Backing Prop. 8 in enemy territory

St. Victor's Catholic Church is considered fairly liberal -- and that makes sense given its location in the heart of West Hollywood. But with the ballot measure on gay marriage in California about to be voted on, the church finds itself in the center of controversy. According to WeHo News, some members are vocal about opposition to same-sex unions:

Known for its feeding of the homeless, which causes the surrounding neighborhood problems with those congregants, as well as its long-time pro-life stance in one of the most pro-choice cities in America, this past weekend found parishioners at tables in front of the church disseminating anti-gay marriage literature. They did so on National Coming Out Day, enraging one gay neighbor. Sam Borelli, that neighbor, reported his outrage over the symbolism represented by allowing such a campaign on a church’s property, especially a church with a reputation for its openness to gays and that proclaims on its website."

St Victor's website is indeed very welcoming: "We seek to follow the Lord and live the good news--the gospel--according to our ancient Catholic tradition. We welcome all, regardless of race, nationality, gender, socio-economic class or sexual orientation. We believe in the power of the gospel to transform our lives and society around us, even in the most cosmopolitan of settings. We are a city on a hill. We are the light of the world. We are the salt of the earth."

--Shelby Grad

Comments

[Jason]

I recently had the opportunity to have a conversation with a group of supporters of PROPOSITION 8 in California. If you're not familiar with it, this initiative would amend the California State Constitution to include specific wording that would eliminate the possibilities of gay citizens from enjoying the rights of marriage in that state.

Now, regardless of your personal views on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex attraction, there must be red flags flying up for you like they are for me. It seems strange that there is a movement to knowingly remove and prohibit the rights of a specific group of people…what century are we in?

Thanks to this conversation I have come to realize that may of the supporters of this initiative have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE SUPPORTING! Here is a brief history of the issue and why this is on the ballot this year.

The whole GAY MARRIAGE issue began when gay couples wanted to take advantage of certain TAX incentives in the law that had been reserved for "married" couples. After unsuccessfully suing for the rights, they began to seek "equal treatment" under the law and marriage rights (so as to unlock the incentives in the law). This was quickly squashed by the Conservative Right and the option of "CIVIL UNION" was born. This was to be an alternative to marriage and was supposed to make the way clear for GAYS to have the same rights as everyone else. Well, it wasn't long before the truth came out.

When the gay community stepped up to claim their "new" rights under the civil union act they were surprised to find out that little, if nothing had actually changed. You see, the tax incentives and others laws that Gays had been denied due to marriage status had not been resolved. Law makers were quick to point out that the "wording of the law" made it clear that one must be "legally married" to access these rights. The gay community was livid and the battle lines were drawn.

The politicians said it would be too difficult to rewrite the 1000's of laws to include the phrase "domestic partnership/civil union" so the gay community jumped right back on the "GAY MARRIAGE" band wagon.

This really is a rights issue…even if the Conservative Right wants to make it an "end of days" issue. The government had the chance to give equal rights and protection to the gay community and they didn't.

As a gay man, in a committed relationship, I don't need the government's permission to "be married" but I do need their permission to take advantage of over 1000 laws and incentives reserved for "married" couples. As far as I'm concerned, the world can keep their broken system of "marriage"…just give me the rights, freedom, and dignity you give everyone else.

Why is the government involved in marriage anyway? When marriage started it was between the couple and God (overseen by the church). Not until TAXES were introduced to the world did the government get involved. Once there was potential for fraud, the governments made it their business to know who was married to who…and the rest is history. At its core, marriage is a contract between two people; not two people and the government.

Gay marriage would not be an issue if the government was really "no respecter of persons" as it purports to be. As long as the citizens pay their taxes what does it matter who they're married to? This in no way effects inter-state commerce, or border defense. It is counter to the charter of this country to even be having this debate…and yet here we are; victims of the Hysterical Religious Right.

Enough is enough. If you have any influence, or a vote in California, make it your mission to send a message that GAY MARRIAGE is not the business of the government and has no place (for or against) in the constitution. VOTE NO on 8.

[Scott]

VERY well said Jason, you are my new hero. What century are we in indeed; this shouldn't even be on people's radar screens.

People can donate to battle this travesty here: https://secure.ga4.org/01/adchallenge?source=emailb

Donations made before midnight tonight are matched (doubled).

Good luck to us all!

[Monica]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Vote Yes on Prop 8!

[Laura]

To be clear the “over 1000 laws and incentives reserved for "married" couples.” -- Jason references are primarily laws/protections/benefits only available at the federal level not at the state level.

To this day, The Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton is what continues to block same sex partners from receiving any of the federal benefits associated with marriage and Prop 8 doesn’t change that one way or the other.

As for state benefits:

“California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “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 another provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Moris A. Thurston

Homosexual CA legislators have worked very hard to incrementally pass laws to ensure domestic partners have those rights and protections.

From the LA Times itself:

“No matter what voters decide this November on same-sex marriage, the election will not change one fact: Over the last decade, California has become the nation's leader in providing legal protections to gays and lesbians.”

“During its most recent session, the Legislature -- which now includes five openly gay members -- approved five more gay civil rights bills, bringing the total in the last 10 years to 50.”

“The progress has been so substantial, Kors said, that "the vast bulk of achieving equality for LGBT people legislatively has been accomplished in California."

So to be clear, those who inviting others to vote YES on 8, are not doing so with the intent to yank anyone’s rights away -- but to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

[teri]

I don't get it...who really cares who marries who? I do not see how it can effect anybody that is not involved in the marriage. If two men or two women want to marry so be it. The marriage is between them and their God. If you believe it is against God's will, they will meet their fate with him. If you don't believe it is against God, then I guess they will see a smile when they meet their maker.

About the only people that have not faced some sort of discrimination are the straight white men of the country...everyone else should know the injustice of discrimination and should set out to make sure nobody else is denied every right our constitution allows.

Although I do not believe our schools will be encouraging boys to marry boys and girls to marry girls...kids should always be taught all their rights. It is up to the parents to then teach their own children what is and isn't in line with their own moral and religious beliefs. Just because we don't believe in something doesn't mean it is wrong for someone else...Only their God can judge them.

[Gerri]

Please leave your Faith out of everyone's legal rights. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. This is why my family - my husband, my two teenage daughters and I are doing everything in our power to defeat Prop 8. We believe that love, hope and commitment make this world a better place.

In my own lifetime I've known individuals forced to switch to right-handedness, because being left-handed was the 'sign of the devil'. Demonizing homosexuality makes as much sense. Vote No on 8.

[Steve]

I am voting for Prop 8 because government should not take away the right of children to a mother and father. I understand that not every child has a mother and father for a variety of reasons, but those are due to choices and circumstance, not laws. It is not right for the government to tell future generations that they do not have the right to the relationships that all past generations have had. I am unaware of other anytime in recorded history when such a right has been denied by government decree.

[Steve]

One comment about faith and politics: Everyone is influenced by their faith and beliefs, or lack of faith and beliefs. Every law is a statement of morality. It is impossible to completely separate them. Love, hope and commitment do make this world a better place, but that does not mean that recognizing gay marriage, and thereby denying future generations the inherent right to a father and mother, will make the world a better place. The domestic partners act accomplished the best government could offer without taking away the rights of children. We should go back to that standard.

In my experience, I have found that Prop 8 supporters are well educated about their position, and considered both sides carefully, as did I, before making a decision.

[Douglas Urbanski]

...odd that St. Victor's is referred to as "liberal"! There seems this odd wish that somehow St. Victor's is an island and in some way separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Hey everyone: St. Victors is a Roman Catholic Church!! What on earth did you think?

[Brian]

I'm a Yes on 8. This is about the definition of Marriage.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Prior to the overturned vote/law which now allows gay marriage, there was no coup to take away same sex unions or domestic partnerships. They were accepted and tolerated. It is now, only since the re-definition of marriage, that we now have Prop 8.

As stated by Gerri, she make 2 great points I will echo.
1. "This is a democracy"...so why let the judges overturn what was already voted on democratically? Well here we go, we get to do it again and see what our democracy decides.
2. And this is why my family and two children are doing everything in our power to pass Prop 8.

Faith has been the foundation of our great country and traditional families have
been the strength our society.

[Todd]

From what I understand, it is true that same sex couples registered as domestic partners get the same exact rights as married couples in California.
So why is there this push to redefine the concept of marriage to include same-sex couples? It is only for one reason: that some people want to force their view on everyone else- the view that same-sex relationships ought to be on par with one woman/one man marital relationships. It isn't a rights issue.

What is going on here is that some citizens are trying to destroy an institution that has been the building block of civilizations for thousands of years. Why? To force the government and others to "affirm/accept" their point of view.

Proposition 8 would not be necessary if there wasn't first an attack on this incredibly important element of our culture and society. Proposition is a defensive act against the offensive maneuvers of judges and special interest groups.

[Mathew]

A question to those of you who are trying to legalize same-sex marriage- it seems that one of your main arguments is that one ought not prohibit two people who love each other from getting married just because they are of the same sex.

I have heard others pick at this argument by saying things like:
- Why are you (those who are pro same-sex marriage) discriminating against people who want to marry multiple partners, who want to have relationships with individuals younger than 18, who want to marry members in their family, etc.?

It does seem like a good point. If the force of your argument hinges on the "why discriminate against people who love each other" statement, how come you don't argue for the right to marry for anyone who has a loving relationship with anyone/thing, etc.? How could you not, yet that view does seem pretty absurd, yet logically unavoidable.

Maybe I am missing something, but it doesn't seem like a good argument. Are there better ones or is this it?

[Gilbert]

I am for Yes on Prop 8. How can anyone tell me to "keep my faith out of it" or "who cares" God created man and woman and the first couple were not homosexual. Not that what God has ordained matters to those advocating same sex marriage. No matter how this turns out I must do my part and side with what God has ordained not what some person who has adopted the humanistic religious philosphy of moral relativism, wants to believe. The Bible Boldly proclaims that God is a God of truth and there is no ambiguity. If the previous writer doesn't care that is his or her decision, I've decided that when I meet my maker,the God of creation, I will not regret that I voted to side on His side. So my faith is firmly in Him and He has not failed yet. The Lord is faithful and His truths continue to stand firm irrespective of the moral or political tides.

[David]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the foundation of the most crucial social unit that exists: the family. Destroying the sacred nature of marriage will do more to destroy the very fabric of our society than we think. Families have been under attack for a very long time. We are bombarded with poor role models and the acceptance of failing homes. Parenthood outside of marriage has become an almost admirable situation. Our society has suffered a great deal. After years of attacks from the outside, this one will strike deep. When marriage means nothing, the family will dissolve. It may take years, but we will pay dearly. Edmund Burke said ""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The line is drawn here. It is time to take sides. YOU will forever remember where you stand now. We either defend the family or are accomplices in its execution. Vote yes on prop 8.

[Chad]

This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have been quick to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with prejudice - in fact, the campaign to protect marriage between a man and a woman has been conducted with kindness, humanity and respect for those of other viewpoints - while respecting the right to stand for what we know to be true: that marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of society since the beginning of time and provides the best vehicle for rearing children, that those who engage in homosexual behavior already have domestic partnerships with the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses, and that same-sex marriage represents a real threat to a parent's freedom to prevent their children from being subjected to state-sponsored classroom indoctrination in behavior and values they feel are wrong and harmful to thier children.

[TruthHound]

I guess your "spam filter" won't post my comment, because it's pro-proposition 8. How very clever, balanced and TOLERANT of you. Oh, well. It will pass anyway.

[Jebon]

This is AMERICA and we DO NOT legislate RELIGION.

If the CHURCH wants to discriminate that is FINE. But the GOVERNMENT is a secular entity that provides EQUAL PROTECTION under the LAW.

KEEP GOD AND CHRISTIANITY OUT OF THE LAW

You are not the only religious group in this country, and by god you do NOT dictate the law.

[Laura]

Hi Terri,

I think your questions are valid -- I personally take no issue with children being taught that some people experience same gender attraction. But what concerns me, is that our society will no longer distinguish between taking a homosexual life path or a heterosexual one. Calling same sex partnerships marriages obscures what I think is an important distinction -- which is, in choosing a homosexual relationship, one is choosing a partnership that simply cannot result in being able to create life together.

Perhaps that doesn’t mean much when your 15 but it does to many people latter on in life. If one has already chosen a same gendered partnership -- then there is yet another dilemma to be later on encountered -- whatever and however you bring a child into the relationship, this child will either not have a mother (in the case of gays) or a father (in the case of lesbians) and surely this is another difficult concern that shouldn’t be ignored.

So one of the reasons I personally am voting YES on 8 is because, I want these two life paths to remain distinct because they are different and there are many of us whose sexuality is fluid enough to have both options to chose from. I think teens still developing their sexual identity should grow up in a society where these differences are clear.

[Steve]

If people of the same sex are allowed to marry, why can't I marry my brother, or my sister or my mother? Seriously, why not? Why can't my whole family marry each other? THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT to say who I can marry, or how many people I can marry. Mormons should be allowed to marry as many people as they wish. They are all CONSENTING adults! Who are we to impose our idea of marriage on them? This isn't fair. Why is the definition of marriage so narrow?

[dick bohanon]

i dont understand denying rights to those who have done nothing to be denied rights.
what about the exclusion clause in the constitution?
why is defining marriage so rigidly so important?
would the money spend on this election have been better spent on
pre and marriage counseling?
aren't the highest divorce rates where the anti-gays are the strongest?
why do you lose rights for being gay?
if you hate gays,thats your problem.
dont make it everyone else's

[TruthHound]

It's my observation that the push for gay marriage has less to do with something the homosexual lobby wants to GAIN than something they want to DEPRIVE of those of us with traditional family values. The destruction of marriage itself is their goal. Just like the destruction of the Boy Scouts.

If anything that society offers doesn't reflect a 100% ACCEPTANCE of their lifestyle, it must be dismantled. Tolerance of those being gay is now not enough. Acceptance is not enough. Absolution > endorsement > promotion > encouragement. That is their goal.

To put it bluntly, this and future generations MUST be indoctrinated that the GENDER of their chosen mate should be of NO consideration or consequence.

They will legislate your morality and castigate you for any resistance.

This is happening now.

What I have witnessed of many who oppose Prop 8 is that they honestly believe we will change our minds if we are called hick, knuckle-dragging, Nazi HATERS often and loudly enough. This tactic is only backlashing and adding to the MAJORITY OPINION that the 3,000-year-old definition of marriage should remain as between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

FWIW, my own brother was gay (died of AIDS in 1989). Through him, I was able to witness the social circle that DOES try to recruit others into their "lifestyle." He and many of his friends openly acknowledged that this lifestyle WAS A CHOICE for them at least. I have another lesbian friend who is that way only because she was brutally raped by a man when she was younger. As heretical as the gay lobby will call these facts, SOME are gay by choice. And subjecting children to alternative social circles as part of SCHOOL CURRICULUM during their formative and sexually vulnerable years is unconscionable. This is happing in the Massachusetts public schools with no permission or recourse available to the parents of those kids. We will be next, leading to nation-wide indoctrination of our youth. Believe it.

We can stop this culture-bending train that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom so arrogantly proclaims will happen "whether we like it or not!"

VOTE YES on Prop 8.

[SeaMex]

Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit Jews and Mormons from marrying. Does this sound right?

Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying.

What will be next?

Please vote NO on prop 8

[JasonJack]

So, let's look at a law we should all agree should be upheld.

How about shoplifting being illegal? That's a good law. We may quibble about the penalties, but it is a good law.

Where did this law come from? The ten commandments, "Thou shalt not steal." Do we quibble with the law because it appears to also appear in the ten commandments? No, of course not. In fact, we lack penalties against most of the commandments (which is a debate for another time).

The question that is what this all boils down to is
"Is prop 8 helpful to society?"

No matter what you believe about the bible, it makes it clear that Gays have been around since at least the time of Moses (Moses wrote Genesis). Also, by the same logic, the marriage covenant prominent in Judeo-Christian society, and in other ones has been around as long.

Until fairly recently, the primary purpose of marriage was a legal/economic bond, meant to produce children. The actual addition to express love was added more recently. So I think we would all agree that that has now changed. Even if I was infertile, I would want desperately to be married to someone I love.

But why is the link between marriage and childbearing important? Studies show again and again that a Father and Mother provide a stronger basis for society. Part of this is because the religious culture of marriage is one where you stick it out, thru thick and thin. You love and serve and help each other.

Something else has changed recently…divorce has become rampant in society. So this link that protects children is being dissolved.
If I was unable to bear a child, I still would want that link to allow me to protect my wife who I love.

I will find this, if someone is crazy enough to want me. That won’t be impacted by the vote November 4th. So I would protect my children if I received with such a responsibility in the future.
So growing up I had to sort through the pain of divorce I saw not directly but indirectly to decide this is what I wanted. Some make my choice, some make others, such as living together with or without children without the big commitment. As I already explained, marriage with these promises are the best way for children to grow up, by far.

Now, I’ve made my choice, but the rising generation has not. The problem with Gay marriage is it says nothing about this Judeo-Christian promise–again, regardless of what you believe, the bible makes it clear that there is a dislike of Gays by the former of this bond, be it God or some wise man, so we can’t equate the two relationships as being equal.

So, if Gay marriage happens, the bond will fade more from culture…and once the bond goes away, marriage will not be important. Childbearing will be next to go, as people are able to avoid this and simply have careers. Childbearing and child rearing are obviously essential for our society to continue to prosper.

So by making things equivalent, which are not, Marriage will die.

Don’t believe me? Finland has Gay Marriage and one of the lowest overall marriage rates in the world. As far as childbearing goes there is an Average of 2.1 people per household, which is not good for society.

So people who face this attraction face a lonely road, as it is generally unacceptable for some of the reasons I described. It is a trial. Now if you are like me, I believe they can stay chaste. For those of you who aren’t that optimistic, California already has Gay protection laws, that do NOT interfere with marriage.

I encourage everyone to protect the value of this bond and vote YES on Prop 8.

[Holly]

Only marriage between a man and a woman provides children with everything they need to grow up to be healthy, productive adults. Prop 8 is about our children growing up in healthy families. Those who oppose Prop 8 are putting their narrow interests ahead of the great good.

[Bill]

Vote No on Prop 8.

California can't afford prop 8 (because it will cost us millions) nor can we afford the politics of hate. Blacks should be allowed to marry, interracial coupes should be allowed to marry -- don't let the state legislate marriage.

[Terrell]

PROP 8 is about taking away rights.

VOTE NO on PROP 8 and don't take away anyone's rights.

[Henry Tabatha]

Why prohibit same-sex marriage, when there’s so much divorce, single-parenthood, and hours-long celebrity “marriages”? If marriage is so sacred, why not campaign against those practices?

Simple. If laws were being proposed, or judges ruled, that the state should recognize and endorse these practices as equal to traditional marriage, and proponents were seeking for legal protection that considers denouncing these practices, as hate-speech, the backlash would be far more intense than anything seen by the Yes on 8 campaign.

In fact, Yes on 8 IS a campaign against divorce, poverty, and child abuse that results from the cheapening of marriage that occurs by offering it to everyone who loves each other. And allowing same-sex marriages is NOT equality for all.

[Beckie]

A Yes Vote On 8 = Discrimination.

Literature publlished by the Yes on 8 Campaign includes this line - "Restore Marriage".
Restoring Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not same sex couples are allowed to legally marry or not. The current rate of divorce is 60%! Over half the Heterosexual couples that marry are divorcing! Our gay brothers and sisters have had nothing to do with this statistic.
Restore Marriage? Direct that at the heterosexual couples that have created the divorce rate of today.

Another line - "Protect Marriage"
My marriage is not threatened by same sex marriage. I have nothing to fear in my own marriage when same sex loving and committed couples wed.

Another line - "children will be taught about same sex marriage in school". NOT TRUE. There is no mandated marriage curriculum in the State of California. Divorce is legal in our state and has been for years. Is there divorce curriculum? No.

Prop 8 is an effort by those that feel they have a closer ear to God (Catholic Church, Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, Focus on the Family, American Family Research Council etc.) desiring to write DISCRIMINATION into our State constitution. I will not be a part of that.

VOTE NO ON 8.

[Gay Parents are Ok]

Holly, you clearly don't know the gay couples I know. There is no way they are any less of good parents. Honestly, you should spend a weekend with a gay couple and their kids and I think you will change your mind. Your attitude seems very superior to me.

[Bob]

No on 8!! I want to marry my sheep! And I have a friend that wants to marry his cousin! And I know another that wants to marry a watermelon! No on 8!!

[Whit]

Anyone who says "take God out of the law" has not read the Constitution of the United States OR the Declaration of Independence. Please refer to the founding principles of our country and try again. Thanks. Yes on 8.

[Karen]

Last month I married my long time partner, Michelle, in a ceremony at the courthouse. Her parents, who by the way are straight, were there to support us. My adult children, who by the way are also straight, were there. My 86 year old mother was there.. Many of our friends, gay and straight, were there.

I just want to say THANK YOU to all of you, gay and straight, who supported us in our marriage. THANK YOU to the people who helped make our legal marriage possible. THANK YOU to all of you who are out there everyday fighting against the bigotry and hatred that these so called "Christians" are spewing.

Prop 8 is about DENYING CIVIL RIGHTS. Dont try to lie and say its about "protecting children" "Protecting families". Thats bull. Its about writing discrimination into the law. Plain and simple.

VOTE NO ON PROP 8. STOP THE HATE.

[Karen]

Bob,

be careful...your ignorance is showing..

[Dexter]

I appreciate the opportunity to read some of the arguments for both sides on the issue.

First God, religion, and our founding documents:
With repect to the Declaration of Independence, there are two references to God. The first refers to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God in the context of the citizens of the colonies having the right to declare their independence from England. The second refers to other rights granted by the Creator: Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
With respect to the Constitution, absent amendments thereto, our Constitution has no references to God, church, Creator, Supreme Being, etc. The First Amendment includes only the following reference to religion (not God): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." This statement expressly counters any argument that the Constitution supports the canon of any specific set of religious sects.
If noting that there are God references in these documents is supposed to imply our founding fathers specifically looked to religion to establish our laws, that implication is simply not supportable. On the other hand, if the implication is that no church can dictate any law in the United States, then I agree. The implication being, with respect to Prop 8, that marriage as defined by any number of religious sects cannot dictate how the state defines marriage.

Second, the wishes of the majority:
With respect to majority rule, judges making laws from the bench, etc.: when the supreme court, be that state or US, finds against state or federal law, they always reach that decision based on the finding that one party's rights, as defined by the Constitution, are being violated by the law enacted by the majority. Though this is "legislating from the bench," our nation needs this function to protect the rights of the minority. One obvious example is the 1967 US Supreme Court decision (Love), that struck down laws against interracial marriage. The argument of the Ca. Supreme Court judges in the minority on the prop 22 ruling relied on the concept of letting the electorate decide. These judges would support the legality the enslavement of 63 year-olds with one blue and one brown eye if the majority of the voting public passed a ballot proposition allowing the practice.

Third, homosexual recruitment:
If I'm being recruited for something that I'm not inclined to participate in I have the free will to decline. If I'm 4'11, 130 lbs and the recruiter is 6'2 185 lb, that's not recruitment, that's force... and the perpitrator should be punished. However, let's face it, all of us lie within a sexual spectrum whose extremes are heterosexuality and homosexuality. While the majority of us lie at one extreme or the other, those nearer the middle of the spectrum might vacillate between homo and heterosexuality several times in their lives. Recruitment is irrelevant to the prop 8 argument.

Fourth, a child's right to a mother and a father:
This is probably the most baffling argument in favor proposition 8. By ruling that Ca. must legally recognize homosexual marriages, how does that remove the right of children to be raised by a father and a mother (circumstance permitting)? The actual amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see 'child,' 'right,' 'mother,' or 'father' in the text. Then, is this really an argument to forbid homosexual couples from adopting? Better yet, is it an argument against letting homosexual couples raise their own children, regardless of how those children were conceived? A delicate issue that leads to my next topic...

Fifth, homosexual couples raising children:
Documented evidence (scientific paper, peer reviewed papers) that children being raised by a mother and father "turn out better" than those raised by 2 fathers or 2 mothers would have to be presented
The majority of recent studies have found " no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation." They also found the children sometimes faced stigmatization, which is not an issue related to rearing.
This data, coupled with countless successes in child rearing by single parents, older siblings, etc., undermines the argument that the state should forbid child rearing by same sex couples because these couples cannot or do not provide a good child rearing environment. Success lies not in the gender of the parents but in the commitment to child rearing.

Sixth, our laws coming from the 10 Commandments:
Are we to believe that before Moses received the 10 Commandments from God, it was ok to steal? Better yet, are we to believe that no culture prior to that time or no culture not exposed to the Commandments could have possibly forbidden stealing?

Seventh, forced to deal with gay marriage:
As it happens, in this life we're "forced" to deal with things in this world that we don't like but that DO NOT AFFECT OUR LIVES IN ANY MATERIAL WAY. My former brother-in-law loves to yell at the TV when watching an MLB game. I watch elsewhere. In approving the legality of homosexual marriage, the Court is not forcing anyone to like the union... it is forcing California law not to discriminate against the union.

Eighth, redefining marriage:
The fact of the matter is that different cultures have different definition of marriage. In my view legalizing homosexual marriage does redefine marriage legally, but not religiously.

Finally, the conclusion... sorry about being so long winded.
The arguments in favor of proposition 8 present considerable heartfelt beliefs... but no facts. Proposition 8 arguably discriminates against a group of people, a group the vast majority of whom do not select their circumtance. The question for those whose right to legal marriage is not about to be denied: how would we feel if the tables were turned?

[Chesley]

Does anyone remember the Racial Integrity Act of 1924? You know.. the act that prohibited blacks from marrying whites?

Now, are we moving backwards or forwards?

Equality for all... even people that aren't like you!

[Children are the Issue]

To the Prop 8 people concerned about this effecting their children, I'm with you. When I think about how my children have been effected by the legailization of interracial marriage, it makes me sick. My daughter has actually got it in her head she has a right to marry a white man. Scares the begeebers out of me! Might end up with some half mixed child that could grow up and think he can become President or something. What next, she'll think she can marry some tool-kit, toting lesbo and have kids that learn how to build houses?

[Benny Varkel]

Don't discriminate. VOT NO ON 8

[Peter Marlow]

Proposition 8 does not will not take away anyone's rights. It is not a civil rights issue nor is it a religious issue. Some people mistakenly think that couples should have rights. This is wrong. Our constitution is based on the concept of individual rights. There is no provision for “couples’ rights.” All individuals already had equal rights before our flawed Supreme Court ruling. Any person could have married another of the opposite gender, gays included. So no-one was discriminated against and no remedies were necessary. By overturning our existing marriage laws, the judges created a new right. Creating new rights is not the domain of judges.

What about the rights of a child to have a father and a mother? Who is looking out for the rights of children? Of course, not all children are so fortunate, but it is not in the best interests of a healthy society to deny children at least a chance for a normal family structure. And to say that having two fathers or two mothers only is a normal family structure is biased speculation. We shouldn't experiment with the lives of our children.

[daniel]

Karen, what a beautiful way to respond to everyone who don't understand what prop 8 is about! By humanizing and putting a face to words, you accomplish showing what's really at stake in this prop, your rights. And everyone right's for that matter. Thank you, Karen. You are in the right side of history. It takes a while for history to catch up, but this November 4th, it seems likely it will. I am praying for this to happen.

[No on 8 will Save Kids]

Peter Marlow your argument is flawed. You act like the sole purpose for getting married is to have children. It's not, unless you are some freaky religious person who takes "be fruitful and multiply" literally. Honestly people, most gay people who get married won't have kids. And the reality is, that most gay people, once they get married in order to form a family, will adopt. So for you dummys out there who can’t put two and two together, this means kids who might be likely to grow up in an orphanage or foster home, will at least have a loving home to be a part of. And if you are not for that, then all I have to say is you are just a cruel person. So think about it, the net effect of Prop 8 will be to help kids! Don't believe the religious jerks running hate ads about kids on television. Vote No on 8.

[Pedro]

Si en ocho

[Luke]

To the undecideds. Please vote Yes on 8. Protect traditional marriage. Do you really think the gay movement will stop if prop 8 loses. It will be taken to the schools and to the churchs. Why because it already has. I love my gay friends but our children shouldn't be forced to learn alternative lifestyles

[LO]

Prop 8 is a moral issue.
Race is a civil rights issue

[Harold]

Vote yes stop the hate

[Alisa]

I'm voting yes on Prop 8. I'm tired of hearing about how a person is a bigot, religious zealot or hypocrite, a hater or some crazy right-wing individual if they don't support gay marriage. Sounds like Prop 8 supporters are being discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Prop 8 is about preserving marriage between a man and a woman. I'm not going to be intimitated by these efforts to name call and demonize people who have strong beliefs about the sanctity of marriage.

[Richard Rinehart]

Prop 8 need not divide liberals and conservatives. If one reasons it out rationally, voting NO on prop. 8 makes sense from all sides.

- Prop 8 Takes Away Existing Rights. The CA Supreme court affirmed the right to marry whom one wants. Prop 8 would take away rights from thousands and destroy marriages.
- Economics. CNBC stated that gay marriages bring in an additional $228 million to public funds in CA annually, and the Congressional budget office estimates $1 billion nationally.
- Civil Rights. Until 1967 blacks and whites could not marry each other in many states. In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned those laws, affirming marriage as a civil rights issue, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".
- Religious Rights. The first of the American Bill of Rights confirms freedom of religion. No church would ever be forced to perform a gay marriage if they didn't want to. But those that want to, they can. Allow people to worship in their own way; that's American.

[Joe Faragher]

What I don't understand is the rush to preserve the "traditional marriage." What exactly defines the "traditional marriage?" If we really look at what a traditional marriage is supposed to be, we would see a situation where a young woman is forced to marry a man for economic purposes rather than love, and in return the man receives a dowry and a wife to create children. The woman in a "traditional marriage" has no rights whatsoever,and is subject to any abuse that the husband may choose to inflict.

What defines "Tradition?" And in this country, isn't "tradition" constitutional liberties for all people? Perhaps I misquote Thomas Jefferson, but aren't "all men created equal" (and now women as well?)

My question is: why are we striving to take a step backwards and reduce not only the rights of homosexuals, but the rights of women as well? What kind of barbaric society would step backwards and destroy developments in civil and political rights?

[Amanda]

If you take out the words that are causing so much angst, Prop 8 takes away the right for two consenting adults to enter into a government-approved contractual agreement. Marriage between one man and one woman can stay the standard in churches that don't want to unite same-sex couples, but the civil contract should not be denied. We still have separation of church and state, and that certainly will not, and should not, change. This is not about religion. This is about civil rights.

Oh, and to all you folks arguing that only one man and one woman can raise children, what horrible things this will do to children, etc....there are about 14 million children being raised by LGBT people in the US. Giving their parents equal rights won't change that. My favorite part is that the T part (transgendered) of that statistic can be married under state and federal laws, and I'm sure that's way more horrifying to some people than same sex marriage.

[Michael Frazier]

Proposition 8 comes down to what is morally right and wrong.

Our coins still say "In God We Trust." Sometimes we get the idea that separation of church and state means separation of God and state, but that was not the original design.

Much of what opponents of proposition 8 say is that it is taking away rights from people, possibly unalienable rights. The second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence begins with these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We can take several important ideas from this statement. One is that our country was designed with God in mind. I want to focus on the idea that our unalienable rights were given to us by our Creator, who is God.

All people certainly deserve life. Along with granting us this unalienable right, God gave us an important law to preserve that right. It is found in Exodus 20:13. It reads simply: "Thou shalt not kill." This law from God was enforced in Biblical times by death to the murderer, as it is in some cases today. Thankfully, our legal system keeps severe penalties for those who take away a person's right to live.

Other commandments given by God are also reflected in our legal system. Stealing and bearing false witness are punishable by law and are seen in the headlines as theft, fraud and perjury. These crimes are seen by most as not only legally wrong, but morally wrong.

But what of God's commandment "thou shalt not commit adultery"? Oddly enough, in today's society sexuality is seen as something that a person can choose to practice however they want without consequence. Why is it that people can believe that breaking some of God's commandments is morally wrong, but breaking others is no big deal?

It's a difficult question to answer. Adultery certainly interferes with the pursuit of happiness of the offender's family. A burglar may break a window and the family may lose a television, but an adulterer breaks the family's hearts and loses their trust and often their love. An unexpected pregnancy produced by fornication can change the planned course of the young parents' lives. Homosexual people have to live with the fact that they cannot have biological children of their own. All offenders of sexual law also live with guilt that comes with breaking moral law.

God gave us a commandment on sexuality because he wants us to find success in our pursuit to happiness. Marriage is given of God to be between a man and a woman so they can raise a child of their own in a family that keeps them safe, free, and helps them find happiness.

Government's responsibility is to protect our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Upholding moral law is essential to every person's pursuit of happiness and government is right to back moral law in saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is the way that God defined it; the same God who gave us our unalienable rights.

A YES vote on Proposition 8 is essential to keep our unalienable rights unalienable. For our country to truly be free and able to pursue happiness, our civil laws need to reflect moral law.

[julio]

no en ocho!

[Gary Zavoral]

A Simple Solution to the 'Gay Marriage' Mess:

A battle is waging across the state of California over Proposition 8, and I have a peaceful solution and something I hope both sides can agree on.

There are two realities in this issue. The first is that there are many homosexuals who want to be committed to each other for this life. I think this is commendable, and I applaud them.

Having lived through the 1980s, it was apparent that, because of the promiscuity of so many homosexuals, bisexuals and, yes, even heterosexuals, AIDS nearly became an epidemic. If these people were in committed relationships, and were true to those relationships, AIDS would not have spread like it did. I want the gay community to look down on any homosexual person who is promiscuous just as it is frowned upon and decried in the straight community. When you’re in a committed relationship, you need to be committed to that relationship. I hope every couple – gay and straight – can make that commitment.

However, the relationship of a gay couple isn’t a marriage, and it never will be, no matter what some people say or judges do. From the beginning of recorded time, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Through the centuries and millennia, marriage was a religious event that bound a woman and a man together … for this life and, some believe, beyond. Never was marriage between people of the same sex, even though homosexuality is as old as, at least, Sodom and Gomorrah.

Marriage is the uniting of a man and a woman, who then create children and form a family. It’s such a basic truth that most Americans and people around the world say, “Duh.”

So, how do I balance the need for society to bind gay couples into committed relationships, while at the same time protecting the age-old sanctity of traditional marriage?

It’s simple. Call a gay life commitment something else. Something close to marriage. Call it “gayriage.”

Gayriage is the perfect compromise for both sides of the Proposition 8 battle. Just as women and men as genders are equal, yet different, couples in marriages and gayriages would have the same rights and privileges. They’re just different.

As I understand, gay couples in California can already have all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples though their civil unions. It’s the law. But, I admit that “civil union” sounds very bureaucratic. “Gayriage,” however, says it all: It’s a commitment of two men or two women to each other for life, and it’s more romantic.

The “Yes on 8” campaign can foresee the time when the rights of churches and believers of the Bible will be trampled due to marriage being defined as between any two people, and lawsuits and court battles in the recent past confirm that this will happen. (National Public Radio spotlighted many of these lawsuits and civil cases in a recent story.) Schools will teach that marriage is between any two individuals, not just a man and a woman. Opponents of the measure said “hogwash” to that, but then a public elementary school class in San Francisco took a field trip to a gay marriage.

Time will tell, but it is my hope that having two different but equal names for couples’ unions will not blur the law and the genders, but rather will make things much clearer for everyone.

It certainly will make it clearer in everyday life. For example, if gayriage is instituted, no one will be confused at a party or gathering when some guy giddily pronounces, “I am gayried to a most wonderful person.” Of course, he means another guy. And, we’ll know exactly someone’s sexual orientation when a female neighbor or co-worker exclaims, “Someday, I plan to gayry.”

My name is Gary, and I will gladly and proudly let gay couples use my name to describe their commitment. I am even willing to take any snickering from less-enlightened folks – both straight and gay – about how my name means a gay union. It’s a small price to pay for some common sense on this issue.

So, when I vote yes on Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, I am voting yes to traditional marriage, peace, common sense and equality. It's also a vote for gayriage. I hope you’ll join me.

[Nelson Cannon]

Proposition 8 has morphed way beyond a simple battle about legal terms. It has become a referendum on ways of life. The rhetoric has become hot enough, and feelings intense enough, that one basic and obvious truth is somehow being missed.

No matter how much legislation takes place, no same sex couple, in and of themselves, will ever be able to create a child. Never. Same gender couples, may choose to adopt, just as some heterosexual couples may choose not to have children. But let's not ignore the obvious. Only heterosexual relationships bring about the birth of a child no matter what the law defines marriage to be.

So why then, are we getting so worked up about something that nature has already defined and which we cannot change?

Marriage is about a man, a woman, and children. Same sex domestic parternships are not. These two types of relationship are different and the laws of nature make them different. Why should we try and make them the same by judicial or legislative fiat?

[Joseph Porter]

Marriage, like all societal and religious constructs, needs to adapt and grow with the times. For over 200 years it was illegal, in the United States of America, for a black person to marry a white person. We had to fight back then to push back the prejudice and let in the light. Use love as your moral compass. I've built a relationship with my partner of 22 years. He is now my husband. We are raising our beautiful, two-year-old son with compassion, love and intelligence. He is surrounded by grandparents, aunts, uncles and many, many close friends, who all love him very much. We are a family too. My son deserves the same respect and equality that any of God's children deserve. Giving the bond between his two parents a different name will scream out to him that his family is separate from the rest of society. Different. Less than. This is what he will hear on the playground. Everybody is so busy talking about protecting the children. What about my child? And all the other children who are being raised in strong, loving, gay households? We're not going to give our children away. We're not going to stop loving each other as families. So why don't we all just accept each other, in the spirit of God's love, and take it from there.

[beagle914]

The underlying bases for marriage are founded in procreation and parental identification, not romantic love or sexual preference. There are no parallels between anti-miscegenation laws and the arguments being raised for and against same-sex marriage. Nor is it rational to insist that all of those who support Proposition 8 are doing so out of hate, religious zealotry, bigotry or discrimination. The institution of marriage as one governing relationships between those of opposite gender has existed since long before recorded history and predates any known religion. In addition to our one-on-one version, plural marriages and arranged ones have been and still are common in many societies. Homosexual relationships have also been and are now widely accepted as within society's norms. However, no enduring society, as a whole, has ever considered same-sex commitments as the identical equivalent of opposite gender marriage. I'm confident that none ever will regardless of the outcome of next Tuesday's election. "Yes" on Proposition 8.

[Ryan]

Yes on Prop 8. The way I see it, if freedom is what proposition 8 opposers are out for, why aren't they arguing against laws against serial killers, or shoplifters. If folks can be born with homosexual instincts, then its just as possible that people may be born with killing, or stealing instincts. Why aren't we allowing those people to have their "natural" desires met by the law? Its because that is just naturally wrong, just like homosexuality. We all have temptations, but we can't give in to them just because they're a part of us. We fight it, and that's why I'm voting YES on Proposition 8. We can uphold correct morals and fight temptation together.

[xMAN AZ]

it really saddens me to think that religion has forced its way into the laws in which we are governed by. People from the so called Christianity say that its gay men and women are forcing our views on to society? I cant help but wonder who's really forcing who's view's here. saying that its GOD's will and that GOD wants marriage between man and a woman. this is about rights not religion. Leave religion to your own faith and go by the letter of the law. there will be a huge backlash against religion if this passes; we are now turning a corner were people are getting fed up with religion telling us how we should live. Dont you think your GOD is getting tired of you using him for everything so you can sleep better at night?

Unfortunately I live in AZ were we have nothing on civil rights nothing that comes close to what California has and yet they want to rewrite our constitution because they seem to think that we have so called activists judges sitting on the bench. these are the same judges that the PEOPLE of this state elected. Majority rules in the United states Judges are there to help the minorities in this country.

to treat someone as a second class citizen is wrong VOTE NO ON 8 and NO on 102
Religion has no place in politics or the LAW. if that were the case we should start taxing the churches.

[Andrew Eppink]

"No on Proposition 8
Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.", latimes editorial, Sun., 11/02/08

Will you be using the same 'reasoning' to oppose the ban on interspecies
marriage surely in the offing should your crazy opposition to traditional marriage
somehow succeed?
Give me a break. In addition to being thoroughgoingly evil, you people are nuts,
though that'll present no obstacle for you (all) in enlisting the ACLU and their
lawyer/'judge' allies in your support in future attempted depravities.
You clowns in the libmedia can't go broke soon enough.

[VOTAR]

Same-gender sexual behavior is not only aberrant behavior, it is debasing and ignoble, and both the behavior and its consequences are intolerable in any decent, god-fearing society. Although it is a good thing to be tolerant of people, bad behavior should not be tolerated or in any way encouraged, let alone rewarded with legal status. And that is why I have already voted "Yes" on Proposition 8.

[Aaron]

I'm voting NO on H8TE. To amend the constitution to exclude equal rights will be a moment of historical embarrassment. You will be rightfully remembered as bigots. I'm not gay. I am happily married. Gay marriage won't change my marriage in any way. IT'S NOT ABOUT CHILDREN. The children of gay marriage DON'T EXIST until they are born. They are not stolen away from straight couples. Meanwhile, the children of straight couples are in no way affected by gay marriage. As to the slippery slope that leads to other types of marriage, it doesn't exist. Only if you demonize homosexuals can you believe that this is the first step towards men marrying chicken and such. You need to get outside your congregations a little . Meet some different folks. People in love want their love to be treated equally. That's it. Not so scary, really. As to the low marriage rate in Finland. Really, you think that knowing that a man can marry a man somehow spoils marriage for the rest of us? How? The low marriage rate in Finland is the result of other trends. I mean, I like to snowboard. If a gay guy snowboards, it doesn't change anything for me. But I guess I'll never understand your fear based theocratic world view.

[Steveorevo]

Prop. 8 Supporters Have Blood On their Hands
Cover or TIME Magazine Feb 18, 2008 "Prosecuting the Gay Teen Murder"

Bottom line is that my Family is hurt by Prop 8. Its unnecessary. I want to know WHO IN YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE AS A RESULT OF PROP 8?

"Domestic Partnership" is "seperate but equal", BUT ITS NOT equal. Unless you are considered "married", one still has to wait to for "enrollment periods" to get healthcare for domestic partners.

And I have a family member with cancer. Thats NOT FAIR.

Prop. 8 condones the Fed. Tax requirement that causes me to file 5 tax returns every year. Thats extra accounting fees, and thousands in extra taxes. Why do you get save that for your kids or sick family members and I can't?

ANSWER ME! ITS BIGOTED. ITS HURTFUL. ITS HATE.

VOTE NO TO HATE. VOTE NO TO 8.

DON'T FORCE YOUR TALIBAN BELIEFS DOWN OUR THROATS.

SAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!

VOTE NO.

[Michael Jacobs]

If the sole discriminating factor of marriage is procreation then change the civil laws of marriage to enforce this. Marriage is only permissable between two fertile persons of opposite gender and any rights, benefits and privligages thereof including but not limited to tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, rights of successorship, insurance rights, etc shall only be conferred for the duration of procreation activity and for a period of not more than 21 years after childbirth. After your youngest child reaches the age of 21 you may continue to live together, but solely as roomates and without any legal status. Non-fertile couples cannot be married. Otherwise fertile couples who are unwilling or unable to conceive for any reason within 12 months of the issuance of the marriage license will be issued a mandatory divorce and cessation of all legal relationships conferred by a civil marriage.

Parents of adopted children are not permitted to marry except in cases when those same parents are fertile and have produced a biological child within the past 21 years.

If its not about love, its not about family, its not about equal treatment under the law, its only about the procreation of children then put the cards on the table and enact the restrictions that cement marriage solely as a legal contract between parents of minor children.

Ludicrous isnt it?

[Mark Hayward]

I am opposed to prop 8. I married my husband Charley at the Beverly Hills courthouse on June 17. We have been together for 15 years.

In my neighborhood, people often park cars on Los Feliz Boulevard with for-sale signs because of the high traffic on the street. Since we live in an apartment, we don't have a yard to put a sign in. This gave me the idea of papering the inside of my car with "No on Prop 8" messages and parking it on Loz Feliz for the weekend.

Obeying all traffic and parking laws, I parked my car on the north side Los Feliz just west of Observatory Avenue. I posted the "No on Prop 8" sign in my car. (See photos)

I checked on my car several times over the weekend. This morning when I went to move my car before the no-parking times went into effect.

My car has been vandalized. Someone spray-painted the rear window and hatchback of my car. They painted the word "yes" twice, once in black and once in white.

People who support "Yes on 8" will apparently commit crimes to promote their intolerance.

[Retread]

Being a Mormon from California I am dumbfounded that so much power would be ascribed to such a small minority in a state of 36 million. Yes, the Mormons believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and that is what Prop 8 says. So, the majority of Mormons support it. But really, do 750 thousand Mormons really have that kind of pull in a liberal state of 36 million? The answer is HELL NO!

Lets look at what is really happening. Liberals and pro-gay groups are vilifying Mormons through TV and print media. We really don't have that much influence but I suppose that the liberals and pro gay groups needed a face to put on their attacks and Mormons, as a relatively defenseless and misunderstood minority, make a good punching bag. Liberals in California have made Mormons the "Willy Horton" of the Prop 8 battle. I believe this is bigotry in its most blatant manifestation. Liberals guilty of bigotry? How could that possibly be?

Frankly, I don't really care what one's sexual orientation is. And I don't care if gays are given the same legal rights as hetro couples. What I do care is that I am being told that I have to except homosexuality as normal behavior and that through public schools I have to allow my kids to be taught that as well. Have sex with who you will. But it is my right to believe that it is a perversion and also my right to teach my children such. It is also my right to teach my children to be tolerant of all people which I do. One can certainly be tolerant and accepting without agreeing.

[P.S. Knight]

For those who use religions--and in this case, the Abrahamic traditions--as weapons, let's do some back-to-basics recap:

---- "Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." ~ Christianity - New Testament, Matthew 7:12

---- "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah. All the rest of it is commentary." ~ Judaism - Talmud, Shabbat 31a

---- "Not one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what he desires for himself." ~ Islam - 40 Hadith of an-Nawawi 13

Live and let live. NO on 8.

[YES ON PROP 8]

I DON"T WANT MY KIDS TAUGHT HOMOSEXUALITY, TRAN-SEXUALITY, or BI-SEXUALITY.

That is why I am voting to protect traditional marriage.

[Kelli]

When a religion steps in against an issue it is using its right to support an issue that it feels is in the best interest for the nation the same as individuals do.

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Church_Politicking_Bills_FAQ.pdf?docID=150

Use your right to vote and VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!

[E Knight]

To the Yes on 8 people who say this proposition is about children:

- There is no scientific, peer-reviewed literature in major journals like Nature that even comes close to suggesting that homosexual parents are unfit to raise children. The only "studies" are coming from special religious interest groups and think tanks like Focus on the Family, which do not use the scientific method to avoid biased results, nor do they have their findings reviewed and replicated by others to support their conclusions

- The CA Superintendent of schools himself has said there's no way this proposition would change sex ed in schools. It's not in the proposition language, and existing law says that sex ed must "show respect for committed partnerships and marriage" meaning that we would only tell our kids that committed partnership benefits society; specific endorsement of gay marriage would not be part of the curriculum

- CA sex education ALREADY has the option for parental opt-out, so if you think your kid is in danger of being taught that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage, you can remove your child from that class

The push back against interracial marriage, school integration, and women's sufferage all used similar arguments to the Yes on 8 people, and they all fell to the tide of public opinion that slowly but surely recognized injustice when it was pointed out. Integrated schools didn't hurt white children, neither will gay marriage.

The imagined social harms of gay marriage are nothing compared to the very real struggles that committed gay couples must go through to get the same benefits as marriage. The Supreme Court said it first- separate is not equal.

[James]

Vote Yes on Prop 8!!!

Voting Yes on Prop 8 is Freedom of Rights and Religion. Prop 8 does not take away the rights of gays. Check out the California Family Code Section 297.5.

Restore traditional marriage! It's not about hate or inequality, it's about reserving the right for heterosexual couples to define themselves as a family unit capable of naturally creating children.

Find out how Prop 8 will impact your world at www.WhatIsProp8.com.

[Jenna]

Marriage is between a man and a women! We need to protect the family. Vote YES on Proposition 8!

[califorprop8]

I think people are failing to realize that this is NOT a civil rights issue. Look at the CA family code: "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits...as are granted to spouses." If gays aren't receiving these rights, then by all means it is their constitutional right to use the law against that entity. They ALREADY have the rights of a married couple. Don't you think that if homosexual relationships were 100% the same as heterosexual relationships that nature would have allowed for that? Homosexuals are biologically incapable of procreating with one another whether or not they are sterile. If homosexuality were supposed to be the same, nature would have accounted for that, and it does not. Prop 8 is about protecting families and children and the rights of parents, not about rights that already exist.
www.whatisprop8.com
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!!

[Robert]

Proposition 8 does not protect marriage or children. Heterosexual couples will be allowed to marry with or without proposition 8. Proposition 8 does nothing to make certain that children will be raised with a mother and father. It merely assures that gays and lesbians can't marry the person they love and tells all your gay and lesbian children that their rights won't matter as much as those of straights.

[J.K. Hawkinson]

I admit I'm not a big fan of politics, or rather the absolute hate and contention that comes with it but I thought I'd post my thoughts on this matter. My family has always encouraged learning pursuing new ideas and fully researching both sides of arguments to make decisions for ourselves based on more than what's on the surface. With that in mind - I'm voting Yes on 8.

No I'm not brainwashed, I'm not homophobic and I believe that everyone deserves the right to be happy but heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different than homosexual marriage, why is it bad to differentiate?
Laws like this are not created to discriminate as much as differentiate how our society approaches various other aspects of our lives. Adoption for example, it's not as if Homosexuals don't have the talent to raise children but statistically it's better for children to be raised in a home with a mother and father. It is sad that less than capable couples still slip through the system but I don't think we should deny any possible advantage we can give to children.

I also don't think it's fair that religions would be accused of "hate speech" if they continued to preach the morals that they were built upon. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." (UDHR)

So anyway, I just don't see a need to categorize such different ideas into the same box. This law isn't so much about who has the right to be happy (EVERYONE DESERVES THAT!), it's about the definition of a category. A category which seemed to me to be pretty obvious and clear-cut. Why feel the need to force two completely different ideas into the same small box? Make a new one, one that can benefit our society and country in the best way possible without encroaching on the rights of the original. I may be wrong but I thought it was ok to be different, maybe that's just the artist in me...

[kassie]

"Prop 8 has nothing to do with prejudice - in fact, the campaign to protect marriage between a man and a woman has been conducted with kindness, humanity and respect for those of other viewpoints..."

Oh really? According to the Protect Marriage archived site, the ORIGINAL wording of the constitutional amendment attempted to invalidate all domestic partnerships:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ

"6. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?

Answer: No. By recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union in California , this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”
"

If this has nothing to do with trying to take rights away from a group of people and discrimination, then I don't know what is. Also, the right to marry was already upheld as a civil right in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. Too bad people don't study government like they used too.

[Rachel]

But of course, living and let-living is precisely what so many YES voters want to do.

A large number of people in this country (and yes, most of them are religious) understand marriage in a way that simply excludes the possibility of same-sex marriage. This isn't because there's a "bigotry clause" built into the view. It has to do with a rich and complicated understanding of masculinity and femininity and their complimentary nature, and the proper role of sexuality in human life. Most opponents of Prop 8 are simply ignorant of the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the traditional view of marriage, and so they foolishly attribute any reluctance to accept same-sex marriage to irrational bigotry. In fact, it simply follows logically from this view that marriage can only involve one man and one woman.

The "No on 8" group argues that traditional/religious people will be unaffected by the legalization of same-sex marriage. No one, obviously, will be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex. But marriage is an institution that affects far more than just the couple involved, and particularly in a society like ours with powerful anti-discrimination laws, there is no question that people with traditional views of marriage WILL suffer real consequences if Proposition 8 doesn't pass.

School curricula are only one of the ramifications. What if I am in a profession that involves marriage in some way (and there are many -- marriage counsellor, anyone in the wedding industry, etc.) and I don't want to be involved in celebrating or reinforcing unions that I don't believe to be right? Can I be sued now? What if I want to run an adoption agency and my religious beliefs prohibit me from placing children with gay parents? Oh wait, that already happened in Massachusetts, and the institution had to close. Mark my words, we will see many, many incidents like this in California if Proposition 8 doesn't pass.

Prop 8 IS about tolerance, but not about tolerance of homosexuality. Homosexuals can be tolerated without being legally married. In fact, there is really nothing substantial that gays will gain from the legal right to marry, except the ability to take legal action against religious people who don't accept their unions as real marriages. California is already very tolerant of gays. The question today is whether religious people, too, should be tolerated.

[I Voted No]

When asked why they were voting YES, all those walking the street corners last night could only say that "they were protecting the family". They sounded like a bunch of drones who drank too much Kool-Aid and were just repeating what their church told them to say.

How have we reached the point where a bunch of brain-washed zombies are deciding the civil rights of this country? And where are these people when there's GOOD to be done... you never see them out en masse supporting anything that would be helping others, only taking away rights.

SAD state of affairs for today's churches. Bet they'll see their memberships and contributions decline after this election.

[Amberly]

All I've got to say on the subject is this....

Straight people can marry. Whether they're stupid or smart.

Gay people should be able to marry as well. Whether they're stupid or smart.

I've seen a lot of straight marriages and relationships fail and I've seen a lot sustain.

I've also seen a lot of gay relationships fail and I've seen a lot of those sustain.

Get a grip. Prop 8 is a vote for the government to take away the right of an entire group to make an acknowledged public commitment to someone they love and cherish.... no matter how long it lasts.

And bottom line---- Straight and gays both make the same mistakes and triumphs when it comes to marriage. Everyone deserves the opportunity to be with who they love.
Parents - Not all gay people are child predators. Just like how not all straight people are child predators.

This is the 21st century. We've had a couple hundred years to figure this out. Read the Preamble. Equality for everyone. Our objectives as a nation should never, ever forget that.

[Tyler K]

To the last two statements on Prop 8...(Amberly - [my comments addressed to you are after this first paragraph] and "I VOTE NO"... THe whole approach on the NO on Prop 8 campaign is about tolerance and rights, etc... right? Well, then you talk about how people who are voting YES on prop 8 are brain-washed, etc. But by your comments it just goes to show your ignorance and lack of tolerance. I think it is important to respet others beliefs and opinions, but to name call is just childish and uncalled for.

More importantly, the REASONS why I am voting YES is because I will lose rights as a citizen if NO on Prop 8 passes. People in domestic partnerships and civil unions do not.

How is this so? well first people who are in civil unions will only lose the right to say they are married. According to the California Family Code 297.5 civil unioins / domestic partners "have the same rights, protections, and benefits of married spouses". There it is... in plain english and on paper. Now let's look at the other side of things. If it goes NO, then I will lose my right as a parent to say what my children can and can't learn at school. Let me further explain... If NO on Prop 8 passes... then it is taking away rights of the general population. For instance, if it passes NO, then kids in kindergaten will have to be taught about gay marriages, they will not have a choice, where as if it passes as YES, everyone still retains their rights and if they want to learn about it, they can do so on their own free will, time, and expense.

You know we talk about rights, and it is funny that teachers who don't teach gay marriage in schools (in Mass.) they will get thrown in jail. I mean if that isn't an example of people's ideals being thrown on people and force fed... I don't know what is.

That is why it is so important to vote YES on Prop 8. I strongly encourage you all to vote YES on Prop 8

[Tyler K]

To the last two statements on Prop 8...(Amberly - [my comments addressed to you are after this first paragraph] and "I VOTE NO"... THe whole approach on the NO on Prop 8 campaign is about tolerance and rights, etc... right? Well, then you talk about how people who are voting YES on prop 8 are brain-washed, etc. But by your comments it just goes to show your ignorance and lack of tolerance. I think it is important to respet others beliefs and opinions, but to name call is just childish and uncalled for.

More importantly, the REASONS why I am voting YES is because I will lose rights as a citizen if NO on Prop 8 passes. People in domestic partnerships and civil unions do not.

How is this so? well first people who are in civil unions will only lose the right to say they are married. According to the California Family Code 297.5 civil unioins / domestic partners "have the same rights, protections, and benefits of married spouses". There it is... in plain english and on paper. Now let's look at the other side of things. If it goes NO, then I will lose my right as a parent to say what my children can and can't learn at school. Let me further explain... If NO on Prop 8 passes... then it is taking away rights of the general population. For instance, if it passes NO, then kids in kindergaten will have to be taught about gay marriages, they will not have a choice, where as if it passes as YES, everyone still retains their rights and if they want to learn about it, they can do so on their own free will, time, and expense.

You know we talk about rights, and it is funny that teachers who don't teach gay marriage in schools (in Mass.) they will get thrown in jail. I mean if that isn't an example of people's ideals being thrown on people and force fed... I don't know what is.

That is why it is so important to vote YES on Prop 8. I strongly encourage you all to vote YES on Prop 8

[Mike]

I am saddened by all that I am reading on this website. If we are all created equal and have the same rights, then all of us should adhere to civil unions. A "marriage," as it is defined, can remain a religious institution - the only source of response from supporters of this proposition - much like a baptism. It is horrible that churchs are not given the right to decide who they wish to marry. If marriage is simply symbolic of religious affiliation, then ANY church should be able to decide who they wed. This proposition limits this right.

I hate that people in this country are so blinded by things such as religion that have nothing to do with the "good" of society. Wars are waged, people die and are discriminated against, every single day on the basis of words written by MEN thousands of years ago. What do these people have to do with current social contexts? NOTHING. People in this nation need to become educated and come to understand that this is not a Biblical time. We have come a long way from Adam and Eve and Jesus ... The mere notion of this proposition is to make a change in the way our constitution is written, yet so many religious people are unable to come to grips with the fact that the Bible may need some revisions as well.

[georgia johnson]

anyone and everyone who votes yes on prop 8 is ignorant, cowardly and selfish. why do these people believe that they should have any control over the happiness of another person? do they really think that their close minded opinion matters? and why wouldn't people want homosexuality to be taught in schools? it is a lifestyle that has always existed and will always exist. i can't imagine ever wanting to keep my children from forming their own opinions and leading their own lives. america is one of the greatest nations because of all its opportunities for education, i find it odd anyone would want to take that away from their children. definitely not the american way.

to all of you who vote yes on prop 8: GET A CLUE!!!!!!

[Linsday]

To those who voted YES on Prop 8:

All I have to say is: Please put yourself in the thousands of gay couples' situation. Just take a minute to think about how you would feel to have your marriage denied. Why did you get married to your husband or wife in the first place? For rights? I doubt it. You probably got married out of LOVE. Gay couples aren't merely looking to obtain rights, they want to take that step to ultimately symbolize their love for each other. Gay people are human with the same emotions, goals, and love straight people have. They may not be exactly the same as you but does that really justify placing a ban on them? The one sole thing that these two groups, gay and straight, have in common is love.

I'm not trying to force you to change your mind. I doubt that I would be able to anyway. But I am simply asking you to put yourself in their situation.

Thankfully, Obama is our new president. Change will come.

[Stacey Chu]

This is a response to the comment posted by Gerri:
I am voting for Prop 8 because government should not take away the right of children to a mother and father. I understand that not every child has a mother and father for a variety of reasons, but those are due to choices and circumstance, not laws. It is not right for the government to tell future generations that they do not have the right to the relationships that all past generations have had. I am unaware of other anytime in recorded history when such a right has been denied by government decree.

The government is not taking away rights to heterosexual marriage. Rather, had Prop 8 been defeated, it would be reinstating those rights that homosexuals DESERVE, that homosexuals should be able to choose who they want to marry. Let's take this scenario in which a homosexual male marries a woman, and they have children. It's like you (as a heterosexual) marrying a person that you don't really want to at all, but have to for the sake of having someone to be there for you. Now, how could that possibly constitute a happy household, when the homosexual male is almost disappointed by his marriage because this woman isn't really the person he wanted to marry? This country has always put great stake in individuals being able to express themselves and not deny who they are. Isn't Prop 8 denying just that? Homosexuals can't help their sexual preference towards those of the same gender, just as heterosexuals can't help their sexual preference toward those of a different gender.

The only reason that we have this taboo against homosexuals is because they are different from the majority of the population. Now, what if the situation was reversed, and the majority of people were homosexual, and heterosexuals made up the minority? Heterosexuals would want to marry those of the opposite sex, but homosexuals could find that repulsive and thus BAN their right do so. And we would have a such pseudo-Prop 8. However, out Constitution clearly states that we should not prohibit a right simply based on the fact that it is repulsive to some. That is one of the basic themes of our Constition, and the Supreme Court should see fit to overthrow Proposition 8.

As for those who would bring religion into this discussion, I myself am Catholic and pride myself on it. However, our constitution, again, has an amendment that states that there must be a separation of church and state. Therefore, while individuals may have their own opinions, religion has no place in the government/law domain and therefore should not be a consideration of instating a law banning gay marriage.

Certainly, gays have civil unions, but as they are US citizens, they should enjoy their full rights and get the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples get. The mere fact that their union is different is insufficient for the government to exclude them from enjoying the same rights as other citizens.

Posting it at this time, i have seen news that Prop 8 has indeed passed. This is a severe tragedy for California. I was extremely proud of this state previously for allowing gay marriage, because it signaled the idea that we were getting to a place where we were giving people back those rights that were unduly taken away from them. However, with this ban now in place, how can we really say that this state has progressed. We have time and time again denied these rights. We should not allow this trend to continue. This slippery slope of TAKING RIGHTS away from people is not what the Constitution and not what this country is built on.

If we truly want to consider ourselves a democracy and even pride ourselves as such on the international level, we should not hypocritically deny citizens their rights from within.

[Readers should NOT believe what Ellen Smedley says]

In the recent article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage6-2008nov06,0,2331815.story

It says:

“"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."

Readers should NOT believe what Ellen Smedley says. It is the agenda of the Mormon Church to absolutely take away what homosexual couples believe or want. First, the Mormons will argue all they want to do is define marriage between a man and a woman as a “family unit”. The next step will be to argue that a same sex relationship is not a “family unit” and therefore two men should not be able to adopt or raise children together.

[Gary]

All I have to say is that PROP 8 has passes =D, so stop your crying and accept the loss, because the majority of Californian's voted to preserve marriage the way it was when it was written in the bible! :@

[Mike Frazier]

People who vote "no" on 8 want the "yes" on 8 people to justify their beliefs with science or controlled studies or things like that.

The truth is that we can't and we don't have to. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Homosexual behavior is wrong. It should not be legalized. Legalizing immoral behavior does not make anyone happy and is definitely not best for society in the long run. The best examples of that for us are in the scriptures. Civilizations were wiped out for large-scale departures from God's commandments.

As far as physical proof goes, in the only other state in the United States that legalized gay marriage (MA), gay marriage was taught in schools. That's the only real comparison to draw from and so it's a legitimate argument that it would be taught in schools.

What further validates that argument is that a class in San Fransisco was taken to a gay marriage as a field trip without the parents knowing.

Schools may not be "required" to teach anything about marriage, but that doesn't mean that they won't. They already are.

[Greg]

Gerri | October 19, 2008 at 08:08 PM said:

"we live in a democracy".

Yes, we do. And the democracy has spoken.

[Thoughtful]

ONE of the things we should be talking about, rather than trying to redefine the word "marriage" (and thereby reframe what is really an argument about affirmation, as an argument about "civil rights"), is this: Are there tax benefits that exist for marriage folks, that shouldn'exist at all? Are we giving certain "rights" only to married people, that perhaps should be equally available to single people as well, for instance? (I personally don't believe all the rights in question apply to this, but it sure seems that some do).

[G. Paul Michaels]

Yes on 8 = Yes on HATE. No equality, no peace. Different but equal is not equal. In 1948, when California legalized interracial marriages, everyone said it would destroy the institution of marriage. It didn't, and no one was allowed to vote against the minority. (For it surely would have failed.) Gay marriage will not destroy the institution. Many gay people that are now married have children, unlike the barren straight couples talking about procreation. This will be settled in the courts, not the cathederal. You should have used Mormon money to do something positive.

[Karen Grube]

I'm sorry, but calling someone who disagrees with you 'intolerant' and 'hateful' is just unacceptable. I have seen more hate-speech and intolerance. violence and intimidation coming from the supporters of gay marriage than I EVER have from those who support traditional marriage. Just because you call someone names doesn't mean name-calling is acceptable, nor does it mean that the names you're calling them aren't out in left field and just stupidly wrong.

Just because you use terms like "Equality for All" and "Civil Rights" doesn't mean you have even the slightest clue as to what these terms really mean, particularly as they relate to the very difficult struggles of racial and ethnic minorities for simple basic human rights and civil justice in this country. It angers me to see their meaning disrespected by associating them with this push for the full and unfettered acceptance of the gay lifestyle. No one I know believes for a split second that the "No on 8" boycotts and all the intimidation have anything to do with trying to stop the very real discrimination that does still exist out there for gays and lesbians. We know this, and it truly is a shameful national tragedy that it exists, but that isn't even remotely what's going on here.

How DARE you paint swastikas on churches or deface anyone's personal property the way some of the supporters of gay marriage have! That smacks of cross-burning to me, like they did in the old South: a form of intimidation that should NEVER be tolerated. And forcing someone out of their job because they disagree with you? Threatening someone's business by suing them because they won't do what you want? No. Ripping a cross out of an elderly woman's hand? Beating up someone carrying signs you disagree with? That's just not right. No one who does that deserves anything but jail.

Attacking the Mormon church for the gay marriage ban in California is totally and completely ridiculous! I personally contributed as much money, time and effort as I possibly could toward the passage of Prop 8, and I spent hours helping organize the GOTV effort to pass this ballot measure on election day. And I'm not Mormon. I just didn't like a few judges thinking they can change the laws of this state by judicial caveat rather than the consent of the governed. Having said that, I'll also tell you that I will never buy a pair of Levis again because they contributed to the efforts to oppose Prop 8, nor will l ever buy an Apple Computer or product, and I even had my internet, phone, and cable TV services pulled from AT&T because they supported the efforts to oppose Prop 8. These, along with my vote, are my personal forms of protest against gay marriage. But as you can see, I'm not yelling at anyone, marching in the streets, pushing anyone around, calling anyone names, or threatening anyone's job, though I will work as hard as I possibly can to recall the State Supreme Court Justices who decided to allow gay marriage before this election. That was just stupid. Look at all the trouble it's caused for the same-sex couples who were allowed to 'marry' during this interim period? That was shameful. They never should have been put through this, and the court needs to fix this by immediately providing a way for these couples to transition their 'marriages' to legal domestic partnerships so their rights are protected.

I'm just fed up with all the intimidation and bullying. And by the way, even if people DID vote for and support this ballot initiative for religious reason, that is their Constitutional right and no one has the right to intimidate them out of it or to persecute them for it!

[Kathy M.]

Studies have shown that children need a Mother and a Father to grow up in a healthy environment.
I also feel that Democracy is at stake, to think you can overturn the peoples vote is going against Democracy which should not be allowed. This is very wrong!

[Ryan]

At its core marriage is a contract between man and women in the presence of God. This has been established since the beginning of judaism. Marriage is a religious practice evolved into a legal contract between a man and a women currently. However, in America Gays and Lesbians are still citizens and still deserve rights. The same rights as married men & women. The definition of marriage excludes gay and lesbians. Rather then changing what the word means / symbolizes, we need to change the laws. Gays should be entitled to the same rights, however trying to change a religious practice to be included is wrong. Our system is not always fair, but as a nation we can make it fair. Civil rights activists for gay rights will win much more support when they aim away from the word marriage and demand the same rights, not the same title.

[mary]

I am very angry that Jerry" Moonbeam" Brown is urging to let Prop.8, take affect? How dare he even voice this.Where is "Equality for All" and "Civil Rights". What are the steps to remove him as California's Att. Gen. The people behind yes on prop.8 used
scare tactics to intimidate people on what their children would be taught and so
forth. Jerry Brown is from a era that he should know better. Didn't we tolerate him and his" Moonbeam" self!

[read and learn]

it's absolutely mindblowing how ignorant all these yes on 8 posters are.

get your noses out of the bible and into a book on the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

it is unconstitutional to take away the rights of any american.

we are all created equal under the law and are entitled to the same exact rights.

it wouldn't matter if every person in california voted yes -- it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL and cannot stand.

the propostion will be overturned in a few weeks.

[order up dingy]

oh, what studies Kathy M. ?

church studies ?

you don't know what you're talking about.

[Rob McMillin]

There is nothing religious conservatives want so much as somebody to feel automatically better than.

[no end in sight]

We allow same-sex marriage because gays claim to be an oppressed minority. What next, polygamy, incest, NAMBLA? Is there no end in sight?

[chaser48]

"The certainty and finality" is already been made clear Mr Moonbean! The people of California have voted in favor of marriage being between a man and a woman now for the second time with Proposition 8 in November 2008 and Proposition 22 in the year 2000.
Califiornia's Highest Court already saw to it that we - the people - had to vote this second time and we are Constitutionally protected from Double Jeopardy! We need not go into this any further or any longer. There is nothing religious about marriage - the conception of children is about NATURE and there seems to be a slight misunderstanding about what a heterosexual couple does with ease that a homosexual couple has never been able to nor ever will do. Its about child rearing. There is nothing religious about child rearing - that is glorious!!
But dont take my words please take the words of the talented gay rockstar Elton John. He said it himself "My partner and I are in a civil partnership - gays dont marry, their partnership is a civil bond - I dont want to be married! Heterosexual couples, they marry." It is clear to EltonJohn that Prop 8 inno way shape or form subtracts from gays so-called rights! Homosexual couples get to do as they please as they have since time immemorial at no loss at all at their rights -- So stop the complaining!
The sanctity of marriage together with the responsibility of marriage is upon heterosexual couples to commit and marry in love BUT ALSO conceive, bear, nurture, raise, educate, feed, house, clothe and rear a PROCEEDING generation of kids who will grow to be healthy, happy, well adjusted, intelligent, emotionally and physically strong and eventually, contributing Americans. That is a technicality I think that only the California Supreme Courts can overlook!
Its about nature, good Justices, marriage and good old fashioned making babies goes together. Gay unions -- no matter how hard you try to fight it and deny it -- just doesn't produce the same results does it? Enjoy your lives and leave us to enjoy ours -- Leave Prop 8 ALONE!

[chaser48]

MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT! IT IS A PRIVILEGE WHICH IS HONORED FIRST IN LOVE AND THEN COMMITMENT FOLLOWED WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD. THERE ARE OTHERS WHO SPEAK OF CALIFORNIA BEING FIRST IN GAY RIGHTS -- I AM SURE THIS STATE IS SO I NEED NOT TALK ABOUT THE RIGHTS THAT NO IS TAKING AWAY FROM GAYS -- SO WHY ATTEMPT TO TAKE AWAY FROM HETEROSEXUALS THEIR RIGHT TO MARRY - not live together in civil partnership but TO MARRY AND FULFILL THEIR PURPOSE AND CONCEIVE, BEAR AND RAISE CHILDREN? LEAVE THEM AND
PROPOSITION 8 ALONE AND GROW UP!! -- WERE YOU BORN or HATCHED? GET REAL, CHILDREN COME OUT FROM HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES. NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT. WHY PRETEND?

[chaser48]

GERRI -- How dumb can a post get? HOPE? Commitment? LOVE?
One has to have FAITH that each of these essences will work - and work for you not against you -- You deny your own Faith and anyone who cannot even define what they believe or stand up for will lose those things they think are entitled to them! Take your theocracy and put where the sun wont! Marriage is about making babies -- Gay couples cannot nor ever will make children. Besides its the tax right offs that gay couples are interested in --- NOW THAT IS disgusting!
PROPOSITION 8 is about marriage and who else other than heterosexual couples are interested in this? You lose no rights as a gay when Proposition 8 is passed with YES so vote Yes!
thanks

[think about it]

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
by Stanley Kurtz
02/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 20
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe."

We Need More Babies!
By JAMES GRAFF | Paris Sunday, Nov. 21, 2004
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,785317,00.html

"Like Sweden and its Scandinavian neighbors, Britain, Ireland, France and the Netherlands are faring relatively well, with fertility rates above 1.7. Yet nowhere in the European Union does fertility approach 2.1, the level needed to keep the population stable. "A people that doesn't have children, that grows old, is a people without a future," says Tiziano Treu, a former Italian Minister of Labor and Welfare who recently co-authored a bill aimed at boosting Italy's rock-bottom birth rate of 1.29."