L.A. City Hall is focused on 'grand' Prop. 8 protest, prepare for gridlock

Plans are afoot to organize protests against Prop. 8 at every major city hall in California Saturday -- with the local focus being on L.A. City Hall (which was famous for those huge immigration rallies a few years ago).

Organizers are urging activists from around the country and Canada to converge on California and are hoping for tens of thousands of participants. Last week's protests slowly grew in size from hundreds on the Westside Thursday to 12,000 on Saturday night in Silver Lake.

These protests have caused major traffic problems. Some people say they were slowed down but support the cause. Others curse the No-on-8 demonstrators for worsening L.A.'s already awful traffic. A sample of the debate on City-Data.com:

Thanks for having your little protests during a weekday, during rush hour. How remarkably thoughtful. I guess you people believe traffic moves too quickly on the Westside, so hey, it won't inconvenience anybody by having your little sit-in's and so fourth. Thanks for that.

And...

You're whining up a storm about getting stuck in traffic. ...You live in L.A.! And you're brushing off the feelings of these people like Prop 8 was nothing, like they're just "throwing a hissy fit" because they didn't "get their way."

--Jessica Garrison and Shelby Grad

Related:

L.A. Jews strongly opposed Prop. 8

Stop blaming blacks for Prop. 8's passage.

Interactive Maps: Comparing Prop. 4 and Prop. 8 results; comparing Prop. 8 and Prop. 22 results.

Photo: LAT file

Comments

[Robert Kalonian]

While organizers are mindful of impacts on traffic and work with city officials in advance, it's incredibly offensive to complain that you had to sit in traffic while I fought to restore my civil rights. Would you have told MLK to open up the streets of Selma 40 years ago because you were trying to go to the liquor store to buy beer?

[Rich]

This is a national - not just state - protest. Visit http://www.jointheimpact.com to find the protest location nearest you.

[Lin Tong]

It is amazing how much you cry!

We did not protest when 4 judges violated our rights by allowing gay marriages even after the people had voted in 2000 to continue to only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. We were violated and wronged and did not go crying into the streets.

You should use your energy more wisely and stop all this "violated our civil rights” nonsense. Go back to school, this is NOT civil issue but a moral issue. You are not a race or nationality but a way of life.

[Pacheco]

This protests should not STOP until EQUALITY is served to all citizens of this great state of California. Straights should come out in big numbers to support the NEW BLACK. They need our support: for Justice and Equality. We will be a better state when all the people are elevated.

Peace! and Love!

[nls73m]

people voted now get over it!

when are gay peeps going to stop forcing their disgusting lifestyle onto everyone else?!

men having sex with men?! what in the world...?

what is next? men having sex with dogs?

[Phil]

Gay Marriage Nothing New in Catholic Church
05-Mar-2004

Yale University historian John Boswell has discovered that the Catholic church has been marrying gays for centuries.
Jim Duffy writes in the Irish Times that in his book "The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe," Boswell describes an icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai which shows a typical Christian wedding, except that the "bride" and "groom" are both men-- Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus, Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

In the 6th century, Severus of Antioch said, "We should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." In the 10th century, St. Serge is described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Their sexual orientation was openly accepted by early Christian writers. The St. Catherine's icon even shows Jesus serving as "best man."

After a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives, Yale history professor Boswell discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" existed as late as the 18th century. Boswell found records of same-sex unions in church archives in the Vatican, St. Petersburg, Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering the 8th to the 18th centuries.

There was a ceremony called the "Office of Same Sex Union" (in 10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (in the 11th and 12th century).

In these ceremonies, everyone gathered in church, the priest blessed the couple before the altar, their right hands were joined as at heterosexual marriages, they took the Eucharist, and held a wedding banquet afterwards. This is shown in drawings of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886), who married his companion John. Homosexual weddings also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, according to Gerald of Wales.

The 13th century Greek "Order for Solemnization of Same Sex Union" called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." It concludes with: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."

A 14th century Serbian "Office of Same Sex Union" described a couple as laying their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. They then kissed each other, after which the priest gave them both communion. Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) included these ceremonies in his Greek prayer books. A lesbian marriage is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. In 1578 at St. John Lateran in Rome (the Pope's parish Church), 13 couples were "married" at a mass, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together."

[Thomas]

Civil rights is about who you are not the choices you make. This is not a Civil RIghts issue.

The people have spoken!! God Bless America, for the principles upon which it was built.

Stop asking what America can do for me and start asking what can I do for America! JFK

[anon]

Agree nls73m. Why not legalize marriage with dogs? Aren't they man's best friend. While we're forcing people to accept any kind of immorality, why not legalize marriage between brothers and sisters, or polygamy if all parties agree they love each other and they are being discriminated against if they are not allowed to get legally married?

[Kaiser]

I don't understand how come polygamist rights to marry more than one person are not a "civil right" or the "rights" of brothers and sisters, or parents and children to get married are ignored. Also the convicted murderers should be left out of jail because they are "suppressed" by the political majority that suppresses their rights. Marriage was always between a man and a woman, and I would like to hear of any society that had it any other way, legally. I am tired of all this masquerade as a civil right issue, as the passage of this proposition changed the law as it was always before. The passage of this measure is a blow to the "recruitment" of "alternative lifestyles" where there are no rules, and the strict application of "civil rights" will result in promotion of polygamy and incest. A civil right violation would be for the vote of African Americans that voted for Proposition 8 to have their votes not make a difference. Now that would be a tragedy.

[Elara]

A native Californian, I moved to Colorado 16 years ago in time to be part of the "hate state." Now it appears that California has been passed that torch (not to mention Arizona and Florida). I am shocked that the traditionally "fruit & nut" state that I was always teased for being a part of has doffed that moniker for one of discrimination and intolerance. I was always proud of the diversity and acceptance of Californians, and embarrassed to be part of Colorado at it's dark time. The hardest part to make sense of is the overwhelming support for Barack Obama, someone so different and unusual as the head of our country, while simultaneously embracing a complete disregard for the civil rights of so many, based on religion. This dichotomy of discrimination makes absolutely no sense. Californians need to snap out of it and remember who they are. The continued arguments over this is going to lead to one place... states will only be able to conduct civil ceremonies, and marriages will solely be handled by religious organizations. And those who are so selfishly strong-willed that marriage is one man & one woman will have no one to blame but themselves. They are the ones who are diminishing that institution. Just as someone else burning the flag cannot diminish your sense of patriotism, others expressing their heartfelt commitments to each other cannot diminish your expressed commitment to your loved one. Be grateful that they are fighting to express commitment and love versus antagonism and divisiveness.

[juliab]

The time to protest was before the vote. It passed, now quit whining and go home. Stop acting like sore losers. You already get all the rights married people do through domestic partnership. The people have spoken.... twice.

[busytimmy]

You know, I am constantly shocked that Christians in California are more interested in imposing their religious morals on me, not a Christian, than telling me about the love of Jesus. Is the cause of Christ advanced by this? Or is it really a thinly disguised Christian nationalism, Christo-fascism, that they are into? Why not also take away civil rights from believers in polytheism, or those who reject the Bible? They are going to hell anyway, according to you. If this is how those who proclaim to know the will of "God" act, I and many, many others want nothing to do with it.

[lark]

Any religious organization supporting Prop 8 should have their tax exempt status stripped.

Protect the separation of church and state!

[Donna]

Yes on 8. I am NOT religious. I just prefer for my children to grow-up with a TRADITIONAL FAMILY. They were created biologically out of the marrage of their mommy/daddy. It's great that same sex couples can commit and love each other, adopt children. However, that is not how nature intended or the human race could not continue on. I wish gay marriages could be just called civil unions- end of story. Just leave the word "marriage" alone. Why redefine it? I do think people are born gay, but for me, marriage is a tradition between a man and woman only. Domestic partnership already offers the same legal benefits. Are people lining up to become domestic partners?

[Daniel Jackson]

I'm so tired of the gay comparing this to the struggle of the African Americans during the 60's. THIS IS NOT THE SAME! How many gays have been lynched or supporters killed like those down in Mississippi?

The longer and louder you protest, that more you'll turn people against you. Those who voted yes are not going to sit still and listen.

[MrsPremise]

Some of these comments would be really funny if they were not so sadly ignorant. How would homosexuals having equal rights force their "lifestyle" (as if it were a choice) on anyone else? Since June, has anyone you know turned gay? Been forced to attend any gay events, watch gay movies, change to a gay job, eat at gay restaurants? Made to shop at gay stores, or wear gay clothes? That is how lifestyle is interpreted. I doubt if any of that has happened. And how does one group having equal rights deprive anyone else of their rights? Since June have any heterosexuals been prevented from bearing arms, or voting, or the right to a speedy trial? Have all the churches been locked? Have any heterosexuals been denied a marriage license? Use common sense and reason, and you will see that discrimination is what is truly immoral.

[koty]

I am glad this is happening in LA and not in XXXXXX. Instead of clamoring about hurt feelings - which will NOT change anything - why not focus your efforts in organizing overturning the decision. What makes your rights more important than for those who don't want this demented lifestyle as part of their culture.

[wah wah]

Last I check laws existed on a persons ability to marry his sister. Why can't they marry if they want to.

[koty]

There is a reason that people behind this protesting were once considered queer.

[John]

Civics 101: Majority rules. If 52.5% is not a majority, you obviously failed math.

[Marlena Sanchez]

I guess these people don't believe in democracy do they? They just want what they want no matter - the people of California (so called one of the most liberal states in the Union) voted against Gay Marriage- TWICE already. This is not an equal rights issue, homosexuals can form unions that give them the same exact rights as the hetrosexual marriage - so where is the unequality -

[John]

Hi Lin Tong, I hope you realize that our people (Asians) weren't even allowed to buy land in this state not that long ago. I'm pretty sure you'd be pretty upset too, if that was still the case, right? Besides, who's morality are you speaking of anyway? Yours or mine? There are probably people out there that do not see Asians as being equal to them, but I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that either!

[Jebbie]

Ho hum. Another sunny day in L.A., another hissy fit protest. The law passed, time to move along. Where are the Republican protests since their guy didn't win?
No on 8 whiners aren't bringing more to their side after the fact.

[Christine B]

"when are gay peeps going to stop forcing their disgusting lifestyle onto everyone else?!"

When are bigoted heterosexuals going to forcing their "morality" on everyone else? BTW, your repugnant fantasies of men having "sex with dogs" are completely irrelevant. How about adult men having sex with mutliple wives and underaged females? That's the Mormon way, isn't it? Or elderly men having sex with choirboys? That's the Catholic way, right? Now let's have a conversation based on fact instead of your lurid fantasies: gay marriage will not harm any hetero marriage nor will it "create" gays out of kids. Your type is just afraid you won't be easily able to teach hate to the kids, that's why the whole "school" non-issue was brough up.

[Rich]

We're not getting over this. We're not sitting down. We're not moving on. We will continue to wage acts of (peaceful) civil disobedience until we get our rights back.

Savor your temporary victory, and remember these weeks when we're getting married on the courthouse steps once again.

You've pushed us too far this time, and now it's time to deal with the consequences.

[Irritated Straight Girl]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how *my* morals are supposedly going to be undermined because two gay people want to get married? Gay people have been living together already, and yet I've seen no locusts coming from the sky, nor has the LA River turned to blood.

No matter how many times I've tried to read what the clergy have said about traditional blahblah and "oh we must protect the fabric of society", I STILL haven't gotten an answer. Does the Church have such weak leadership that I could "abandon the teachings" and start knocking over liquor stores just cuz Ellen DeGenerous got married?

Seriously.

And considering the Church has provided haven for DECADES for pedophiles, it's a bit rich for the clergy to come out and say crap about the morals of two consenting adults who LOVE each other. Anyone seen Cardinal Law lately? That's right - hiding under the Pope's skirts in Rome!!!!

I'm not thrilled that churches are being protested on Sundays honestly, but maybe the Church should mind it's own House before butting into everyone else's lives.

Next we'll get stupid laws saying we can't buy booze on Sunday because it's considered "immoral". That's why I left Massachusetts!

If the Church were still in charge of society, I'd just be a womb factory. I'd just be chattel.

I believe it was Jesus, that longhaired hippie Jewish guy, who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I guess only *some* parts of the Bible are being honored nowadays.

[Jim]

To all you folks who say, in effect, "the people voted, now shut up and go away," let me ask you this: Would you shut up and go away if the people voted to ban your religion?

No! You'd be fighting this unconstitutional violation of your rights in court, wouldn't you? You'd be out protesting and raising a huge fuss, wouldn't you? That's what we're doing.

Like it or not, denying equal protection (the right to marry the consenting adult of choice) DOES violate our constitutional rights. To say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman imposes morals (i.e. "religion") into the process. So, if you support Prop 8, you support the repeal of the separation of church and state, and hence you're saying that I can and should seek a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of your religion. How you you like that?

If you want to maintain your right to believe as you wish, stop trying to define legal marriage. Because without separation of church and state, your churches WILL be forced to accept and perform same-sex marriages. Allowing civil marriage to exist separately from what you do in your congregation is the only way to guarantee freedom of belief for everyone (yourself included).

The fact is, civil marriage in California is a legal contract, not a moral one. Banning same-sex marriage does not prevent people from engaging in behavior you consider immoral (California remains a "consenting adults" state), nor does a marriage in any way endorse sexual activity (platonic marriages are perfectly legal, and marriage does not legally mean you consent to sexual activity with your spouse). Morality is between you and your church.

We WILL continue to fight for our rights, and we WILL win, because in the long run, hatred always loses.

[someone]

I voted against prop 8, and think that it's passage is wrong. However, I wonder what the goal is of the protestors- have someone unilaterally overturn a constitutional ammendment? Who are they signaling to- the courts, the legislators, the state assembly? The point I'm trying to make is, protests or not, the only way to change anything is through the legislative process, no matter how many people are moved by the protests. They have to be clear about their approach for having it overturned i.e. (through which proper legal means), and how protests will help that. Even the civil rights movement could only be implemeted through changes in law, despite the fact that African-Americans were in the moral right long before the laws changed.

[kj]

The government should get out of the business of marriage all together. "Marriage" is a religious institution and should stay as such. The government should ONLY recognize civil unions. If you got "married" in a church, temple, whatever, the state should recognize you as in a legal "civil union". If you had a non-religious "marriage" (gay OR strait) , the state should recognize you as in a legal "civil union". Everyone in a state recognized civil union gets the same legal rights. End of problem. Separation of church and state ftw.

[JOE MARTIN]

WaWawa!!!! I have never SEEN SUCH A BUNCH OF SNIVELING CRY BABIES! You want to make your own laws because you have no respect for Prop. 8 which is the Law.

[socaljd2]

"men having sex with men?! what in the world...?

what is next? men having sex with dogs?"

No maybe something more shocking like Black and white marriages?! or Women allowed to vote!? Outrageous!!

its 2008 not 1950. Had the people of Virginia been given the opportunity to ammend their constitution in 1967 to allow anti miscegenation laws they would have done so - would you characterize the decision in Loving v. Virginia as a violation of the rights of the citizens of virginia?!

Your way of thinking is headed to the asheep of history where it belongs you ignorant bigot.

[Juan Vargas]

The people of California have spoken! What is it that you gays don't get. Please, if we have to vote on this issue a thousand times, we will do so, and it will always be the same result. Marriage is ONLY for a man and a woman. Period. End of Statement.

[So Sick of This]

Lin Tong,

You took the words right out of my mouth. However, the reason they continue to shamelessly exploit civil rights, is because they have to make themselves seem like the victims. Personally, I'm glad they're doing this because they're only alienating more people with this behavior.

[Paul T]

In 1961 if Obama's parents married in the 16 states that banned inter-racial marriage, they would have been arrested. Luckily for him and us, they married in Hawaii. A state that allowed inter-racial marriage.

The inter-racial marriage laws were overturned across the country in 1967 by the courts, even though the people of those states supported a ban on inter-racial marriage.

Voting for discrimination does not make it right. Bigotry by ballot is neither justified nor acceptable.

[So Sick of This]

"This protests should not STOP until EQUALITY is served to all citizens of this great state of California. Straights should come out in big numbers to support the NEW BLACK. They need our support: for Justice and Equality. We will be a better state when all the people are elevated

This is so offensive, but keep telling yourself that. You can't compare sexuality to a race of people. If you weren't so dramatic and self absorbed you'd realize how ridiculous this comparison actually is. Then they wonder why Black people didn't vote for this.

[Dingtank]

You're right! I don't care about homosexual's feelings.

Children's rights trump gay rights.

[Zach]

People don't vote on civil rights or equality in our free and equal society. When that is attempted, the people on the losing end of the vote never have and never will sit by quietly hoping for the majority to change its mind. People who spite the courts obviously don't know that it's their JOB to provide checks and balances, making sure the law (no matter who votes on it) is consistant and violates no one's rights. Allowing gay marriage does not, because no one's marriage is affected merely by someone else getting married. If it is, your marriage really has bigger problems!

[sameulberg]

Straights should come out in big numbers to support the NEW BLACK. They need our support: for Justice and Equality. We will be a better state when all the people are elevated.

Posted by: Pacheco

*********************************************************

Comparing gays to blacks shows your ignorance, Pacheco. There is no comparison. What a loser.

[cannon]

You people that equate same-sex human couples having sex to people having sex with dogs are really the disgusting ones. Why are straights the only ones who seem to go there? And who's trying to force a lifestyle on anyone except the Prop 8 supporters?! To Thomas: check the description of Civil Rights. How can Civil Rights decide 'who you are'? Idiots.

[CG]

I am amazed at how many ingorant people read latimes.com. This is absolutely about civil right and we will never stop marching until we are equal under the law. So, get used to it!

[jstone]

How is a relationship between 2 consenting adult males/females forcing their lifestyle on you? You claim this is a moral issue, what a load of nonsense. You base your morality on the bible, a book written and rewritten by the church over and over again for the last 2000 years to control the ignorant masses and keep people popping out babies and adding to the church coffers. If you are against this you must also be against birth control, for stoning people for saying god damn, stoning for breaking the sabbath, and other assorted stupid things the church and religion instituted to protect itself. Unless you live exactly as the bible says, which is what you clearly base what is moral upon, then you are just another religious hypocrite out to control people. Don't forget next week you need to go down to courthouse to start petition banning marriage between different ethnic groups.

[Eric]

I believe Prop 8 was nothing but thinly veiled, faux-religious bigotry, but where in the heck were these giant protests BEFORE last Tuesday?? At this point I believe it's up to the courts to right the wrong just like they did on Prop 22. And to those that complain about their rights being violated by the four judges (this means you Lin Tong and the rest of your bigot friends), the tyranny of the majority is SUPPOSED to be handled by the judicial branch or did you sleep through that lesson in civics.

[Zach]

So, what part of California has sentient dogs able to sign contracts? I simply must see this wonder of nature!

Really people, use your heads (and not the little one that keeps you obsessing about gay sex). Kids and dogs cannot enter a legal contract between two parties. Neither can multiple parties. Two men or women can, though, being two adults capable of consent. It really needn't be any more complicated than that.

[Fred Berger]

Come on people, everyone knows that Jewish people and homosexuals are genetically superior to all other people. The combination of Jewishness and gayness is a recipe for utter dominance. So anyone who is not Gay, Jewish or both would naturally be unhappy. It is understandable why these inferior people would vote for this silly proposition and why they would be mad at Jews and Homosexuals out of sheer jealousy. Come on everyone, don't hate on the Jews and Gays -- learn from them and try being more like them, and maybe with time and natural selection you can breed a gay child or eventually convert to Judaism and gain the superior genetics in a generation or two.

[Ryan]

The whole idea of comparing homosexuality to beastiality is getting old. Men sleeping with other men is certainly not the same as sleeping with animals or (to cover my tracks because someone will bring it up) children. It's two consenting adults who mean no harm to anyone else and doing what has come natural to them since birth.

I see the other sides arguments that if gay marriage is passed; then where do we draw the line? Polygomy? Beastiality? It makes sense, but as aforementioned, it's between two consenting adults who love each other and are commited to one another. Comparing this love to one of animals is cruel and naive.

We are not trying to throw our "disgusting lifestlyes" on you, but are demanding that the love we have for our partner isn't any less meaningful than the one you have for yours.

[Heather]

The different between a man and a man getting married, and a man and a dog is this: both parties are consenting adults, whereas last I checked, the dog can't consent.

Those "slippery slope" arguments are utterly ridiculous and only serve to prove just how terrible a debater you in fact are.

Nobody who argues for equal rights for homosexuals is arguing that there should be legalized murder or incest. That is an absurd argument to make, also.

If hyperbole and a belief in God are all you have to stand on, well, quite frankly, your argument holds no Constitutional weight.

[Timbo]

A nice history lesson Phil. However, as a democracy, we the people voted and somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. Unfortunately, if you win you are happy. If you lose you are not. Next...

[davieishere]

the people may have voted for proposition 8, but did everyone seem to forget that the California Supreme Court has the last say? their job is to deem whether or not a law that was put in place is against the California Constitution. if it is, they repeal it. it's as simple as that. if the majority of voters vote to amend the constitution, the California Supreme Court has the duty and the right to get rid of any unfair modifications.

how can everyone be so stubborn and say "ohh, well.. this is a democracy, majority rules." no, you morons. we all have civil rights, and one of the purposes of the constitution is to protect minorities from the majority. it is one of the most asinine things that i've heard in the last few days.

the whole thing with "well, if gay marriage is allowed, schools will teach our children about it!" i'm sorry, but parents have the right to take their children out of health and family issue teachings. but god forbid that your children learn about sensitivity and fairness in school! god knows that they aren't learning it at home.

the gay community does not wish to force their lifestyles on everyone else. all that they are asking for is equality and tolerance. if anything, proposition 8 is forcing religious institutions' lifestyles on homosexuals!

please take some time and think about how gay marriage is really affecting you. i hope you come to the realization that it doesn't. proposition 8, however, affected thousands of loving homosexual couples, and now they have a question mark over whether or not their marriage is valid. i hope that these protests continue, and that the public is more sympathetic to their cause. but, justice will be won.

[frank]

The majority is hetero. The majority are pedophiles, the majority are aborting, the majority loves thy neighbor. The Mormons believe marriage is between 1 ugly man and 10 minor girls. The minorities tamed by Jesus are freaking out

[outandproudhomosunite]

Have you guys ever heard of William Shakespeare? His line "Me thinks thou protests too much" was never more true than on this blog. Any adult, heterosexual male that obsesses about gay marriage enough to write on this blog is obviously gay himself. Just not out, proud and free.

[Greggbot]

Amazing and depressing how much ignorance and bigotry abound in these comments. I'm surprised some of you people can even read a newspaper.

Lin Tong - first of all, welcome to our country. I kind of wish you left your wrong and hateful bigotry behind. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Are you telling me that you could be gay too, if not for a choice you made? When did you choose to be straight? Do some scientific research (reading the bible is not research). Being gay is the way your brain is wired. It's a fact.

nis73m - who's forcing anything on you? You're forcing your disgusting bigotry on me by typing that hate speech into the comments section. It's none of your business who anybody marries. You don't like gays because it disgusts you? What do you look like? Should we outlaw marriage between ugly, fat people? Yuck disgusting - fat people having sex. Remember it's your choice to get fat. It's not a choice to be gay.

[g]

I have to disagree with Thomas. Being gay is not a choice, it is who you are. Studies have shown that there is a genetic marker for "gay" which makes a significant case for those who are gay being born as such. This is as much a civil rights issue as it would be for someone discriminated for being of a different race. And what about those who are handicapped? Certainly it is not a race issue when bathrooms are equipped for wheelchair access. And does that infringe on the rights of the non-handicapped to use a bathroom? I think not. As a straight man, I defend the rights of gays to marry and have the same privileges as straights who marry.

[Raphael]

Ling wrote: "We did not protest when 4 judges violated our rights by allowing gay marriages"

Maybe that's because YOU WEREN'T AFFECTED IN ANY WAY!!!!

Sheesh. You take away rights from millions of Californians, and you expect us to be complacent?

[Jon Wright]

In response to Lin Tong, I would like to strongly disagree. This is most deeply a civil rights issue (NOT a moral one) because marriage in the eyes of the law is a CIVIL process with attendant property rights and legal status. In fact, the marriage license that my husband and I obtained MAKES NO MENTION OF ANY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. You can have your church or synagogue, temple or mosque bless it but without the CIVIL LICENSE in California, your marriage would not be legal. It is unconscionable that a slim majority of misguided people (mislead by malicious and lying propaganda put out by so-called Christians who should be ashamed of themselves) could vote to take away my marriage and make us second-class citizens. WE WILL NEVER STOP UNTIL THIS IS CHANGED BACK!!

Also, as a lawyer, I am deeply offended by the Pro 8 camp claim that the decision permitting same sex marriage was the result of "four judges" implying they were somehow inferior -- in fact, the decision it was the majority opinion of the SUPREME COURT of the State of California, one of the most respected judicial bodies in this country.

Lastly, when you claim that this is a "moral" issue you are using the same bigoted thinking that whites used 80 years ago to make interracial marriage illegal. Why do you so-called Christians insist on reading all of the Bible out of context-- there are so many things in addition to gay sex that the Bible condemns (like women wearing red dresses and eating pork) --so why aren't these put into the consitituion?? Do you REALLY think Jesus would be supporting Prop 8? I think he would be on the picket lines throwing the Pharisees (and Catholics, Mormons and right wing Evangelists) out of his temple!

[Willa]

Lin Tong - I urge YOU to go back to school to study history and civics. Asian Pacific Islanders have faced a history of marriage discrimination in the form of anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Those laws were overturned not because a majority of people voted to overturn them, but because the California Supreme Court (and ultimately, the United States Supreme Court) in their constitutional role as interpreters of laws, found anti-miscegenation laws to be in violation of equal protection guarantees. That is why every major API civil rights organization came out against Prop 8.

As an API, think about the implications of a majority having the right to deny the rights of a minority based solely on a 50% + 1 referendum. What rights are you prepared to lose if a majority of Californians decide that those with non-traditional western names can be treated unequally? After all, your parents chose to name you Lin Tong and not "John Smith" or "Jane Smith".

[mark]

I don't recall seeing gays getting hosed down and have attack dogs set on them. Gays are not asked to move to the back of the bus or lynched and hung on trees. Don't you dare insult the sufferings of our black bretheren by calling your lifestyle a civil rights.

[Kyle in Santa Barbara]

To Rich,

How were you "violated and wronged" when the CA Supreme Court overturned Prop 22? What rights were taken away from you by their action? You simply did not like the idea that two people of the same sex would get the same legal recognition and rights under the law. But what was taken away from you in the process? Nothing.

What we now have is what historians refer to as the "tyranny of the majority" when the majority of people feel that it is OK to oppress and impose their will on the majority. The Constitution was meant to prohibit such travesties of justice. It is simply NOT acceptable to treat a class of citizens differently than the rest, no matter how abhorrent you may find it or what your religion may teach. My religion teaches justice and equality, and it is simply not God's will for the state to deny any citizens equality or justice.

[Ray Zo]

The republicans respected the Obama win, respect our Prop 8 win.

[CaliG]

Any straight man that has enough time and energy to comment on blogs about gay marriage is most likely homosexual himself. Maybe not out as gay -- most likely married with children as a cover. Shakespeare said it best: "Me thinks thou protests too much."

[Ralf]

I'm amazed at the comments of people trying to defend the definition of "marriage" by spouting passages from the bible. Religion has no place in the making of laws, it says so right in the constitution. I got my marriage license from the state of California not from the church.

I was inconvenienced in traffic and I say "Keep on protesting until the courts overturn this obviously unconstitutional law".

[Martha]

I have been alive for 72 years and any contact I have had with people with a homosexual or lesbian orientation has always been of an emotional nature. They are very quick to get up in my face when I say I do not understand why they do what they do. I still think it is some mental problem more than a genetic disposition. Yelling and marching and carrying signs about hate is not going to change the minds of the many good and kind and smart people who voted against them in this Proposition 8. As a matter of course, their bad behavior reinforces my belief that these people have some emotional issues. God bless you.

[HTDub]

Wow, am I in California or Utah? I'm surprised by the amount of innane and downright silly responses posted here. Some seem to think same sex marriage is a "moral" cause which, in my opinion, would take us down a dangerous path of mixing church and state (see Amendment 1 to the US Constitution forbidding such mingling). Rather than placing moral or religious judgements on gays and lesbians, can anyone articulate one good argument why their rights should be restricted as a separate class? By allowing same sex CIVIL marriage, there are absolutely NO changes to religious ceremonial marriage. In other words, no one's religious views/traditions would have been affected by continuing to uphold the California constitutional right of same sex civil marriage. And for those of you who feel the allowance of same sex marriage would somehow signal the fall of civilized society as we know it, then I suggest you visit places where it is already legal such as Canada, Belgium, South Africa, Spain, Norway, The Netherlands, Massachusetts, etc. These are hardly backwaters...more than I can say for California lately...

[Antonio]

I am so disappointed in Californians that voted for Prop 8.

You people spent in excess of $35 millions just to REMOVE A RIGHT that a group of people already had. Money that could have been better spent in these troubled economic times. Where are your priorities? California is suffering from a $15 billion dollar deficit, and you choose to waste time and resources TO TAKE AWAY SOMEONE'S RIGHT TO MARRY? I mean, really?

These people you took that right away from-- they're Californians who pay taxes that are vital to this state's economy. These are people who patronize your businesses, in one way or another. These are people whose services and products you use in your everyday life. These are community organizers who work on your behalf for better jobs, a better education for your kids, and a better life for people in your community.

So If you're going to deprive them of the right to marry, then at least be honest about it. Put up "Gays and Lesbians Not Welcome" signs at your stores and workplaces, your churches and places of worship. Be proud about your Yes on Prop 8 vote!

So gays and lesbians know what businesses not to patronize. And so we all know what bigots you really are.

[Eric Olson]

As a married straight man with two sons, I gladly support the right to marry as a civil right. Marriage is not a question of morality, but a civil contract - and any citizen has the right to enter into civil contracts regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation based purely on the fact that they are citizens.

Those who jump to illegitimate comparisons - bestiality, incest, polygamy - just stop. No one is talking about anything but a union between two consenting adults. That's it. Gay marriage is not the "gateway drug" to further marital experimentation.

As for the power of the vote, ask yourself; had the South voted on slavery in 1855, do you really think they would have voted to abolish it? Just because a (very slim) majority of people believe they are entitled to deny rights to another group of people does not mean they should be allowed to do so. If you think marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman, wonderful. Teach your children that, avoid gay couples, preach it in your churches; but do not deny a fundamental right to other human beings. That is what the judges did when they protected the right of same-sex couples to marry; they denied the right to discriminate, and extended the rights of the constitution to all citizens. Pursuit of happiness, baby, it's a beautiful thing.

And moralists, do some research; homosexuality is not a choice. While some may choose to experiment, the vast majority of people know before they reach puberty which sex they are attracted to. Do you really think an 11 year old is choosing for a life of being the target of ridicule and discrimination? People are who they are; as long as they are not causing harm, allow them to be free.

And Christians, step up; judge not lest ye be judged; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Doesn't that supersede all other teachings? Do you really think you know God's plan? (If you really want to get ally biblical and technical, we need to start stoning people who eat shellfish and wear cotton-poly blends, because that nonsense is in Leviticus, too. Who wants to cast the first stone?) God is love! Embrace it!

[Stephen]

Hate is a slippery slope.

52.5% of Californians got it wrong. What will they say when Hate comes knocking on THEIR doors? Consider this:

1. What will you say to your gay son or daughter when he/she wants to marry his/her partner? How will you explain to him/her that YOU voted to erase his/her civil rights because you were trying to protect him/her?

2. What will you say when 52.5% of your neighbors vote to take away YOUR civil rights? Aren't we all a minority of one sort or another? What will you say when they come for you?

3. What will you say when your God asks you to account for your sins? Because, as you are so quick to tell us, God IS watching us. And because, in the end, we will each and every one of us be held accountable for Discrimination, Bigotry, Fear and Hate.

Strike down Prop 8!

Don't like getting stuck in traffic?!? Get used to it! The protests, rallies and marches will continue until this terrible wrong is set right!

[Nathan]

Polygamy and incest have been brought up numerous times on these boards. Can someone please offer a coherent line of reasoning about how the arguments for the legalization of gay marriage do NOT apply to polygamy/incest/bestiality, etc? Where is the demarcation line here?

This is not really a civil rights issue. To compare the struggle to those who were enslaved and had only 3/5 of a vote is offensive.

The debate is about the definition of marriage. Many still believe that marriage is the cornerstone of the family unit and that the traditional union between a man and a woman is the only proper application. It is not about hating gays, it is about protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

[steve]

This protest stuff is out of control. Look how the Yes on 8 crowd did their work. They waved signs on the side of the road. They were peaceful and respectful of others beliefs. All they got for their troubles was middle fingers and verbal abuse.

The gay crowd says this is all about love but they are all about hate. They are picking off groups who stood up for what they believed and pointing them out as evil.

We as a state have voted twice to have a more traditional definition of marriage. The gay crowd each time tries to go behind the back of the people to change the law that the majority has decided upon. Now they cry like babies that they have lost their civil rights. MLK's youngest has been quoted as saying "My father did not take a bullet so that same sex couples could marry". The civil rights angle is a huge smoke screen. Marriage is a contract and most states have chosen not to give it to same sex couples.

Move on - enjoy same sex partnerships with all the equal rights that married couples have. You are coming across as sore loser bullies.

Maybe that is just what you are.....

[SANDY MCCARTHY]

PEOPLE, YOU LOST TWICE. MOVE ON AND GET OVER IT. THE CAUSE IS GOING TO COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU. PEOPLE ARE GETTING VERY ANGRY AT THE GAYS. LET IT GO FOR A WHILE. AND, PLEASE STOP COMPARING YOURSELVES TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. THE SAME PEOPLE THAT FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS ARE THE ONES THAT VOTED YES ON 8.
MASSACHUSETTS ALLOWS GAY MARRIAGES. MOVE THERE.

[Chris]

To all the haters posting on this site: Eventually this issue will end up in the US Supreme Court, and all of these laws will be overturned because there is no reason for them to exist other than bigotry. Then you will have all the time in the world to fret about my so-called "disgusting lifestyle" and espouse your false piety. But guess what? It's your life you are wasting in hate, and I could not care less. You have already proven that you are not worthy of consideration.

[PDuff]

Civil unions and/or domestic partnerships only accord the benefits of marriage at the state level. Federally recognized marriages, however, provide over 1,000 additional benefits (including survivorship benefits from Social Security) that ignore anything that isn't specifically called "marriage."

THAT is what this fight is about. All anyone has to do to become educated on this topic (including your local preacher or priest) is make an EFFORT and realize that not all of life's lessons and rules are contained in a book of faith, the Bible. If you have online access, you have no excuse other than laziness and a willingness to remain ignorant. Tell me, did you also refuse to read your mortgage documents and them blame the fall-out on everyone else?

In the future, please do your homework before spouting your "you get the same rights, what's the big deal?" nonsense.

As for why didn't people protest BEFORE the election? That's a very good question. But now they're energized and they're not going away.

[Just Right]

It is ludicrous to treat an abnormal behavior as the basis for a civil right. What's next, civil rights for shoe fetishists?

[Dave S]

To follow the path of this tragic logic - pedophiles, polygamists, and those that enjoy sex with animals should be allowed to marry the objects of their desire too. Weren't they born that way? Aren't their rights being violated in a similar fashion? You can bet that these other splinter groups will be rapidly contacting their lawyers for defense of their abnormal practices should prop 8 be overturned (again) by misguided judges.

[Jack]

From what I witnessed, these "protests" involve a large group of people gathering and drinking heavily in public. It seems more like a parade of drunks than civil activists.

[James Wilson]

Give it up. You lost and that's it. It's over and done. If you want to protest, go down to South Central and protest the blacks who overwhelmingly voted Yes on 8. I am sure they will appreciate your protests.

[Chris G]

Boy, could people be any more ignorant? First, NO ONE chooses to be gay. Why would anyone WANT to be set up for adversity? And yes, this is an issue of civil rights. Gays are used as a target market in marketing and advertising and they are discussed as a cultural minority in academic communities. So sure, we can target a group for their money and as consumers, and we can intellectually discuss them as a group, but yeah, OF COURSE they aren't a group that deserves equal rights.

Anyone who believes such things is either uneducated or brainwashed by religious propaganda. And here's a side note for those nut jobs: (There is no God). Have fun arguing that one.

[Sunnier Days Ahead]

Just to be clear b/c I see this in comments almost daily:

Domestic partnerships DO NOT grant all the rights and privileges that marriages do.

Also: I hate to agree with whatever species juliab is, but where were the protests beforehand? I think the outpouring of emotion now is amazing and inspiring (for the first time I really admire the Governator), but where was it when it could have counted in the election? Although the whole thing should be moot because civil rights should not be up to majority decision.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

[Ed Kimble]

I'm frightened by the level of ignorance and disregard for the principals of American democracy in play in these comments. One writer complains that the Supreme Court by overturning Prop 22 somehow infringed in his "rights" because, as many writers complain, "the voters have spoken."

Apparently these writers missed the day in civics class when it was pointed out that the role of the court is to make sure that neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor even the wrongheaded will of the majority be used to harm the minority.

Apparently these writers also missed that day in history class when it was pointed out that the Third Reich rose to power in Nazi Germany through the ballot box. Hitler was elected. Lies and propaganda -- like those used by the Prop 8 campaign -- helped him get elected, but he was elected. "The voters had spoken."

Americans also voted to keep slaves for the first hundred years of this nation's history. Voters supported Jim Crowe laws that kept African Americans from ballot boxes and deprived them of their rights to public education and fair treatment in the work place for the next hundred years.

I have no doubt that the same writers who support Prop 8 would have supported Hitler, slavery and Jim Crowe law and anything else their fearmongering clergy told them to. And then they would have had the audacity to call the victims of these laws enacted by the will of the voters mere "whiners."

[James]

Blame it all on Chad Morrisette and the real Bradley effect. Keep up the good work and keep messing up my commute. Its interesting to see how strong Obama was in California yet you still couldn't win on 8. If you were going to march, it probably should've been a bit earlier, like maybe Halloween or anytime before the 4th. California politics has moved on...BTW I voted no.

[SHEEP DOG]

When do the protests for polygamy and beastiality begin? That will be a real show stopper!

[dpw1227]

Mormons have a bizarre past that includes racism and polygamy. Catholics have admitted to prior anti-Semitic actions and the clegy sexual abuse scandal. A subset of straights have a history of affairs, divorce, and out of wedlock births.

And these are the folks that are trying to legislate morality? Mind your own house and stay out of mine please. My gay marriage won't interfere with your living your imperfect life.

[William Joseph Miller]

Flagranty violating the 9th Commandment, the "holy believers" who backed Proposition 8 borrowed a tactic straight out of the playbook of Joseph Goebbels: Tell a lie enough times and people will believe it. In previous posts I warned the public of the dangers of adopting this form of political tactic.

And, lo and behold, my prophesies have already been fulfilled.

According to a recent report on Earthlink News, two groups of monks from the Greek Orthodox Church and the Armenian Orthodox Church respectively got into a brawl in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Police had to break up the melee. Imagine for a moment - two groups of Holy Monks, who have devoted their lives to God, duking it out like two rival gangs "straight outta Compton" for a piece of turf in supposedly the most sacred shrine in Christendom in supposedly the Holy City. Does this make any kind of sense?

The battle of the monks is just about as absurd as Proposition 8. Let's be logical. How can you save marriage by banning it? How can your promote traditional, Christian family values when you not only prohibit some people from adopting them but also slam the door of the church in their faces? Does this make sense? For real, it sounds like bombing a village in order to save it.

To add a contemporary spin to the words of Martin Luther King, absurdity any where is absurdity everywhere. Voltaire once observed that when we believe absuridites, we will commit atrocities. I only wish that a fisticuff between two monastic orders was the only problem - it isn't.

I just read a report of another horrible sectarian suicide bombing in Iraq, one which killed a number of innocent children. In the last month, religious extremists have attacked Christians in both Iraq and India. We can expect further crimes, persecutions, massacres, and atrocities -all done in the name of God.

By promulgating lies, misinformation, ignorance and hatred in California to persecute gays, so-called Chrstians are giving a green light to similar persecutions everywhere in the world. The so-called Christians who voted for Propositions 8 are not worthy of being called followers of Christ. Their churches are not worthy of being called Houses of God. They need to get on their knees and ask God for forgiveness. Then, they need to do everything they can to overturn this hateful proposition.

[Derrick]

I would just like to say the citizens of California passed Prop 8. So now it is the law.
We need respect the fact that people had a chance to vote on this issue and the voters, chose to define marriage is between a man and a woman.
Lets respect the vote that stands.

[sgh]

Get your facts straight: THE MORMON CHURCH DID *NOT* DONATE MONEY TO PRO 8, many individual members of the church did. Their level of donation and participation was a personal decision and unique for everybody. Those members are citizens of the state too and have all of the political and democratic rights as anybody else. There are only about 500,000 LDS members in the state, and not all of them supported prop 8. In fact, one of the most famous Mormons, Steve Young, and his wife donated $50K to the No on 8 campaign. Plus, even if all Mormons did support prop 8 that's still less than 10% of the 5.5M people that voted for Prop 8. So all of this m arching around Mormon temples show how ignorant and desperate the other side is.

[Steve Ru]

Tear down the Mormon temple and let Overland Ave go through to Wilshire! Maybe that will help the whiners about traffic, and make the gays happy. Win-win!

[cbk16]

Those for prop 8, were not saying to Gays I want to take away your benefits, probate rights, ect, it was just that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, they just wanted to keep the same definition, and same tradition that has served society so well these last thousand of years. If they want to call their unions something else, call it something else, just don't call it marriage. What if someone was into shaking up with their dog, should the marriage definition be expanded to included animals? There was nothing in the language in prop 8 to discriminate against Gays. The majority just wanted marriage to mean what it has always meant, and to have our schools teach, to our children, the definition of marriage that all of our ancestors have understood the term to mean.

[Maria]

You are wasting valuable police resources and are breaking the law to get your point across. Many of us who supported you are now getting really angry because you are not being considerate of the hard working people of this city. You guys are not looking good with the media showing a bunch of angry, emotional people.; First you look organized then you have idiots walking down the middle of the streets. You guys don't have a permit and law enforcement is still helping you out and you guys are behaving immaturely. Grow up and get your message more focused just like Obama.

[The Sarah]

My guess is that those of you saying gay people "should just get over it" are completely ignorant of how the system works. Just because the people "voted" on an issue doesn't make that issue "legal" or right.

Did "the people" get a majority vote in segregation of schools in 1954s? NO.

Brown v. The Board of Education, May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Therefore Separate Laws for gay unions and straight marriages are inherently unequal.

[notsoandso]

Interesting Bedfellows The Jews, Catholic & the Mormon Church. First what right does the church that brought us the largest group of organized sexual child predators in the name of Christianity have to even dare speak out - those same priest can't marry. Perhaps if they could marry they would not be child predators. Millions collected from it's members to pay for the sins of the leaders of the church. What Hypocrisy in the name of God. Next bedfellows the Mormons, the same group that not that long ago were killed just for being Mormons. Millions of dollars from outside of California from Mormons to promote intolerance. 6 Million Jews killed by Hitler and now the Jews are intolerant of a few? Religion seems to be causing a lot of strife by persecuting others

[Marty]

Shouldnt the church really be fighting for gay men on children?

[Carla]

This has nothing to do with people marrying dogs or siblings. Do you know anyone who wants to marry their dog or sibling? If you do, well, deal with that on its own. Thats not the issue. Nor is polygamy. Personally, I don't have a problem with polygamy if it were a handful of consenting adults. I do have a problem with the idea of having several child brides though, which is usually the class with polygamists. The issue as I see it, is that my aunt and her partner of 20+ years are being considered "sore losers" because their love is seen as inferior to a bunch of hateful "Christians", half who are probably divorced or fathering illegitimate babies anyhow.

[William Joseph Miller]

Dear Juliab, I will agree with you if you tell African-American realtors to stop insisting on being called realtors. They should stop whining and accept the title of realtist. Does this register with you? I think not.
Before fair housing laws hit the books, African-Americans could not become realtors, even if they past the real estate exams, even if they got a license, even if they opened a real estate business and did everything a realtor did. The title of realtor was reserved for whites only. African-americans had to be settle for the title of realtist.
I might add that in 1964, enraged over the passage of California's first fair housing law, white realtors passed Proposition 14 with a 2/3 majority vote. According to the Christopher Commission, Proposition 14 was one of the factors causing the Watts riots of 1965. It took the Supreme Court of California to end this stupidity.
The truth is simple.Let's be honest. if a person runs a real estate business, call him or her a realtor - regardless of the person's race. If two people get married - call it what it is - a marriage. Or simply let the state issue civil unions to everyone - and reserve marriages for the church. Which do you prefer?

[THOMAS46]

HI prop 8 people!

Help me out here, I don't get it.

What's up with needing the gov paper that says "marriage"? I'm married but view the OFFICIAL DOCUMENT as a meaningless intrusion of both church and state into my personal life. To me this was a vote about definition of the word "marriage" in a legal sense.
I'm lead to believe that the big uproar is all about validation on mostly a political level. I think it's wrong to use SEX PREFERENCES as a political tool. This applies to both hetro and homo and what ever other classifications you'd like.

There needs to be more respect for peoples' choices of life style and following the "Civil Rights" action in the streets will only promote misunderstanding and therefore... hate.

So why is this?

[stephanie]

Stop the hate speech! I will proudly demonstrate this weekend in hopes of everyone being EQUAL. I am embarassed of being a Californian. I am sure you religious nutballs or people that hate gay people (but only love hot lesbians) would have changed your tune if you had heard my best friend's dad on the answering machine telling her how sorry he was, how much he loved her, how proud he was and that she'll always be his little girl. Your intolerance digusts me.

[Sony]

We would be sore losers if we had stayed quiet.

THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER!

YOU get over it! We're here and everywhere so too bad.

[Kevin Dement]

Being gay is not a choice or a lifestyle. I cannot choose being gay just like you cannot choose being straight. When are people going to recognize that homosecuality is not a choice. Since gay is not a choice then it is a civil rights issue! I cannot choose to be gay just like a black person cannot choose their race.

[Madeline]

The posts on these reports continue to horrify me.

No, homosexuality is not on the same level of bestiality. It's mutually consensual. It's also quite capable of being a relationship just as loving and stable as any heterosexual relationship. All that changes is gender.

No, same-sex marriage does not "force" a lifestyle on you. You are quite welcome to continue to live your narrowminded life - the opponents of Proposition 8 couldn't care less about who you marry. All legalised same-sex marriage does is stop forcing your lifestyle on people who don't want - or can't - live it.

No, the problem is not that marriage is in someway a constitutionally granted right. The problem is that equality IS a constitutionally granted right - and that your constitution was explicitly designed to stop the majority denying equal treatment to the minority. As such, it seems that 52% of the population denying equal access to something (be it a right or a privilege) is unconstitutional. The courts aren't denying you a right by overturning it. They're saying that you never had the right to vote it in in the first place. To repeat: your rights have not been violated.

No, it's not enough to give "all the rights" through domestic partnerships. You're still denying equal treatment.

No, marriage was not "always" between a man and a woman. See above - Phil has posted an excellent discussion of historical same-sex marriage. I might add the acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome. Your bias is actually surprisingly new.

No, this is not on the same level as polygamy. In banning polygamy, one questions the ability for people to be consenting to the marriage - due to the recorded high rates of coercion, abuse and underaged marriages. Of course, an equally good solution would be to regulate to ensure consent. However, one can also argue that the loving bonds considered essential to marriage are not possible in a situation of divided attention, or (to take a definitional argument) that marrying more than one person simply isn't marriage. But it's a very different debate from same-sex marriage, in which there is no evidence of lack of consent and the marriage maintains the same form as a heterosexual marriage.

Nor is it on the same level as incest. The arguments for banning incest come from the recorded narrowing of the gene pool that results (causing a greater expression of recessive genetic disorders) and the impossibility of consent in a severely weighted power balance. Not even vaguely similar to homosexuality.

No, the time to protest is not "over". When African-Americans were first denied the vote, should they have packed up and gone home? When Britain first denied your country independence, should your founding fathers have shrugged and gone to pick up the groceries? The time to protest will be over when equality is in place.

[Don Gorton]

The protests are being driven by a widely shared observation that Proposition 8 was a vehicle for expressing hate. Comments on this web page bear that observation out. The pro-8 ads played off the same lie that gays are a threat to children that fueled the venomous campaigns led by Anita Bryant and John Briggs in the 70's. Contrary to what is said, marriage has not been an immutable, unitary institution historically and cross-culturally. Prop 8, by contrast, represents the same homophobia that has been recorded since at least the bronze age. Gaybashers understand the meaning of what is intended and act out the hate that campaigns like Prop 8 feed off of.

[Glenn Doty]

This is what happens when you remove God from a nation -- All it takes is a review of the captivity of Israel to get the picture -- anyone interested should start at Judges and move through the book of Kings -- God does not change.

[gaydad05]

We live in a constitutional democracy that respects majority rule, but also guarantees that the minority will not be tyrannized by the majority. Gay people have experienced a betrayal of that guarantee, and a couple days of lousier than usual traffic is a small price to pay for an otherwise peaceful series of ralllies. There's so much animosity for gay folks in these discussion threads. It's quite awful being on the receiving end of all this venom. And all because of what? Wanting our relationships recognized. Wanting the rights and responsibilities our straight counterparts take for granted.

Pacheco -- I know that you're passionate about fighting for our rights, but "the new Black"? Are you African American? It seems pretty insulting to me.

[David]

If we have a true separation of Church and State then the definition of Marriage can’t be defined by a religious belief. Therefore this is not a moral issue but a rights issue. What gays are fighting for is for their constitutional right of being equal under the law. There are no second-class citizens in the US just because a religious belief says so. We are not the Taliban but Americans. It is either marriage for everyone or only Civil Unions for all, that simple.