Proposition 8: The endless campaign over gay marriage

In normal political campaigns, election day -- win or lose -- signals the end.

Not so with Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman that was approved by 52% of California voters Nov. 4.

Instead of settling the question of gay marriage in California, the election merely ushered in a new, and in many cases more heated, phase of the campaign, with both sides looking ahead to 2010, when the matter could be back on the ballot.

This could happen no matter how the state Supreme Court rules. The court announced this week that it would review the legality of Proposition 8 in response to several lawsuits filed by cities and gay couples.

If justices uphold the proposition, gay marriage backers plan to put their own measure before voters perhaps as soon as 2010 to re-amend the state Constitution to allow the marriages.

If the justices toss out Proposition 8, some gay-marriage opponents have talked of putting something on the ballot themselves, either to again ban gay marriage or to oust Supreme Court justices or both.

Read the rest of the story here.

--Jessica Garrison

Comments

[Zach]

Frist I'll thank Michael and Cultural Decay for your well-written and obviously thoughful comments. It's really a nice change. Since we're getting into deeper issues, Decay, I'll drop the numbering for now.

I'm a firm belief that we need to establish a hard line between secular and religious institutions in this country, and this is something on which some Christians need to stand down. When people start arguing that a minority needs to be denied equal benefits under a contract because that contract happens to share a title with one of their religious bonds, those people have gone too far, whether it was hate or their conscience that led them. Did God say that all unions must be called marriage? No, I don't see how Christians are mandated to make sure government marriage remains true to their definition. Rather, I think they're compelled by men to do so, men who claim control over that which is Christian, and in that have an interest in making sure government is regarded as such.

I don't believe Christians are bound by God to affect governments of the Earth. God said to make disciples of all nations, not to dominate them, and to focus on His kingdom. To say Christians must essentially force their morality on a nation if democratic processes allow it is to use the same logic as justified the Crusades, replacing broadswords with ballots. It's also the same logic used to justify anti-Christian prejudice in this country's history. That's why striking a balance between one's moral duty and one's civic duty is important.

Morality figures into law, but again, it's neither simply nor purely the foundation. While it's wrong to claim consent by a person that cannot, it's also not really consent, and so legally the contract fails because consent is lacking. So, there's more to it than simple morality telling us, "That cannot happen." It's legal experts telling us how law works. It's developental psychologists telling us how the capacity to consent develops. Morality alone never establishes law, and hearts and minds alone are not the only things for which to fight. Our founding fathers established the courts to temper the hearts and minds of the people when they become enflamed, to be a cool arbiter of justice.

[MIchael in Merced]

ReverseCulturalDecay, thanks for your thoughtful answers. I wish everyone were as articulate as you.

I'm aware that wrong and unconstitutional are not the same. Wrong is subjective and requires a moral judgment. Unconstitutional is objective and requires interpretation.

We'll never agree on constitutionality if you believe that any notion a majority votes into law is automatically constitutional. That's mob rule where majority always wins, and I find that downright irrational. But if that's what you believe...

If a majority votes to allow something prohibited by the Constitution, how can you believe the will of a majority overrules all else just because they voted according to procedure?

An important distinction is letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. You seem concerned only with the letter of the law. There are and will be circumstances not addressed by the letter of the law. Times change, technology changes, all kinds of advancement takes place. When our judiciary is asked to rule on something not addressed in the letter of the law they have to be guided by the spirit of the law. Do you agree?

Are you aware that the California assembly, both houses, TWICE passed legislation (in 2005 and again in 2007) allowing gay couples to marry in California? Both times when it went to the governor for signature he vetoed it. A single man completely shot down the robust legislative process of the elected representatives who are accountable to constituents.

His reason? He said he wanted to leave the matter to the court to decide. His deference to the California Supreme Court is the ony reason we didn't have legal marriage three years ago.

Then the case he was waiting on finally played out to its end, and in May of this year the Supreme Court ruled in agreement with the legislature. And THEN comes the 11/4 vote, passed by its narrow margin.

Can you see why gay people would be very upset, and feel spit on by that 52% who took away a right we gays fought so hard for, for so long, and had finally achieved the long arduous way, with the backing of the legislature and the courts? Can you see now why the argument that a 4% margin trumps everything else seems shrill and illogical?

Finally, I think like so many other people you are confusing legal marriage with the religious ritual. They are two different things.

Legal marriage most certainly IS a benefit, and a civil right. There are tax an myriad legal implications. And a legal marriage means nothing in the eyes of God. It's a contract between two people and sanctioned by their government.

Religious marriage most certainly is NOT a civil right. All of your statements on "marriage" apply to the religious ritual, but they do not apply to the legal contract. Secular society is not a religion, and city hall is not a church.

[ThomasAlex]

Where are you people getting this stuff "Marriage has always been between a Man and a Women"?
In what Era are you allowed to use the definition of Marriage? And where is your proof to this supposedly definition ever existed? Up until Gays wanted to get marry, our Constitution never stated any Marriage restrictions. History will show you that Marriage use to be just a promise you made to your lover, which had nothing to do with the Church or State.

"Gods Law"
Which god are you talking about? There are hundreds of gods, who all have different views and beliefs.

"Gay Men are Free to Marry", since when?
Gay men cannot Marry! Are you seriously that dumb? 30 states have Bans on Gay Marriage, and the US has the DOMA. So No, Gay Men cannot get Married. If a Gay Man married a female, he wouldn't be gay(straight).

"no-one will win the debate through legislation or the judiciary -- the battle will be decided when people as a whole believe in a particular way."
Your joking right? The Courts will decide the Fate of this battle, just like they have done so for hundreds of years. The Judges you elect, are giving the power to overturn laws they find unconstitutional.

[MIchael in Merced]

ReverseCulturalDecay, thank you for your thoughtful answers. I wish everyone were as articulate and thoughtful as you. A few points...

I'm fully aware that wrong and unconstitutional are not the same. Wrong is subjective and requires a moral judgment. Unconstitutional is objective and requires interpretation.

We can never agree on constitutionality if you believe that any notion "the people" vote into law is automatically constitutional. That's a mob rule society where the majority always wins, and I find that downright irrational. But if that's what you believe...

But how can you believe that? If a majority votes to allow something prohibited by the Constitution, how can you believe the will of a majority overrules all else just because they voted according to procedure?

An important distinction here is letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. You seem concerned only with the letter of the law. There are and will be circumstances not addressed by the letter of the law. Times change, technology changes, all kinds of advancement takes place in our society. When our judiciary is asked to rule on something not addressed by the letter of the law they have to be guided by the spirit of the law. Do you agree?

Are you aware that the California assembly, both houses, TWICE passed legislation (in 2005 and again in 2007) allowing gay couples to marry in California? Both times when it went to the governor for signature he vetoed it. A single man completely shot down the robust process of legislation by the elected representatives who are accountable to their constituents.

His reason? He said he wanted to leave the matter to the court to decide. His deference to the California Supreme Court is the ony reason we didn't have legal marriage three years ago.

Then the case he was waiting on finally played out to its end, and in May of this year the Supreme Court ruled in agreement with the legislature. And THEN comes the vote, passed by its narrow margin.

Can you see why gay people would be very upset, and feel spit on by that 52% who took away a right we gays fought so hard for, for so long, and had finally achieved the long arduous way, with the backing of the legislature and the courts? Can you see now why the argument that a 4% margin trumps everything else seems shrill and illogical?

Finally, I think like so many other people you are confusing legal marriage with the religious ritual. They are two different things.

Legal marriage most certainly IS a benefit, and a civil right. There are tax an myriad legal implications. And a legal marriage means nothing in the eyes of God. It's a contract between people and their government.

Religious marriage most certainly is NOT a civil right. All of your statements on "marriage" apply to the religious ritual, but they do not apply to the legal contract. Secular society is not a religion, and city hall is not a church.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

Michael in Merced: Courts are there to test legislation against the Constitution as written, not the Constitution as they wish it was.

If our society went insane and voted through our normal process to make the Constitution completely consistent in saying that you could murder people if you were really mad, then that would be the law of the land. And judges could not then use the Constitution to attack that because the Constitution would be the very document that said killing people when mad was fine.

All they would have would be their own opinions. And, although I would agree with their opinion that killing people because you're mad is WRONG, that doesn't make it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the words "wrong" and "unconstitutional" do not have the same meaning.

The role of a judge is to ensure that constitutional laws are enforced and unconstitutional ones are repealed.

A judge has no jurisdiction over the definition of the Constitution itself -- jurisdiction over the Constitution is with the Legislature and with the people.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

Zach:

Your arguments are well constructed and you write well. (I do not mean to imply by that that you are correct, however.) But thanks for the well thought out response.

(1) I agree that every citizen not breaking a law is entitled to the same legal benefits as every other citizen. Marriage, however, is not a BENEFIT. It is a particular institution which has had a broadly accepted meaning in the cultural history of the United States (i'll concede the fact that marriage has had broader definitions outside the cultural history of the United States that go beyond single husband/single wife relationships, but in my view that's not relevant here). It is the gay rights movement which is seeking to broaden that definition and apply that word to their relationships. Christians see this as a statement by society that marriages between gay people are not something to be condemned as immoral, but something to be accepted as normal. As a result, a Christian who believes he must condemn and resist that which God condemns and resists must vote against that change in definition.

(2) I agree that no immoral behavior between homosexuals will be stopped as a result of denying the applicability of the institution of marriage to the gay relationship. But that's not the point. The point is that a Christian's conscience is captive to the Word of God -- and if given the opportunity to vote, a Christian cannot declare something acceptable that God has called unacceptable. By the way, people are quite right to point out the logical inconsistency in being rigorous on the issue of gay marriage while not caring at all about adultery or other things the Bible calls sin. If given the opportunity to vote on those things a Bible believing Christian would also have to admit that adulterers are included in Paul's lists of the people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

(3) You assert that we don't condemn marriage between adults and children because it's immoral, but because children can't give consent. That's part of it -- having people enter into relationships they can't give real consent to is certainly immoral. Ultimately all law is encoded morality -- law represents the places where people of diverse background and point of view have managed to form some kind of consensus on what is right and wrong. Law is a collective moral judgment. And this is why a Christian has a moral responsibility to God to let their voice be heard in elections.

(4) To some extent I share your view that bare majorities ought not to be able to legislate for everyone. I agree that it's far preferable to only be able to make law when those laws represent a very broad consensus as opposed to a narrow majority. But so long as that's the way the system is set up, if something appears on the ballot that represents something the Bible is clear on, a Christian's conscience is captive to what God says about it.

(5) With regard to theocracies, I don't like man-made ones (can anyone say oxymoron?). I'll be extremely happy to live in one when Jesus Himself appears to run the world, but until then there are lots of fallible human beings running around and I don't want to be subject to mullahs. Some will now say that I'm being inconsistent in that I'm apparently propounding a religious standard for law. But I'm actually NOT advocating a collective religious standard for law, but an individual one. What I'm saying is that law is encoded morality, and that every person has a right and obligation to bring their own standard for morality to the process for law-making -- and that includes Christians. If we ever got to a world where everyone were a Christian then I guess we would get law that completely represented our point of view -- but I don't guess it would bother anyone then, would it? Of course, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. You can call that a theocracy if you like, but in reality it's just people self-governing according to the standards they believe in.

In short, this is a battle for hearts and minds -- and no-one will win the debate through legislation or the judiciary -- the battle will be decided when people as a whole believe in a particular way. My hope is that God is pleased with the way we end up deciding it.

[MIchael in Merced]

Zach - well said! Bravo! Please keep up the good work educating people with your clear thought.

[MIchael in Merced]

ReverseCulturalDecay - I absolutely disagree. By your logic, if we can convince enough people across the country to make murder legal if you're really angry at someone (convince enough to get 75% of the states and 2/3 of the Congress) then it would be ok. That would be the new law: "Murder is ok as long as you're really angry at someone." And then judges would have to uphold that because we followed the proper procedure to make it the law. Of course not. That would make no sense.

I'd like to hear you elaborate on what exactly you think the courts are for if not to interpret law.

I'd also like to hear your definition of what qualifies something as being unconstitutional. Because it sounds like in your eyes nothing is or ever will be, and our judges just sit around arbitrarily playing with the law like Play-Doh for fun.

[Zach]

Cultural Decay, if you don't like the government redefining words in revising law, tell the government you want your word out of the law (if you can prove it was yours in the first place) and let churches perform marriages. Government is not ruled by tradition, which alone will fail a legal challenge. Traditionally, women are subservient to men. Traditionally, only white men vote in this country. Churches may hold tradition sacred, but government has to have a better reason for a law than simply things being traditional or merely thought immoral.

For example, we don't forbid adults to marry children only "because it's immoral." We forbid that because, among other reasons, children cannot give consent - a valid LEGAL reason. No such reason exists to prohibit gay marriage. It would be, for all intents and purposes, the same as straight marriage.

[Zach]

Firstly, CulturalDecay, though there are ways to overturn major provisions of the Constitution, that's a FAR cry from the simple majority vote that took place here. Most people don't have the guts for such an honest and forthright rejection of American principles, they'd rather pass measures like Prop 8 that merely erode them. Secondly, I have an answer to your first two points below, but none on the third because I have nothing to say to such a cavalier attitude of turning our democracy into a theocracy.

1) No, no one is asking for anyone's APPROVAL. We vote regularly for things we don't approve of, because we recognize that what we'd like is not necessarily what's right by our laws and national principles. No one has to AGREE with gay marriage, they only have to agree that everyone deserves the same government benefits if benefits are to be given at all.

2) No immoral behavior being fought by Prop 8. None. Gays will still be gay with 8 in place, will still have sex with 8 in place, but will not be in committed, government-contracted relationships. If Christians think they won a victory, if they think God cares, they ought to look at what He had to say about where His kingdom lies.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

ThomasAlex:

Judges ARE chartered to deal with unconstitutionality. But unconstitutional does NOT mean the same thing as "I don't like it". The test of constitutionality is "consistency with the Constitution as written". When the Constitution itself is changed the judges really have no choice but to enforce it. They can't just say they don't like it so it's not the law. Judges are not dictators.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

Michael in Merced:

Note that I didn't say "a majority of white Americans". What I said was that if 75% of the states and 2/3 of the Congress voted to create an amendment to the US Constitution that repealed the 14th Amendment and made interracial marriage illegal then that would be the law of the land. The judges would have no Constitutional power to question it.

It would be completely immoral ... but completely legal.

And that's the point -- the Constitution does NOT protect every minority without qualification. It defines a set of protections and a set of people to whom they apply. And it defines a procedure for changing both the protections and the people to whom they apply.

People's civil rights already CAN be removed. If you're a felon you know this.

Said another way -- the only way that either side can really WIN this issue is to win the hearts and minds of the people to their point of view -- because in this country all sovereignty already resides with the people.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

ThomasAlex:

The problem is a problem of definitions. Marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman.

Gay men ARE free to marry in this sense -- they have the same rights as anyone else.

They are not free to marry outside of that definition.

To say what you've said you could just as well say "Straight men can marry women, but adults cannot marry children. That is not equal rights." But we don't allow that because it's immoral. In the same way, many people believe that homosexual marriage is immoral.

[MIchael in Merced]

Reverse Cultural Decay - that is where you are flat out wrong. If a majority of white Americans voted to ban interracial marriage tomorrow, no, it is absolutely not going to stand up in this country. That is what the court is for! If that ban was legal, yes it could happen. But no vote from a majority can ever decide to do something illegal. And taking away a right that has already been determined to exist, and taking it away for one class of people only-- as was the case here -- is doing something illegal. That is why the court will rule to overturn Prop 8. It's unconstitutional.

[ThomasAlex]

Actually Judges are order to uphold the Constitution, but if they find a law that is unconstitutional in their eyes, they are to correct it as they see fit. That is the job they were hired to do, if you don't like it, then change it. So basically you are saying the Judges were wrong to overturn bans on; interracial marriage and womens right to vote?

[MIchael in Merced]

Chris - are you joking?? Are you honestly saying that gay people have equal rights already because they can marry the opposite sex?? I'm a gay man; would you want me to marry YOUR daughter? Knowing from day one my heart is not in it and I am never going to be physically attracted to her, and we will both be miserable from day one until the marriage eventually ends? Is that what you want? I really hope you are not serious with that.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

Michael in Merced: Three points:

(1) You ARE asking for the approval of your fellow citizens -- if you want to have your rights enshrined in the Constitution you need to make sure that enough people agree with you so that people don't change the Constitution in ways you don't like.

(2) Christians have a moral responsibility to use their political voices to oppose immoral behavior being labeled as moral behavior by the state. That is what this debate is about from the perspective of Christians.

(3) The standard that a Christian uses in exercising his right to vote is the standard of God's righteousness. Non-Christians are free as citizens to use their own standards in voting. Whoever wins while following Constitutional procedure will have the force of human law behind them. But ultimately it's God's standards that matter ...

[ThomasAlex]

Straight men can Marry women, but Gay Men cannot Marry men. That is not Equal Rights.

[Reverse Cultural Decay]

ThomasAlex: I didn't say that it would be OK -- to say that it's OK is a moral judgment. I did say that it would be legal and constitutional. That is -- that it's a mistake to conflate morality with constitutionality. Judges must support whatever law is defined within the parameters of constitutional procedure -- whether they like it or not is irrelevant. And yes, it is THEORETICALLY possible for large enough majorities to make interracial marriage illegal again. But I didn't say that's OK -- I just said that if they did it according to the procedures in the Constitution it would be legal.

[Chris]

I simply don't think that calling gay marriage an issue of equal rights is accurate.

I am a straight woman. As far as I know, my marriage rights are as follows: I have the right to marry a man who is not currently married to someone else and is of the age of consent. Assuming of course, that I am also not currently married and am of the age of consent.

If those are my rights, then the rights of a homosexual woman are exactly the same as mine. How is that not equal rights?

[MIchael in Merced]

For all you folks against gay couples getting married: why do you care? Ok so your church has a problem with it. Big deal then be a good church goer and don't do it your self. Why could you possibly care what other people do when it doesn't hurt you?

No one's asking your permission or approval. No one cares about your approval. The only thing you're being asked to do is mind you own business. Do you honestly have nothing better to do?

[ThomasAlex]

So if all the White Americans got together and passed a ban on interracial Marriage yet again, that would be ok since it is our right to believe they shouldn't Marry.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

The commonly heard assertion that the Constitution should prevent majorities from removing rights from minorities -- and that any "removal" of rights from minorities is de facto unconstitutional is nonsense.

A sufficiently large majority CAN remove rights from a minority. If you could get 75% of the state houses and 2/3 majority in Congress the Constitution could be amended to create bigotry. Even the Bill of Rights could be removed by amendment. Judges could not prevent it as their power is circumscribed by the Constitution.

The only way that the rights of any arbitrarily defined minority can be protected is getting a sufficiently high percentage of people to agree that they are a minority whose rights need to be protected.

And THIS is the debate that is currently underway.

Homosexuals are asking for a societal affirmation that their behavior is right and normal. That affirmation cannot be given.

Christians will have no problem granting full and normal rights to homosexuals in areas that are not related to their sin -- but Christians will NEVER be able to give official sanction to the sinful behaviors of those who practice homosexuality, any more than they could go along with the creation of a right to murder for those who are prone to commit violent crimes.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

To Cal:

Church and state ARE separate. (You have the right to vote, don't you?)

The church and state would not be separate if the government enshrined a particular religion as the official religion of the land. But that's not what's being done here.

All law is the enshrinement of some morality as normative. We outlaw murder because enough people agree that it's wrong.

There are a large number of people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong -- and they are within their rights as citizens to vote that it be outlawed -- as others are to vote that it not. If enough people agree that it should be outlawed then it would be.

But again -- the fact that enough people vote to outlaw a practice they see as immoral does NOT mean that church and state have been joined. That's nonsense.

[ReverseCulturalDecay]

To Chris: The commonly used argument that Christians don't follow all of the rules in Leviticus and that therefore they're picking and choosing which laws to obey is factually incorrect. As you will find if you read the book of Acts, the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (the food laws) were set aside. After the coming of Christ those ceremonial laws which existed to set the people of Israel apart as God's chosen were set aside because Jews and Gentiles were to be joined in the Church as one people of God.

The moral law of the Old Testament was NOT set aside -- as you can tell by reading the New Testament in full. If you read the New Testament in full you will find it hard to escape the conclusion that homosexuality is still a sin under the New Covenant.

Whether you believe the BIble is an entirely separate question -- but please don't try to assert the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says.

The reason this is such an emotional dispute is that Christians are compelled by our religion to call sin what God calls sin -- regardless of whatever "studies" are published that say it's not anyone's fault that they're gay. To be quite clear, orthodox Christian teaching would say that NONE of us can help that we're a sinner -- we're born that way -- but that the only path to salvation is to be given rebirth by the Spirit of God and to repent of all sin.

The comparison with the civil rights struggle is very misleading. Although it's true that many people who called themselves Christian were on the side of discrimination you'll search in vain in the New Testament for support for racial segregation/division. Nowhere is being a particular race called a sin. But homosexuality IS very clearly called a sin.

No Bible believer can ever be reconciled to societal acceptance of homosexual marriage.

[Cal]

What is with all this silly Bible talk? The Bible is a rulebook for Christians, follow it until the cows come home for all I care but quit pretending it has anything to do with me, or my life. Noone is telling you what to preach (no matter what you claim). Stop telling me who I can marry.

Keep Church and State seperate.

[stephen kay]

Dear Larry Jones,
You have hit a very raw nerve with your bible passges condeming me and my entire family to death. there was a time those "laws" were actually carried out. Now you just use them to deny us liberty. You religion should be banned as it really is hate written by haters. Don`t force your rubbish on a secular democracy where all are equal. You and your message has no place in the modern era. Do you follow the passges that condem shell fish eaters to death??or any of the other obsured "laws".No you don`t, you are selective, easy to condem gay people isn`t it. Guess what we will fight back and win!!!

[Steve]

I strongly support Proposition 8 and it would be wrong from every possible angle for the justices on the California Supreme Court to strike it down. When are the liberals going to realize that America doesn't want things like gay marriage or the abolition of the death penalty or unfettered abortion 'rights'. You know something is seriously wrong with the 'America is getting more progressive' argument when even a majority of CALIFORNIANS vote in favor of something like Prop 8.

And for those who think that Prop 8 passed only 'narrowly', consider that the wording of the amendment was very harsh, talking about 'eliminating the right' to get married. Even the staunchest conservative would tend to have a little pause at something like that. This means that had the amendment been worded fairly, it is quite likely it would have passed by a much more generous margin.

Finally, don't forget that Arizona approved a similar amendment with more than 56% of the vote, while Floridians approved a gay marriage/civil unions ban witha staggering 62% of the vote. Arkansas took a similar tact by approving a gay adoption ban with 57% of the vote. To date, voters in 30 states have ratified constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages.

[Jake]

A lot of people aren't seeing how allowing Prop 8 to stand may end up saving California's economy. It sets a precedent that can be used to destroy a lot of the laws that unfairly burden California businesses.

All of the "anti-discrimination" laws that employers and owners of apartments buildings in California have to face are limiting our ability to offer safe, comfortable environments for our customers and renters. If we were NOT forced to allow homosexuals, blacks, mexicans and other undesirables to work in our places of business we could target more affluent customers who want to feel safe.

In the same way, if apartment owners were given more freedom to choose who they wanted to rent to, instead of being forced to take just anyone who applies, more of them would choose to clean up their buildings and be able to offer safe, family friendly accomodations without risks of lawsuits.

By allowing proposition 8 to stand, we set a precedent which gives us grounds to start tearing down these out-of-date laws which restrict our ability to offer good working and living conditions. If the legislature won't handle this, we can take it to a vote and know it will stand. Who would NOT vote to allow businesses and apartment communities to clean up their environments?

[Chris]

The Bible may condemn homosexuality as an abominable sin, but the Bible ALSO condemns other thing in the book of Leviticus: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard" in Chapter 19, Verse 27; "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you"; "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you" in Chapter 11, Verse 7; & "All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you" in Chapter 11, Verse 10.

Yet, those who use the Bible to discriminate against gay people do not use the same part of the Bible to discriminate against men who shave, barbers, people with tattoos, pork eaters, football players, and people who eat shellfish. The Bible should not be used to excuse your own bigotry.

[Julian Morrison]

Everyone who opposes gay marriage and gay rights in general is as wrong as the cross-burners of the 1960s. Unlike them, you won't have the luxury of being able to sink into obscurity - your misdeeds will be online, and your grandchildren will have uncomfortable questions to ask you.

[Robguy]

The issue won't be over until we have marriage equality. People just don't like having fundamental rights denied. Since we are talking about a wholly civil/secular agreement - how about we all just concentrate our energy on our own marriages.
If some people want to add a religious component - be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan - they're free to do that as well. I find it odd when some Christians complain that marriage equality violates their right to control other people's lives, but the churches that celebrate other marriages get their freedom of religion trampled on.

[Larry Jones]

To the homosexual community:

Look, people who have made a choice to follow the teachings of the Bible should not be expected to agree with your approval of homosexual acts. Surely, you can understand that. Therefore, you should also expect them to speak out in a country that allows freedom of speech as to why they do not accept homosexual behavior from anyone, just as you yourselves speak out in favor of it. As for Bible followers, they also know that God refuses to find other behavior unacceptable such as not showing Christ’s love towards a violator of God's standards for human behavior. I will show you why followers of the Bible cannot "condone" homosexual behavior even if that behavior is advanced through homosexual marriages.

The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as an abominable sin.

Leviticus 18:22; Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13; If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27; For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual as you would any other person living in sin.

Now the question for the homosexual community is will they support law and order in their country or will you choose anarchy over order, just so you can express your disagreement with followers of the Bible. What is it going to be homosexual community??

[markm]

The problem with this issue is that everyone wants to respond at a superficial level. At the risk of adding depth I would present the following thoughts:
First: Gay people fear discrimination (based upon valid experience) , but Gays have vigorously opposed any and all dispassionate scientific research into "what" makes people "gay". I do not accept the bible-thumper theory that Gayness[sic] is a matter of "choice". Like it or not, "sex" exists for the sole purpose of reporoduction, and it is pleasurable so that creatures will engage in reproductive activity. Accordingly, when there is an attraction towards members of the same sex, there must be a scientific reason such as a chromosomal 'defect". Homosexuality is "natural" or "normal" only because the defect is common. Perhaps if we found the basis for homosexuality we could destroy anti-gay bias and defeat those who call it "perversion" or unfairly link it to other crimes.
Second: "marraige" is actually a religious concept. I think the sanctioning of marraige ought to be left to churches if it is to be licensed or sanctioned at all. Government has no business authorizing marraige. Government can, however, recognize civil unions for insurance and legal purposes. To that end, if two people (regardless of gender) wish to enter into a legal relationship, set up a home and live a happy life together, the Govt. has no business saying they cannot do so. (Except for cases of incest, which can, unfortunately, lead to the birth of cross-eyed liberal Democrats.)
Third: just a wish from a cranky old social conservative: Why can't people (left and right) stop trying to dictate other people's lives?

[John Lawson]

The fact that so many resources and time have gone into this by those who aren't even gay and have no business addressing this matter is very unsettling.

Since when do we have elections to ban the civil rights of our fellow law abiding citizens? How would they like it if we didn't allow members of right-wing groups to get married?

[SickOfYesOn8Bigots]

Their outspokeness has sold me on the protests of Prop 8. Ignorant whackos with conspiracies of "gay agendas." Go ahead boycott businesses that rejected Prop 8 so I can patronize them.

[SickOfYesOne8Pervs]

Really? When do I get to vote on YOUR constitutional rights "Sick"?

[WhereIsMyRight]

They have their civil union, and why don't they ask for more to fix the civil union to have more rights? Instead, they step into something we believe traditionally refer to a union for heterosexuals. Look, we don't believe in it, why force us change our believes?

[lamb]

the Pro-Prop 8 movement was a critical blow to famillies. If you can't see that, then read some more.

Of course there is going to be outcries protesting the passing of prop 8. The fact that people are screaming for equality should get you to take a closer look at the issue. Wouldn't you protest if your rights were taken away?

[MIchael in Merced]

To the "SickOfNoOn8" commenter: can you please tell me how it hurts your life if a gay couple sharing their life as a family--people you don't even know--is allowed to get a license at city hall? I fail to understand where your hatred is coming from, or how this affects you at all.

[MisterC]

The leaders of the gay, lesbian and bisexual organizations have become North American terrorists, the Taliban of Canada of the USA, showing no respect for others' rights, religion or property - the play ground bullies of adult society while demand so-called equal rights when what they realy seek is sameness. Three years ago they used these bullying, terrorizing tactics in Canada and were successful but in so doing lost the respect of the community at large. Their success in circumventing the normal democratic rules that others must follow North of the Border have been exported to our Southern neighbours.

Canadians are generally a very tolerant and fair people. They proposed that gays, lesbians and bisexuals choose unique terms that would describe their unions and gain equality legitimately but this was not acceptable. They demanded the impossible - sameness. Marriage for centuries has been and remains the term for the union of a man and a woman. It never has and never will truely describe the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You can call a cat a dog but it is a figment of the imagination. Their superfical success is in reality a theft of others rights. The use of a false term to describe that which it is not has not and will not bring samemess.

One would hope that the democratic institutions & principles in the USA will be strong enough to withstand the harrassment, the personal and property damage that they regularly inflict and that the California courts will not be bullied into illegally making laws rather than enforcing them.

[SickOfNoOn8Pervs]

Their outspokeness has sold me on the passage of Prop 8. Cowards who protest in "gay-friendly" areas. Go ahead boycott businesses that supported Prop 8 so I can patronize them.

[MIchael in Merced]

With all that's going on in the world and in our nation, it baffles me that for so many people the biggest fish they have to fry is keeping loving couples from getting a legal marriage license. They come up will all kinds of excuses, get worked up into a frenzy of fear and bigoted cruelty, ironically often in the name of God, then run around making it their life's work to thwart love because they don't understand it. It's tragic.

[Robert]

Prop 8 did not go far enough. Let's take the incentive out of revolving-door marriages.

http://sharedvaluescoalition.blogspot.com/