminated against the civil rights of California citizens. Since then, thousands of our Gay & Lesbian family members, friends, neighbors and colleagues have been able to realize a childhood dream and marry the significant other in their committed relationships.

Those who favor discrimination and banning marriage for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have argued many ridiculous points and have even stepped to low levels by resorting to manipulation of children in television ads and outright lies in order to frighten, sway and even intimidate you, the voter, to steal your vote for a terrible and backwards cause. Don't let them make you a fool. Don't believe them!

Your vote is your business and I have always firmly believed that one's vote and decision should have in mind how an issue would impact oneself, loved ones, family, friends and your community. With that said, I challenge you to challenge yourself with these questions:

"Since approval of marriage for gays & lesbians in June '08, has this issue directly hurt me or someone I care about in some way?"

"Will supporting to take away rights under law by banning the right to marry hurt my loved ones, friends and people that I actually know?"

I urge you to think about the impact your vote has and follow your hearts and minds. Challenge those you know who are unsure about their vote on this issue with the same questions I've asked of you. Together, we can defeat discriminatory Proposition 8 on November 4th and together we can defeat and beat back all of the negative that will come to hurt anyone else in the future, whether it be targeted against the black community, people that are white, brown, small, big, male, female, gay or straight. This is the year 2008 and the 21st century and we stand together only to move in one direction; forward.

Join California leaders Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California State Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. Stand up with the Cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego and their Mayors Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa and Jerry Sanders respectively, several actors, directors and personalities like Steven Spielberg, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Ellen DeGeneres, Jay Leno and socially responsible businesses like Google and YouTube and make Proposition 8 nothing but a memory.

Fight the smears and get facts about Proposition 8 at http://www.noonprop8.com/about

[Ross Archer]

It is far too infrequently noted that our Founders specifically intended that the rights of individuals were determined by reference to a Constitution, rather than ever be the subject to the whims of a popular vote. They established a procedure to amend the Constitution when required, and deliberately set a high bar, well above a majority vote, for such a change. Prop. 8 violates all of this.

In fact, the problem of an unpopular individual or minority being persecuted by a majority was well-understood to the Founders, who came from just such an environment, and who were victims of precisely this kind of populist disapproval. They called it the “tyranny of the majority”.

What Proposition 8 does is illegal. If passed, it cannot stand because it violates the US Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the intent of the original Founders, and furthermore violates California's Constitution. A vote for Prop. 8 is a vote against the Constitutional form of government and the rule of law.

If passed, it will cost the state of California a small fortune to defend, at a time when there are far more important priorities than excluding rights from people. It will inevitably wind up in the US Supreme Court case where, all indications are, it will lose, especially because the precedent has already been established as a matter of law that the right of same sex couples to marry exists.

Aside from this, do Californians really want to set a precedent that the rights of people should be subject to popular vote? What is next? Voting that Chinese people can't hold driver's licenses due to a common stereotype? Deciding that Californians of Mexican descent must wear a state-issued “star” to prove they are citizens?

This is not a road that we should even start to go down.

Please do the right thing and vote No on 8. Both fairness and a respect for our system of law demands it.

-- Ross Archer

[Paul]

Soo..If marriage is soooo sacred, why don't we outlaw Divorce? And if it's soooo sacred, why do we allow male/female couples to marry who choose not to have children?? This amendment has nothing to do with love. It's all about biggotry, spreading hate, and forcing a religious based opinion on people.

[Paul]

Why does anyone care what is happening in someone elses home? or bedroom? This country is slowly slipping into a backwards society that the rest of world laughs at. Soon, only parts of war torn Africa or the deeply Muslim law parts of the world will be on par with our way of thinking. Way to go keeping the evil gays from marriage!!!!

[MarriageForAll]

If this is truly abut protecting marriage as a sacred and historical institution why are we not doing more to forbid divorce? Seems the most logical step to me considering the rate of divorce in this country.

To Richard: How would this give up your right to teach your children? I plan on teaching mine what I believe regardless of what they encounter in school. It's what we do as parents, we're not giving anything up.

Allowing a same-sex couple to marry cannot and will not affect my marriage in any way negatively. Nor will it affect my parents marriage of 48 years and my siblings, each married 20+ years respectively.

I will never understand the fear some people have about equality.

[sdd]

holly and orange i think you're the same person. lol. you're so hilarious. i don't know who you are, but i have a hunch that your life must be VERY miserable. correct me if i'm wrong. you're so frustrated about your own life so you're taking out your frustration out on the gays. hope that works for you.

[Ruby Jackson]

Seems everyone gets special 'rights' except unmarried singles without kids who rent. How about a tax break or special visitation rights for unmarried, childless people who don't own a house?

[Dave]

What rights are taken away? This proposition defines marriage, nothing more.
Shame on this country for ever including marriage, thus not keeping the separation of church and state.
I've seen people, both homosexual and heterosexual, living together for many years without being married. Honestly, what does marriage change in their lives from what they are already used to? A simple piece of paper.
My belief has been to refrain from sexual relations until after being married. Any relations of this sort prior to that is considered a sin. Would this mean that now it would not be a sin?
People are afraid of the future intolerances of what will happen if either side wins.

[Julie]

I don't understand why an entire state gets to vote on whether ot not I can get married. I personally don't care for blue hair - do I get to decide whether or not someone should be able to color their hair? Or if that person would be a fit parent? Or if I want MY kids to see someone out in public with blue hair? I agree 110% that the driving argument behind outlawing same-sex marriage is religion-based, but since when did one religion get to dictate everyone else's life. And yes, I'll go there....considering the alarming rate of priests that can't keep their hands off your kids, are these the people you really want to trust on this??

[Sharon]

Please watch this. It's very good and from all 4 political candidates.

All are in favor of not re-defining the definition of marriage. If you want equal rights then add what rights you feel are missing to Domestic Partnership. No one's "hating" it just seems silly to change something when there is already something legal and in place for alternative lifestyles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Hmdcy_lvQ

[Brandon]

This is about so much more than marriage. Proponents of prop 8 are sending a clear message that the way homosexual couples live their lives is offensive and not as valid as heterosexuals. I never asked to be gay- just as they never asked to be straight. I deserve the same rights as any heterosexual. Stop the bigotry and hate.

[Ana]

Congratulations to the newlyweds! If passed, Prop 8 would deprive many Americans of the fundamental right to marry the person they love. Separate but equal is not equal! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!!

[Kellie]

Ana and Julie.....No one is saying you can't be together, but remember that the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. Sorry if you feel that you should fall under that same definition, but you don't. It doesn't have anything to do about rights, you don't fall under that definition! That definition doesn't include same sex. How about you make up a definition that does include that.....oh no need for you to do that there already is, it's called DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP!!!!!!!! Why is this not good enough? If you need a word that is cute or legitimizes gay marriage then again, come up with a word that defines that. Just like those that live together came up with common law marriage. We understand that, that definition doesn't mean the same as marriage.

[Frank]

I can not in good conscious support a measure to write discrimination into our state constition. I do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind. Do you?

I am further shocked at the tactics by the religious right in there support of this proposition. What does their supreme being think about the outright lies they are speading the airways?

VOTE NO ON 8 !

[Fairness and Equality]

Kellie.... did you not learn how to share in elementary school?

These people who support Prop 8 are the most self centered people I have ever come across.

Domestic Partnership is not the same....why don't we call your Marriage Domestic Partnership?

I'm tired of these people trying to intimidate gay people!

I will Vote No On Prop 8!

Fairness and Equality!

[Tomas]

MANY in our state do not approve of--or believe in--EVOLUTION.

Should we stop teaching evolution?

We teach kids in schools, the media, our homes, our churches, our temples, our mosques that it is best to abstain from sex until MARRIAGE. The people at greatest risk for suicide and HIV are young gay men of color. Are we therefore telling them that they should NEVER have sex and are unworthy of the same rights as their straight siblings.

No wonder gay teens want to kill themselves.

Next up for the US: Banning the evil left-handed from teaching our kids?

(Look up the words SORDID or GAUCHE)

[Cassiopoea]

We must protect the rights of every human being. Otherwise, where does it end? I had always thought there was a separation of church and state in this country, and yet we are increasingly becoming a religious dictatorship. And what's even more ridiculous about it is that most of the people who are for Prop. 8 -- so called "Christians" -- don't even realize that Jesus Christ said nothing about homosexuality as being wrong. NOTHING! They are just mis-interpreting ancient verses from the old testament. Sad, but true. Hey, Christians... really ... tell me... What WOULD Jesus do? Would he promote hate, or would he say to love your neighbor?

According to what YOUR Bible says, Jesus was a tree-hugging, liberal, socialist (he healed the sick and fed the masses for free) hippie who hung out with prostitutes and derelicts. It's true. Look it up.

So, be Christ-like, not just Christian... don't hate... NO ON 8.

Oh, and on a side note... you all of the money that religious organizations are donating to this? How would that be better spent? Feeding and clothing poor children? Education and shelter for those displaced by the economy? Anti-gang and anti-drug programs? Hmmm... what a waste.

Peace be with you.

[Sean]

When you say marriage for ALL....do you mean for ANYONE?????because if that's what you mean then once that can of worms is open then there will be "Marriage" for all, maybe even alternative groups you don't necessarily agree with. No need to open that can of worms!!!!!!

Our kids will be so confused at what a traditional family is, it will make their heads spin. We would basically be doing away with that concept forever. How sad. Teach kids the ultimate example of a family and then when they are old enough to make their own life decisions then they can. Let's strive for teaching the most effective family unit and then if anyone chooses an alternative lifestyle then at least they were taught about traditional marriage. In some cases it's OK to be old fashion. Our society lacks in those values!

Vote Yes on 8

Marriage is traditional, let's keep it that way!

[Concerned in California]

Undecided on Prop 8??? Consider that to tolerate is not the same thing as to condone. Tolerance is a lens through which we should view all people, including gay and lesbian people. We cannot and should not condone all actions. You can love people without loving what they do.

Voting Yes on Prop 8 is a vote for tolerance. Voting Yes on 8 guarantees that rights will be preserved for traditional marriages and for domestic partnerships. Voting Yes on Prop 8 is NOT intolerant, bigoted, or discriminatory. Please vote YES on Prop 8!

http://www.protectmarriage.com/
www.whatisprop8.com
http://concernedincalifornia.blogspot.com/

[Jack]

Opponents to prop 8 want marriages reduced to love. We are committed and love each other. Therefore we have the right to marry. What if someone's capacity to love and commit is so great that it can’t be contained and limited to just one other person? What about a group?

Prop 8 is needed to legally define marriage. Don’t like the definition of prop 8, get one you do like on the ballot and let the people decide.

[Michelle]

This message is directed at Richard/7:00p.m./10-14....are you on CRACK? Where does it say that Prop 8 would equate to the teaching of homosexuality to five year olds? This is pure and simple ignorance. I suggest you get your facts straight. The bottom line is, Prop 8 is about basic human rights. Everyone should have the right to marry whom ever they wish - without interference by our government. Intelligent people will vote NO on Prop. 8.

[Mike]

I can not in good conscious support a measure to write discrimination into our state constition.

Would you in the future discriminate against polygamist who would like to have their definition of marriage become law? They only want to be happy. That is the problem with your argument that not redefining marriage is discrimination.

Vote Yes on 8

[Common Sense]

“When you look at yourself from a universal standpoint, something inside always reminds or informs you that there are bigger and better things to worry about.”
---Albert Einstein

A crisp, cold vitriol is in the airwaves; must be an election year---and with it the caustic smell of heated brain cells. Good arguments have shaped this great Country; ideas that oppose in the extreme move actions that benefit the majority to somewhere in the middle. And right now, we are in the extreme season waiting for more common sense on Prop 8 to blossom so we can all be friends again. The problem is not so much with media, but with the way we read media (or don’t). We tend to react to sound bites with fear, disgust, or self-righteous cheers (and jeers). It’s difficult not to react and vote emotionally. Scientists tell us that the Hypothalamus, the part of the brain that controls emotions has much more influence than the part of the brain responsible for logic and reason. That’s why men buy SUVs and women fall in love with men who do---logic might dictate that an SUV in Southern California is a waste of money, fuel, and environmentally stupid; and marrying a man that insecure and self-absorbed might leave the spouse of such longing to be cuddled. And yet those emotional decisions are made every day. Campaign managers know basic psychology-- a mediocre, emotionally charged campaign, beats a well-thought out, logical and reasonable campaign. Witness the Prop 8 campaign asking voters to say yes to legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems simple and logical enough: Men and women are biologically created to fit anatomically together to become “joined” as marriage defines. Now, that’s not to suggest that any other two or three or five people of any gender combination could never live happily and emotionally fulfilled together. It also doesn’t mean that a biological match makes an emotional one---that’s the mystery of love, and love and marriage do not always go together. But that’s not the point. We are talking about the meaning of words, and therein lies the bigger problem. The meaning of a word, one word can stall an entire judiciary system for years. A word can have so many meanings that it no longer means anything and needs an attorney to decide based on a client’s emotions.

Unfortunately, emotion leads many people away from civilities and mutual respect into using their personal beliefs to change laws that would better accommodate them whenever they feel threatened. At a little-league game we define those people as sore losers who “let their emotions get away from them.” Seems to be a lot of soccer-parents on both sides of the Prop 8 issue. And both are wielding the “Right to believe” stick; or “make it-fair-for-everybody” rule. Some are even absurdly comparing the issue to Women’s Suffrage and Equal Rights; an emotional sucker-punch if you ask me. Homosexuals may be discriminated against by individuals, maybe even communities (and for a time, the military), but there has never been a law on the books that prevented them from voting or sitting where they like on a city bus. No extermination order was ever issued against them, as it was the Mormons. Hate crimes now merit a more egregious sentence and justice to all minorities is more attainable than ever before in America. Homosexuality even enjoys chic status among Hollywoodites, intellectuals, artists, and on college campuses. It’s hard to argue homosexuals being treated as second-class citizens when being out of the closet is so in. That gives the emotional victimization campaign about as much credence as “God will kill us all if we let gays marry” argument.

A little common sense: Let’s have a look at the bigger and better things to worry about: Government. I know, it’s a nasty word right now given the missteps of our elected officials this past decade and again, that’s the point: They sent us to war, they failed to fight the war with enough resources, they failed to react to the worst natural disaster in our history; policies and pressure from both sides of the aisle plunged us into the worst economic depression since the great depression (few remember it, but many remember the scenes from Cinderella Man and don’t want to go there). It’s been a tough decade. Our government has failed us in many ways. And now we entrust them with a new definition and all the legal entanglements that will come with it? William Borah said: “The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.” Well, I think we have been patient enough. Are we really prepared to propose a change in the definition of a word that will allow Judges and Legislators to parse meanings, create ever-burdening laws that clog our courtrooms and drain our tax dollars, our savings, our time---just to engage in the sophistry of “new definitions?” When will it stop? The slicing and dicing and diluting will only leave our passionate citizenry dispassionate, apathetic, cynical. When Bill Clinton was on trial for his moral misjudgments, he asked for a definition of “it”. What a bold obfuscation! Oliver North must’ve been his secret defense attorney---can’t you hear him: “No matter what, don’t make a point, or make one then retract it or retract a point of an unknown origin by definition of its locale in the present.” What a waste of tax dollars that trial was, what an exercise in obfuscation from everyone involved beginning with the crusade by Kenneth Star. Can you imagine the same type of trial being played out in courthouses all over the Country as they battle to apply a new definition of marriage to man and woman, but not with man and woman, and therefore what said parties of and/or are entitled to? What a calamity our judicial system will be if judges and lawyers and clerks are suddenly burdened with the task of redefining marriage, sexuality and all the implications foreseen, assumed, and perceived both publicly and privately. John Adams wrote: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” The same can be said of government. Our system is already a Jabba The Hutt government---bloated, immovable, on the verge of cardiac arrest. Why feed it? Better to trim it down so it can get back to work for us.

Personally, and emotionally, I have enough faith in the American people that they will come to treat homosexuals as they deserve to be treated: with love, respect, dignity---much sooner without involving government intervention. Now is the time to accept all human beings as human, to grant them the rights of legal companionship without imposing another redefinition into a governmental and judicial system already long-listed with frivolous lawsuits, absurd constitutional challenges and the clamor of self-interest groups. Now is the time for all of us, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, celibate, Atheist and undecided to stand up for the bigger issue: we don’t want more laws, more interpretations, more filibusters, more sophistries. Now is the time to remember the words of Bob Wells: “For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.” The future of our democracy depends not on an appointed government, but on self-government. We can throw off the weight of an increasingly Orwellian system of laws and demonstrate our respect for each other without being ordered to. It’s time for homosexuals to stop acting like religious zealots, and religious leaders to go back to their core beliefs of love and charity toward others---more important than living and preaching a sinless life is loving all, even the sinner. It’s also time for all of us to be honest, to stop living the selfish lie… “Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” (Oscar Wilde). The government is already in our pocketbooks and our facebooks. Do we really want them in our bedrooms? I’m certain we can come up with a solution that treats homosexuals fairly without spawning a Pandora department in the justice system and setting Gay rights back fifty years because of the resentment and reverberations this redefinition will cost. We talk about tolerance, but there are some things we should never tolerate: a compromise in our integrity, the abuse of power. Let’s also have little tolerance for the tyranny of stifling confrontations that would redirect our energies and our money into the bottomless sea of judiciary pontifications.

Emotionally, I wish prop 8 were only about being with the one you love---I’m all for that. But logically, I can’t see an already overloaded Justice system weighed down with the obligation of seeing to every lawsuit and counter lawsuit doing any community or individual any good at all---homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise. Common sense would dictate that before we take down any fences, let us be sure of what’s on the other side of the fence.

As obfuscation would have it, voting yes on prop 8 is a vote against a judicial Sisyphusean circus. So yes, let’s leave the definition of marriage the way it has always been, the way it is generally accepted in our society today so our judicial system and our public servants can devote their time to issues like Education, Poverty, Environment, and Taxes before there is a movement to redefine those words as well.

[Katie Patterson]

In 1948, The California Supreme Court struck down the law that banned racial minorities from marrying white people. This was a full 19 years before the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the law. I have a friend whose parents got married in 1949. If their marriage had been voted on by the people of California that year, 97% of the people would have voted to end their marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nsGtd7y3c

Despite this lack of popular support, the court fulfilled its role that year, as the California Supreme Court has done once again, sixty years later. Its role is to protect minorities- everyone really- from arbitrary discrimination. All of the same arguments that were brought in 1948 are being brought today.

I think it's interesting when individuals bring religion into this matter...

First...there is a separation of church and state in our country. Therefore, there are two separate "marriages" that most people go through when they commit their lives to each other.

If one wants to have all of the tax benefits, the right to be at their partner's bedside when they're in the hospital, they go down to their county clerk's office, stand in line, and exchange some simple vows, creating a CONTRACT, a legal relationship between each other. They create a civil marriage and a civil bond, recognized by the government.

If one wants a marriage recognized in the eyes of their God, whatever God or Gods or Goddeses they believe in ...they go down to their local church and have a religious ceremony, however they see fit. This is a religious or spiritual marriage recognized by their church.

(last I checked, we had freedom of religion in this country- which by the way, WHY churches won't be forced to marry gay people- another interesting argument- why would a gay person want to get married in a church that hated them? lol there are PLENTY of churches of almost every religion gay people can go to to get married in.

You're simply protecting a gay person's right to commit in a civil ceremony before a county clerk. That's it. You and your church can choose not to recognize the spiritual implications of that ceremony. All society has to recognize is that gay person has made a contract with another person.

School policies won't be changed and haven't been changed by the granting of equal rights to all people, regardless of their orientation. Parents still retain the right to educate their children as they see fit.

In the end, the marriage gay people are asking for is not the religious one. We are asking to be seen equal in the eyes of the LAW. Instead of writing Discrimination into our Constitution, let's have a Proposition amend the name marriage. Everyone in the state of California can have a civil union in the eyes of the state, and a marriage in the eyes of their God.

[Katie Patterson]

Just wanted to post a link to the summary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that held that laws prohibiting different races to marry were invalid...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

The arguments are very similar...

[Matt R.]

It seems like you can't reason with many of the Yes on 8 folks because they are formulating their opinions from an unreasonable place. It's like, in one ear and out the other and I'm tired of it. You might as well talk to the wall. It constantly reminds me of SNL where Tina Fey and Amy Pohler were Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton and "Hillary" points to "Sarah" and says, "Ask this one about dinosaurs."

It's a complete denial and unwillingness to listen to the facts and instead sticking to outdated rhetoric. You bring up a point and there is no counter-point, only a spouting off of tired twisted excuses that are based in imaginary-land. No 'Yes on 8er' has once provided a credible, legal reason for his or her choice.

Stay narrow mined and in the dark if you choose, but this is California in The United States of America in the year 2008. Saying that children who live with a Mother and Father is the ideal to strive for is the same rational people used to ban interracial relationships. You're essentially deciding what is ideal. They thought children of mixed race where not ideal, that there was some immoral sin in mixing the blood of the races. They thought Blacks were less human and civilized than Whites and they needed to keep the ideal of pure races, especially the race that was empowered.

Next you will eliminate other religions besides Christianity, because if you are truly this deeply convicted, you should know the commandment that says "thou shall have no other gods before me," but then, I guess this all would be canceled out by what Jesus referred to as THE MOST IMPORTANT commandment, "Love your neighbor as you would love yourself." Apparently you can pick and choose which "ideals" to follow without consequence. Stop hiding behind morality when you clearly lack it. It's a very thin veil to hide your bigotry.

[Matt R.]

How long has there been gay marriage in CA? It's been a few months. If there was a real "threat" of kids being "taught" gay marriage or churches and photographers being sued in CA, wouldn't we have heard about it by now and couldn't they use that, instead of reaching to a state on the opposite side of the country for a lame example?

DON'T BE ROPED IN TO THIS FALSE PROPAGANDA, please. This is serious and could be pretty devastating.

PS I don't see anything wrong with kids knowing what is going on in the world. They are smarter than you are giving them credit for.

[Matthew Viator]

Common Sense,

Your argument is only another diatribe of self-deluded pity, despite your anachronistic reliance on the Reagan-age fear of someone saying, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." If you truly see the government as the problem, you ought to be voting "No" on Prop 8 and getting the government out of our lives, then work to get the government out of the business of Marriage all together in the next election cycle.

We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy, folks. Not a Majority Democracy. You people wail and moan when our Constitutions hold our hands to the fire and tell us inconvenient legal truths, namely that all people are guaranteed the full protection and benefits of the law. You are trying to change this Constitutional Democracy into a Majority Democracy model, amending it every time your whims and fancies get the best of you. How little respect do you have for the Founding Fathers who gave you this great country? I am ashamed of your patriotism, and appalled at your selfishness; "it's not my definition, so the rest of you can sod off." Where did this over-inflated sense of entitlement come from? Manifest Destiny? Constitutional Democracies ensure that no one group can create a system where they are entitled to exclude others from rights, privileges, or other enumerated legal powers. If you think a gay or lesbian couple wanting the ability to marry is entitlement on their part, you're darn right (to quote Ms. Palin): they are demanding the right to a legal status that all other couples enjoy. And well they should; it has nothing to do with your religions, and I realize for some of you that that's a hard argument to swallow. It has everything to do with the letter of the law. If and when Evangelical Christianity falls out of favor, or becomes a very small minority, will you be so quick to press for Majority Democracy when that Majority might well put your lives up for a vote?

You also forget that certain religions grant sacramental rights of marriage to individuals of the same sex. I apologize if you think that religion is ridiculous, but Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalism are not independent, one-building religious institutions. We're talking about major American denominations here. They have the First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion as much as you do, and in Law, we go for the lowest common denominator. When we find a definition that can be made to legally fit all different parties needs, it sticks.

I thank my creator every day that I live in this country; it's the only country in the world where we truly have a brilliant political system that makes us stable, gives us a chance, and even when we're denied what is ours, gives us far more opportunities to prosecute our rights than any other nation does. I'm not sure when we all decided that we were going to ruin the sanctity of the Constitution by trashing it with a million useless little amendments, but it's got to stop. We DO have the power to destroy that brilliant political experiment in self-government that our Founders bequeathed to us some 220 years ago.

Own up to your civic duty and realize that just because we may disagree, it's not a blank check to go out and demolish all dissenting voices from having an equal piece of the pie. You still have the right NOT to marry a person of the same sex as you; will you not understand a little lesson in civics and at least insure that your neighbor has the same freedom of choice that you currently enjoy?

Respect our Constitutional Democracy; Vote NO on Prop 8.

[Alan Katz]

> I am perplexed at the lies that the yes on prop 8 campaign is telling
> and more over I can’t believe that intelligent educated people
> actually believe the lies they tell. Teachers will NOT be required to
> teach about same sex marriage to kindergarteners. Come on people. They
> aren’t now and same sex marriage is legal. Churches won’t be closed or
> sued. It is all a scare tactic from the religious right to inject
> their prejudice against another lifestyle.
>
> I am a straight Wedding Minister. I have performed around 200 same sex
> weddings and also 200 hetrosexual weddings since June 17th and if you
> could see the love that all of the couples share you would be so
> inspired. I don’t see any difference in couples who truly love each
> other. The love is the same and the law should be the same.
>
> I asked my associate who is a lead pastor of an Orange County Church
> if Jesus would Vote NO on Prop 8. The pastor said “Jesus always stood
> for the outcast and disenfranchised and asked us to support them.
> Jesus would vote NO on Prop 8 and I believe he would be dismayed by
> the people who support it in his name”
>
> Don’t let lies and prejudice stop you from honoring love. Please vote
> NO on Prop 8 and continue liberty and justice for all.
>
> Alan Katz
> Presiding Wedding Minister
> www.socalofficiant.com

[citybythebay]

I'm voting no on Proposition 8 because I believe that same-sex couples should have the same access to marriage as opposite-sex couples. I don't see any harm to heterosexual marriage or the "traditional family" if additional couples can marry, and I'm not worried that children will learn inappropriate things in school or that we'll go down a "slippery slope" of other types of marriages.

But there's an additional reason I'm voting no on Proposition 8. As a citizen of this country, I'm tired of socially conservative fundamentalist and evangelical Christians feeling entitled by their religion and their God to enact their beliefs into law. Their crusade has been going on against abortion, to force student-led prayer in public school (which really involves evangelizing at taxpayer expense to a captive audience without regard to parental consent), creationism in science class where it has no business, failed abstinence only education, and elimination of gay and lesbian people from society through a long campaign to deny gay people: fair housing, fair employment, participation in the military, custody of biological children, credentialing as teachers, educational honesty to combat the spread of AIDS, and legal recognition of long-term relationships.

Enough was enough a long time ago. In secular society, where all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, have freedom of religion and enjoy other constitutional protections against majoritarian abuse, we should not be limiting equal protection to gratify the religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, of the Mormon hierarchy in Salt Lake, the Catholic Bishops and socially conservative protestants, led by the likes of Focus on the Family.

Vote NO on Proposition 8 to say to the Christian Right that they can believe anything they want, but they have no God given right to force their beliefs on the rest of America, no matter how sincerely they believe them.

[Randy]

"In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 "Lies" television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a "teachable moment." "

"Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, told The San Francisco Chronicle that the field trip was "a teachable moment," and said she believes the field trip was justified academically. "

Google it if you think this is a lie.

The rationale that a teacher is 'highly qualified' to decide what is justified academically is exactly why parents want it made clear what a marriage is and is not.

[Julie]

Hey Sean (10/15 @ 4:47pm) - the excuse that gay marriage will confuse children everywhere about what defines a traditional family is laughable and so flawed. The American family hasn't looked like Ozzie & Harriet's for some time now - sooo you might want to start getting used to that.

Have you seen the divorce rate? Do you have any idea how many single-parent and blended families are out there? Outside of what parents teach their kids, the biggest influencers they see are along the lines Brittney Spears (an excellent role model for the traditional family) and her even younger (and now pregnant AGAIN!) sister, Jamie Lynn.

Perhaps some of you "protect heterosexual marriage" advocates should step up efforts to stop divorce and teen pregnancy if you're so concerned about what is influencing your kids.

....and now i'm going to meet my mom and girlfriend (of 10 years!) for lunch so we can decide on a menu for our May 2009 wedding! :)

[Randy]

Or, cut to the chase:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/13/EDGE13G80Q.DTL
'A lesson in political naivete' in which John Diaz explains why Gavin Newsom and his cohorts are just victims of well intentioned, but politically naive friends.

Gavin Newsom should have been learning from Barack Obama, the political savant, who has managed to suppress these kinds of awkward moments of reality from being discovered by the media.

[Fred 2008]

No one has the right to tell me who I may love or marry, just as I have no right to tell anyone else who to marry. You simply don't get a vote in my personal choice, no matter how strong your political or religious beliefs.

There were those who questioned my marriage because my wife and I are of differing ethnic backgrounds. Fortunately, this is America. No one gets to vote on my personal life. Trying to rewrite the Constitution to impose someone else's values is simply wrong.

[Nancy]

These propositions and constitucional amendments are nothing more than subtle attempts to keep religious fundamentalists in control of California's politics. They know this is a "blue state", where the majority of people will always lean Democrat and so they try and push their agenda down our throats, through these SUBTLE ways, "whether we like it or not". They're not interested in protecting marriage, they're not interested in protecting teenage girls having abortions (i'm talking, of course, about Prop. 4), they're interested in POLITICS. It's time for people in California to understand this reality.

A NO vote on Prop. 8 is the only right thing to do. Keep your fundamentalist views away from all of us.

[Martin]

For starters, I'm Canadian. Gay marriage is legal now in Canada. Guess what, the sky didn't fall. All the doomsayers have disappeared back under their rocks. It's now a non-issue, just like smoking in restaurants. What gets my goat is all the people who are anti-education. It's bad enough that so many Americans are determined to teach that silly creationism garbage in school. Dumbing down education has always been the purview of religious adherents. Now, people are arguing that teaching about homosexuality should be a parental decision. Yeah right! If we left that to parents, the same religious ninnies would leave their kids to fester in ignorance and hatred. It NEEDS to be taught in schools. Not because people are supposed to like it. Not because being gay is something their kids may choose later on (another misconception of religious ignoramuses), but because it exists, and describes anywhere from 5% to 10% of the world's population - the US included. Not to teach about homosexuality is like pretending it doesn't exist - which for some strange reason seems just fine to some people. Those people can also pretend evolution doesn't exist, global warming doesn't exist, heck - they can even pretend France doesn't exist. But they are wrong, and it is the duty of the state (sans religion) to ensure that issues faced by minorities are properly addressed in publicly funded education. Awareness about homosexuality should be taught. It should be taught that gayslesbians cannot choose their sexuality any more readily than they can choose their skin colour at birth. That's the truth. What really boggles my mind is that if religion is supposedly a choice, and if it engenders such exclusion, ignorance and hatred, why do so many people choose to be religious? PS - I'm not homosexual, but I feel for gays/lesbians every time I see a bible-thumping commercial pretending to stand up for home-style values. They make me vomit.

[Kellie]

You know what drives me crazy is all the words being described to get people to vote no on Prop 8...equality, stripped of rights. Has no one looked at the Domestic Partnership language. This is specifically for same-sex couples, not anyone else (except those over 62)....I'm going to cry DISCRIMMINATION!!!! Same-sex couples do have rights. The issue here is same-sex couples want to change the definition of the word. Doesn't make sense since marriage is considered traditional. So read up on Domestic Partnership. And, realize it's OK to vote YES on Prop 8. You really aren't taking any rights away!

FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

[Rachel]

Equal marriage rights for all.

I'm a widow, and I have three children.. My gay son should have the same chance to marry as his brother and sister. I was thrilled when the courts ruled for equal opportunities for all adult couples, and I would be very disappointed if Proposition 8 succeeds in taking away the brief breath of equality for all.

[Ricky]

Marriage isn't in any danger, and it never was. An expansion of the institution to gays only helps enhance its popularity! Come on!

As for marriage being the basis for society, that's dubious. People working with people is the basis for society. People bringing up new people occurred because people die and new people are born. Marriage occurred because a) the human race ran into the inconvenience of people getting jealous of other people and b) this jealousness was over sexual matters. Thus, matrimony was invented so that women had help when they needed help, and so men would be kept honest (sorta) when looking for women to bed, and so men would be kept relatively safe from jealous men (and women safe from jealous women), and other reasons. It was a workaround to the sexual snag in society's path, not the foundation of society. Cooperation, friendships, and mutual agreements are the bedrock of society - NOT marriage. Sorry, conservatives.

[Shauna]

I am disgusted with our society. Have we learned nothing from past discrimation?

I don't understand how this is an issue about teaching and sending children the wrong message. Children see lots of things. All people are different. Why not show children the differences....psst this proposition isn't bringing these differences to the light, they are already there. The beauty of education is that all aspects should be objectively viewed. An educated well rounded person draws their own conclusion. Hiding information or giving a narrow scope of the world does not a create an educated person. Um, besides a child learning of same sex marriage isn't going to go run off and marry someone of the same sex when they get older.

Continuing to granting same sex marriages will change nothing. It will give everyone the equal rights and equal benefits that marriage allows. That is all! Drama it up all you want. I just laugh at how ignorant some people are in this day and age. Go to church and pray for the world...This god you worship is apparently very unjust. If proposition 8 passes, lets just go on and outlaw divorce too. How about making it illegal to have children out of wedlock after that?

[Jess]

Let's help protect the children! I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman!
Vote yes on Proposition 8!

Article about children taking a field trip to watch a gay-marriage:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

www.protectmarriage.com

[Kellie]

Shauna,

As a parent, I want to be able to talk to my children on MY own terms. Not, when the schools mandate it. When my children were involved in the marriage of their aunt to her partner (in Mass. 2 years ago), it was OUR choice to decide how and when to tell our kids about it. We were able to express our own beliefs. Of course our kids were completely confused about this notion, but we were able to help them understand it from our perspective. So when you say that people have a "narrow scope" regarding this issue, you should really think about what you are saying. There's nothing 'narrow" in deciding when the appropriate time and age our children learn about issues WE think are delicate.

Children do see lots of things and it's the parents job to help them make sense of everything they are exposed to. So when you say same sex marriage will change nothing, do you not think that schools will be mandated to teach that same sex and opposite marriage are all the same, no distinction. Of course, we know from Mass. experiences that this will happen. Parents have no right to disagree with what is taught in the schools.

And, just like the past, history does re-peat itself and whatever happens in Mass. will no doubt happen here (since the main financial backers of the no on prop 8 are the ones that got it go'in in Mass.). Churches will be affected if they don't share the same belief system. They will shut down because they are not conforming to the law, adoption agencies will be forced to close down if their beliefs are challenged (see Catholic Charities Adoption in Mass.). So this is more than just "hey let's let anyone marry whoever they want." It's a much deeper issue than that. I really hope those that are on the no side really realize that much more is at stake. Rights are given to same-sex couples....it's Domestic Partnership. So the "Rights" debate is a mute point. It seems that citizens rights and beliefs are the only things that will be challenged if this doesn't pass.

So I will say again, Yes on Prop 8.

Also see this article it's very telling.

Just copy and paste.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/proposition-8-whos-really-lying/story.aspx?guid=%7B5627F03A-80C6-4259-8A81-E5D73F237D93%7D&dist=hppr

[levarfan]

Whether you are happy about it or not, gay and lesbian couples are indeed having and raising children together with or without the protections of marriage -- and many of these couples, who have to work harder to create their families than most, are the most wonderful parents imaginable. If you want to protect children, protect them by ensuring that their parents can be married. Marriage gives children security, helps their parents stay together, and, in the event of divorce, ensures that both parents remain financially and physically in their children's lives. Why should children have to suffer because some people in California don't like their parents' relationship?

[Matt]

Shauna,

My Aunt has a gay uncle who has had a partner for as long as I've known him. The problem is my mom would dance around the fact that they were gay and I always thought they were brothers. Imagine the confusion when I found out the truth! Lying to your children and hiding and dancing around the truth is very dangerous. Expect to lose trust from your kids. Expect to lose respect. Give children more credit. If you truly love your sister and your children you will. Otherwise, you make it seem like there is a reason to be ashamed of their aunt. Maybe you are ashamed of her, I don't know. That would be sad.

Let me tell you that it feels awful to feel like you are not good enough for your family because of something you cannot change. I am half-Black and half-White, and have been made to feel this way by my family before. My Black uncle treated me like I was less because I was half-White (which he considers me as all-White. Definitely made me feel inferior and question what other Black people thought of me. Was I good enough for them? Do you want to do this to your sister, or maybe even your kids who may be gay? If you do, you should really re-examine your views.

I recently saw SPRING AWAKENING and it underlines the dangers of parents lying or withholding the truth from their children and the awful consequences that follow. Gays are in this world and they are normal, healthy, loving people--not deviants or perverts out to get your children. Your argument is like saying, "Look, I know that it snows in some parts of the world, but I don't want my children to find that out in school. I want to tell them when I feel the time is right and when I feel they are ready to know," and as a parent, you do have that right...it's just ridiculous. Gay people are there, they don't have any affect on you. What are you so afraid of?

[Nancy]

Consequences of Prop. 8 passing:

* A state constitution will now have language in it that says that everyone is equal except one group of people.
* Fundies will be emboldened to try to change the constitution to remove more civil rights from gay people.
* Other hate groups will get the idea that discrimination can be written into the constitution, including against women and minorities
* Children of existing gay families will lose the right to health care
* Existing gay families will lose the legal protections afforded married couples, including the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, the right to take over the legal affairs of your spouse if they become incapacitated, etc.
* Long legal battles that will waste the state's money will ensue as civil rights groups move to reverse Prop. 8 and have it declared illegal.
* The State of California will lose millions in revenue from hosting gay weddings (read the legislative analyst report)
* Churches and religious institutions will not have any protection from legal restrictions or requirements, unless they are state-funded.
* Schools will not be stopped from "teaching" homosexuality since educational curriculums are decided by local authorities and have nothing to do with the state constitution
* California will have made a strong statement saying that Hate is OK - this may be the worst effect of all. We will reap the rewards of encouraging hate, which are societal dischord and unrest, and breaking the contract people expect with our country which is that we are all treated equally with respect under the law.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Hate is not a family value.

[Syngpibear]

Just a few things to chew on about Prop.8...this is a story from the NPR website about the clashes between gay rights and religious groups or people with religious views - cases that have already happened or are being debated at this time. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
This is why so many religious people have a problem with allowing the definition of marriage to change. Because so far, in every case that has already been decided, gay rights have trumped religious freedom.
So now, in the interest of granting rights to one group of people, another group of people are being forced to either give up their religious tenets or face serious backlash for denying services or rights to gays, based on their religious beliefs. In essence, religious freedom (guaranteed by the US constitution) is being trampled in order to grant rights to gay people. Changing the definition of marriage would only give gay rights activists more ammunition to bring against any foundation, religion, or individual who does not support their lifestyle.
I'm not saying that every gay person out there would immediately run to people who view homosexuality as a sin, demand a service, and sue when refused. But there are orginizations who might, who could, just to prove a point (I direct you to the North Coast Women's Group case - the lesbian couple were directed to another doctor, who agreed to take the case, but they sued anyway. And won. And the doctor was told to find a new profession).
If we religious people could have the assurance that it would stop at granting gay people the right to marry, it would not be such an issue. But it won't stop there.
I know people are going to say that I am bigoted, that I am hateful, that suing churches and people who pratice their religion is a good thing. But before you say that, consider this: the official definition of the word "bigot" is: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. (www.dictionary.com). So all of you out there who refuse to even consider another's opinion because it's based on their religion, I ask you this: Who is really the bigot? Those of you calling us "narrow-minded", "intolerant", "hateful" - those words could apply to anyone who views religion as bull, and uses that as an excuse to hate on anyone expressing their views supporting Prop. 8.
I don't hate gay people. I have friends who are gay - one of them is my favorite boy in the world. He's been a friend of mine since I was 8. I don't hate him. I love him like a brother. He knows my views, and while he doesn't agree, he doesn't hate me, either. He understands the way I feel about this, just as I understand the way he feels. But because neither one of us will ever convice the other, we have agreed to disagree.
Gay couples will not lose any of the rights they have under California law as civil unions - as noted below:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

So why oppose it? Because changing that word opens the door for changing a lot of other things - including religious freedom, already in our constitution. Try the links. See what you think. Vote YES on 8!!

[VJohnson]

Forget the rhetoric about who thinks who is wicked. There are practical and real religious freedom consequences. Check out this website www.prop8info.com. It has real news clips about real consequences, including Catholic Charities withdrawing adoption services from MA. This is not rhetoric or predictions, this is factual.

[Martin]

People on this blog just don't get it. They think it's about religious groups having to give something up. It isn't. In fact, it's preposterous to suggest that anyone voting actually has a RIGHT to deny another group (gays/lesbians) a fundamental right. Marriage isn't owned by religious groups. It isn't owned by straight people. Sure, the catholic church used marriage to control people for hundreds of years. And yes, the church used to be more powerful (as well as more corrupt, amoral, cruel and indifferent to suffering). The idea that any 'church' should determine who can and who cannot marry is ludicrous. They can have final say on who THEY will allow to marry, but marriage exists outside of religion, people. In Canada, no church has been forced to marry gay or lesbian couples. State officials who conduct marriages MUST perform for all couples, regardless of gender. If they cannot, they lose their right to do so. That is fair. Nobody should be conducting marriages on behalf of the state if they are unable to separate their possible religious feelings from their professional duties. As for the comments of Shauna, she seems able to rationalize her prejudices to suit any set of circumstances. Discussing gay marriage isn't as 'delicate' a subject as she purports. Gays exist. Marriage exists. Gays can marry just like anyone else. Hell, a grade 4 student can comprehend that. Shauna would have everyone believe it's a slippery slope or something, but it really isn't. It's just acknowledging that gays are tax-paying, hard-working, family-oriented and deserving of ALL the same rights and priveleges that everyone else has, not some watered-down pejorative called 'civil union' or similar crap.

[Elizabeth Stark]

I've been blogging about this topic, among other things. Most recently: "Everything I Know About Gay Marriage, I Learned in Kindergarten." I am AMAZED that people feel justified in denying me my civil rights for the supposed benefit of their own marriages. Your grandchildren will think nothing of the fact that gay people can get married, but they are going to be horrified and embarrassed that you opposed our right to do so.

I understand that you are afraid, but that is not the place from which to make your decisions.

And by the way, my children would be surprised to hear that gay people don't have children or don't deserve to grow up in a family that is recognized by the state in the same way as heterosexual families.

[Gwen Lee]

If you're undecided on California's Proposition 8, would it help to see how in Massachusetts the little school-age children are being given packets that show two men living together as normal and natural?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

Here is a great site that explains why a Yes vote on this Proposition is so very important:

http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

[A.M. Gomberg]

The voter guide says the cost of Proposition 8 (Marriage Protection-Gay marriage) “Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.” However, there has been a cost to society of gay sex in the past 25 years. In recent decades, we have witnessed the most exorbitant new price associated with gay sex: the H.I.V. virus. Because AIDS is potentially deadly and because it can be spread relatively easily by sex between two men, the onset of AIDS in the 1980s caused a significant increase in the price of gay sex. The future cost of this lifestyle? Possibly the millions toward medical research for AIDS could have cured cancer, or any number of other illnesses.

The authors of Sex in America say. “Although AIDS can be transmitted to anyone in America it will likely remain a predominantly homosexual, IV-drug-abusing, and transfusion-related syndrome—with the female partners and their unborn children at risk as well.”

One might hope that the gay sexual lifestyle would change with gay marriage. Studies don’t support any such constraint. A 1981 study revealed that only 2 percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous—generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners. (A.P. Bell,Sexual Preference, Indiana University Press, 1981)

The Male Couple, (D. McWhirter,A. Mattison, Prentice Hall, 1984) is a carefully researched study of the most stable homosexual pairs, researched and written by two authors who are themselves a homosexual couple, a psychiatrist and a psychologist. They report that of a hundred male couples who had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. They conclude their study: “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for homosexual couples and the exception for heterosexuals.” (Google McWhirter and Mattison for facts)

Society’s concern about Proposition 8 is the general lifting of sexual constraint. The gay-lifestyle unfortunately involves unconstrained sexual activity. The gay political movement over the past 30 years has made an unusual effort to deny this and present their lifestyle as natural, unchangeable, normal.

A.M Gomberg, Santa Barbara

[josh]

All these obese people at a higher risk for disease are costing a lot of money with their poor eating habits. All that money could have gone to something more important. Do you ban obese people from eating poorly or do you educate them to eat safely? What kind of society would you rather live in?

The truth is, gays marrying will not harm you in any way except threaten your bigotry. Do you really want to hold onto that?

[Benny Varkel]

I have been reading several posts that argue Prop 8 is to restore marriage. I am in a so-called "traditional " marriage and do not fear gay marriage.

Stealing yard signs is wrong. Sending blackmail letter to No on Prop 8 supporters is wrong.

The crux of this issue is that Prop 8 is a civil rights issue period. In the General Ellection official voter information guide, page 54, the headline reads as follows:

"Proposotion 8 - Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

If this is not discrimination, I do not know what is! I voted against Prop 22 in 2000 and the courts upheld my views that the majority does not have the right to eliminate the rights of minorities’.

I believe that this all stated with out of state religious interest groups wanting to rule the land. DO NOT LET THEM. VOTE NO ON 8. YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT.

[LoveIsEqual]

I see people talking about the school children being taken to their lesbian teacher’s wedding as yet another excuse for voting yes on Prop 8! What you DO NOT see from the Yes on 8 camp is that they completely LIED about the circumstances surrounding this field trip! FACTS: 1) The idea for this field trip came from one of the children’s parents. 2) The school asked for and received PARENTAL PERMISSION to take the children on this field trip!!! All but TWO parents granted permission and for the two that did NOT, their children REMAINED IN SCHOOL and did NOT go on the field trip! Yet another lie spread by the bigots supporting Prop 8 discrimination!

See:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

If you have doubts or do your own research. The YES on 8 bigots will come up with anything including outright lies to trick people into voting yes on this unfair proposition!

Another fact: the YES on 8 camp sent letters of intimidation to companies who made their support Clear for NO on 8 and tried to DEMAND that these companies make contributions to their side. Another example of the low level to which bigots will stoop to further their agenda of bigotry and intolerance.

See the AP article: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD940GN1G0

Amending the Constitution to remove rights from a group of people is wrong and it violates the very intent of the Constitution.

Please vote NO on Prop 8!

[Mike]

The yes on 8 people cannot be swayed with information or logic instead they only worry about their own disgust of homosexual sex and unfortunately they are not a rational nor logical group.

I am not gay but I am not in any way bothered by them marrying the person they love, gay and lesbian people deserve the same consideration as anyone else to live their lives as they see fit.

[IT]

I'm so tired about the lies about Prop8 from the Prop8 proponents.

Since the state does not require fertility tests to marry, and moreover does not dissolve the marriages of the non-fecund, we cannot and do not limit marriage to the biologically fertile. Moreover many gay couples are raising children (about 25% of the gay households in CA have kids). Don't they deserve equal protection?

Second, there will be no sudden change in the "acceptance" or "teaching" of homosexuality based on Prop8's defeat. Your child may still have a gay teacher. Your child may sit next to a student with two dads. Your teen may have a friend who is coming out. The idea that there is a sudden watershed changing this, is completely false. It's not as though we are all going back in the closet if it passes, folks. We're still here, we're still partnered, and we still ahve families, and you STILL can't discriminate against us.

I find it outrageous that the "protect marriage" troops somehow feel that it is legitimate for them to discriminate, and moreover, somehow they feel that THEY are discriminated against unless MY RIGHTS are impeded.

WHOSE MARRIAGE ARE WE GOING TO VOTE ON NEXT?