Prop. 8: Opposition to gay marriage in L.A. appears to be shrinking, according to Times analysis

Although Proposition 8 won in Los Angeles County, a Times database analysis of voting patterns found some interesting changes since 2000, when voters approved another ballot measure against gay marriage.

In 2000, about 713,000 voters in L.A. County opposed Proposition 22, which banned same-sex marriage. About 1 million voters backed it, but about 6.4% of voters decided not to make a choice on the ballot measure. (2000 was a considered a low-voter-turnout election.)

Support for a ban on gay marriage appears to have tightened significantly in L.A. County in the last eight years, according to The Times' database analysis. Proposition 8 won 1.31 million votes, while 1.29 million voters cast "no" votes. As of right now, only 1.8% of those who voted for president decided to leave the Proposition 8 choice blank.

More reaction to Proposition 8's defeat in The Times:

The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.

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

On the other side were people like John Lewis, 50, and Stuart Gaffney, 46, who were married in June. They were at the San Francisco party holding a little sign in the shape of pink heart that said, "John and Stuart 21 years." They spent the day campaigning against Proposition 8 with family members across the Bay Area.

"Our relationship, our marriage, after 21 years together has been put up for a popular vote," Lewis said. "We have done what anyone would do in this situation: stand up for our family."

The mood is grim in San Francisco's Castro district as Proposition 8 wins.

-- Shelby Grad and Megan Garvey

Photo: Brian Vander Brug/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[JB]

I am hoping this measure will be found unconstitutional almost immediately. This is exactly like trying to pass legislation prohibiting people of different ethnic backgrounds from marrying. It's just wrong.

[David T.]

The "shrinking" opposition to same-sex marriage could very well be an illusion. Because this election has been so passionate, it drove a lot more people to the voting booths than in years past, particularly on the side of Obama and possibly No on Prop 8. This doesn't necessarily mean that more people are on the side of SSM, but perhaps that more pro-SSM people voted than in 2000. Also, there are indications some voters were confused what "Yes" and "No" meant on the ballot. Unfortunately, this is such an emotional and personal issue, we may never get the true split percentile.

[SopheONE]

I personally don't believe in marriage, but I have enough sense to realize that not everyone shares the same views as me. Marriage is just a piece of paper & if you want to be bound with a piece of paper then that is your personal choice. Who are we to determine the choices that other people make? Who are they harming? I feel that people are still so closed-minded & it's sad. Yes on 8 says that they want to protect the children, but from what? All this proposition is doing is teaching our children discrimination. You might as well teach your children that interracial relationships are wrong because they are within the same context. We've come such a long way and now we are taking 10 steps back. Shame on all of you who voted Yes on 8.

[Richard Cortijo]

We as Californian's should be ashamed of ourselves. We voted to give chickens rights and take the rights of gays away.

[Nancy]

Screw this nonsense. Let's get rid of the term marriage from the Constitution. No marriage certificates, just domestic partnerships. If you want to, you can call it marriage at home, at your church, at work, anywhere you want to. Just not for the purposes of legal paperwork, filing taxes, etc... you know, the boring stuff. Equality for all!

[Terry Barr]

Its a true shame that on the very day America steps out of a long long darkness, a majority of Californians have shown themselves to be neither very American or Christian. The tide of history is not with them and let there be no doubt, Jesus would not be either.

[juniper]

People who voted for Prop 8....all I can say is, thank you. Thank you for ruining one of the greatest days in American history. Thank you for distorting your religion, which is also mine -- yes, I'm a devout Christian -- and using it to abuse others. Thank you for the lies, hatred, and bigotry masquerading as "traditional family values." Thank you for deliberate, often violent ignorance and the friendly statement, "I don't discriminate, I don't hate gay people...I just don't think they should have the same rights as other people...and oh, if my kid is gay, I don't want them to have rights either." Thank you for your ongoing and deeply felt conviction that America simply can't function without second-class citizens, and that constitutional guarantees really aren't for everyone. You must be so proud.

For the first time in years, I'm proud to be an American today...but ashamed to be a Californian.

[Matthew]

Thanks be to God for the passage of Proposition 8!

Given the pro-homosexual climate in California and the horrible misinformation of the anti-Proposition 8 campaign, I think it's a miracle that it passed. I am so happy that it did.

This is not about "gay rights" or "hatred of gays." Homosexual domestic partnerships are already granted ALL the rights of married coupled -- that's a non-issue that was LIED about by the anti-8 campaign.

For me personally this is about not allowing four judges to pervert a 2000+ year old sacrament from God. It was about not putting the fickle demands of popular culture ahead of God. It was not about allowing the homosexual lifestyle to be regarded as healthy or normative.

Thank you God!

[george]

What could I say that anyone will listen to?
I personally believe that this was started in the Garden of Eden: "God created the world for Adam & Eve yet some folks figure it was made for Adam & Steve. . . The scriptures are filled with stories of man & wife, walking together hand in hand throughout their life, Even Noah when he loaded them animals two by two, checked for male and female as they came through. . ."
Sure I am a Christian and nowhere is the Bible does the Lord or his apostles condone homsexuality. If this was about a personal choice then go for it as God gave to man his agency, but you don't have to force us to recoginze your choices. Only until now do we heterosexuals have to stand up for our choices. If it's about legal rights learn to live here within the legal system or go to another country where you feel you are more welcome. I have no hard feelings for "Gay" people, in fact I lived with two Gay men for over a year and still have homosexual friends, do I preach to them, do I habor resentment towards them, of course not they are my friends and they have made their choices, just as you have made yours. Just accept that society and God does not recognize those choices.
Blessings,
George

[Richard Dean]

I don't take sides, but let's not confuse sex and race or ethnicity, JB. Two different ethnic backgrounds marrying IS different from two people of the same sex marrying. Quite different.

[Jessie]

This measure is both wrong and unconstitutional. This is obviously a religious matter for Prop 8 supporters. The First Amendment clearly states that the government will not have a preference over one religion or another.

I am appalled that a place as progressive as California would vote so strongly to support this measure. The scare tactics used by Prop 8 supporters in their advertising were very clever and effective regardless of the actual truth, and it just goes to show how easily people are swayed.

[Truth]

The heterosexaul dictatorship eliminates gay people's rights; hide behind religion and children to cover their bigotry. Haterosexuals retain a flawless score of eliminating gay people's rights across America. Oh, but hateros will say they are for equality yada yada (as long as it's for themselves).

[yeldarb]

The anti Prop 8 supporters claim it is discriminatory to prevent homosexuals from marrying. What if some man wants to marry his sister, or his daughter, or three women? What if they love each other? Your logic dictates that all of these scenarios would be OK. And few people do. The anti-8 supporters have no problem discriminating against others - just not themselves.

[CanyonMan]

Shame on all of you who voted "Yes on 8". Thank you for showing your true colors.
What a disgrace all of you are to this beautiful state I call home.

[No Hate No 8]

What's really disturbing is that much of Prop 8's support came from Obama voters. McCain got a paltry 766k votes in LA but Yes on 8 got over 1.3 million! That's insane!

Obama completely failed to lead and showed no courage on this hate prop. He better start leading now or I see some big cases of buyer's remorse coming.

[No Hate No 8]

Matthew, if it's a "sacrament from God", what the hell is doing being sanctioned by the state? I

If this is true, then no state should be able to sanction any "marriage". Civil unions with the exact same rights & obligations should then be available to anyone.

[Jerry]

To say that one must be allowed to "marry" in order to be equal is similar to a male insisting he should be "mom" and a female insisting she should be "dad". These are just terms. The terms have been defined since the creation of the English language. Equality provides "rights" not terms. The rights of homosexuals have been enforce for years and there are no rights being denied two homosexuals with the passage of Prop 8. Today we shall call marriage as between a man and a woman. We shall call the woman "Mom" and the father "Dad". We call the affection between two individuals committed to each other "love" and to demand that another term be saddled into the equation is a slap to what really matters in the relationship between two people. Those that rushed to the alter after the judges disregarded the voters will were setting themselves up for disappointment. They chose to manipulate the term marriage for their own devices. Marriage affords no additional rights to those who are committed to each other and have indicated such to the laws of the land. Let's get over the symantecs that cost supporters over $70 million dollars and get on to issues that ACTUALLY impact the lives of people such as the rampant taxation and borrowing that was approved this election. California's appetite for hand-outs, taxes, and borrowing will keep the state in recession long after the country recovers. Sad...

[Chelsea]

words cannot describe how saddened i am by prop 8 passing... i am still crossing my fingers, hoping for the best- even though i know its a done deal. its ridiculous that this is passing. I am from Minnesota originally, and have lived in california for 4 years. When moving here, i thought i was moving to the greatest, most ahead of the times, most accepting state that i possibly could... but now i see that that is not the case. i am so sad... all this prop does is promote hate and discrimination... nothing good comes out of this at all. The Yes on Prop 8 supporters say that they want to preserve the sanctity of marriage... but newsflash- marriage isn't that sacred... straight people have been messing it up for years... there is no way that gay people could make it any worse than the straight people already have!

[Rachel Manning]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it clearly defined in the constitution that there should be a seperation of church and state?

Shouldn't it be up to the church whether or not it wants to give a marriage license or not?

Considering a domestic partnership and a marriage are the exact same thing with two names why must we make them two different things?

I am not at all religious but plan on getting married some day. But wait, you are now saying marriage is a religious sort of thing, so I plan on being domestically partnered some day. I will have a wedding. I will wear white. We will exchange rings. But will do I care what your god thinks? No. But, because it will be between a man and a women, it will be a marriage.

This has nothing to do with religion, it is civil rights. If a priest agrees to marry to gay people, then let them be married.

How it should be: Marriage, a union by a person of faith.
Domestic Union: union by the court.

Let your church make the decision on who gets married there, not the government.

[Vel Vicious]

Who defines normal? To me your archaic christian beliefs aren't normal...

[Frank]

This is for everyone who voted for prop 8!
Have you thought about what your gay child who hasn't come out to yet is feeling?

[sarah]

I am disgusted that this proposition was even on the ballot. Is it really necessary to constitutionally define marriage? In this election year, where citizens of this country rallied around candidates on either side who represented anything but the average resident of the white house, how could this issue even matter? When California's constitution does not demand that all people recieve food an healthcare, who could possible care who exchanges rings, and vows of love and honor. To think that Californians were so easily duped by one of the most ridiculously obvious slippery slope campaigns only illustrates how uneducated and, frankly, naive the slight majority is. How embarassing.

[Xander]

OK, that is it. I wanted to be nice about this, I was all for protecting 'traditional values'. I would have voted for laws that gave parents notice of 'gay' curriculum. I would have supported keeping the status quo in schools. But, if 'traditional values' are keeping me a second class citizen... I implore people to join me in an all out WAR on "traditional values"! I do not accept being separate but equal.

The United States voted yesterday to over turn 'traditional values' by putting an African-American in the oval office. I've never been prouder to be an American, and never more ashamed of being a Californian. Even more ashamed of being from LA county.

[Mike]

If "homosexual domestic partnerships are already granted ALL the rights of married coupled," then why won't you give us that title?

"Separate is NOT equal." Don't mare your religious view on others people.

[anthony phillips]

Why do religious folks always try to throw whatever they believe onto us? I'm not gay and this doesn't affect me in anyways, but I know that civil unions aren't the same as marriage. There are 8 differences, including adoption, tax breaks,.....you know, the things that people get married for!
I just can't wrap my head around it. People seriously voted to discriminate against a certain people. I swear we had this battle in the 1960's about rights of human beings. Also, I saw a speech for prop. 8 after they won, and he said that gays are our brothers and they still have the same rights? What?

[Luis]

I am not even sure what I should say or what I should not be saying, I am in state of disbelief. I know the numbers are real, and legit, but just the fact that prop 8 passed is very disappointing.

But I know that this turmoil is yet from over. The passage of Prop 8 has only called in for more money spent on lawsuits, and such. Lets hope that equality triumphs again. It is, however, disgusting that we muse use the courts 'cuz people choose to rule with their religion and not their intelect.

[Tyler]

What's unconstitutional is judges overturning an already passed proposition made in 2000. This proposition should have never even been in existence, but since it was the California voters had to vote on it once again, and once again they decided against it. It's as simple as that.

[Moses]

Odd you'd have that point of view, Matthew & George. Perhaps you both should pick up The New Testament and read it. Maybe then you'll realize that Christ did away with the old laws you seem to cling to as "truth." For that matter, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, but He sure had a lot to say about people who condemn, persecute, and judge others. This is what happens when the Pharisees run the church, as they are doing now.

[lolo]

so...if I'm not mistaken-lil matthew above me wrote that allowing prop 8 would basically desicrate a 2000+ year old sacrament. Wow. All that? Really? Raised catholic, I thought we were all made in God's image. Doesn't that take precedence over a sacrament? Not to mention without change, even in the slightest bit, would be considered mutiny to 'anything'??? It's mindboggling to me how as a woman, I'm born with all kinds of rights and open doors, yet as soon as I proudly say I am gay, certain doors close and certain rights are taken away. I think what makes me more upset is the fact that church and state are separate for a reason. Whatever your religious beliefs are shouldn't hold any factor on who should married. It's a union made through love. Being gay doesn't hinder my ability to love. Nor does it hinder my desire for children, monogamy, support of my partner etc. I'm really trying to understand where the argument lies regarding this marriage thing. Love is love.

[sigma83]

Matthew: What you're essentially saying is that God said it was okay to tell a type of people that they don't deserve the same things as other types of people.

Hope that works out for you when they pass a ban on Christianity.

[Hilary]

You are right Matthew - Four judges shouldn't pervert a 2000+ year old sacrament from God.

Spousal abuse, alcohol-induced Vegas drive thru weddings, 2 year celebrity marriages, shotgun weddings, marriage for citizenship, etc. already did a thorough job on trashing the sacrament of marriage.

You know what's even worse for children than having 2 loving parents of the same sex? Having divorced parents and 2 homes, having parents who don't love each other but stay together because its the Christian thing to do, having dad's who beat their moms, having parents who are addicted to drugs and alcohol, the list goes on.

Gays must be crazy to want to be associated with that lovely representation of the sacrament of marriage. I say we create a whole series of new institutions so no one is offended by who they are associated with. Love/Respect/Commitment Unions for people actual in love, Financial Unions for the gold diggers, Religious Unions for men & women only who don't want to be associated with anything else, Knocked Up Unions ... the list goes on.

[Blue]

It is interesting that the demographic that appears to have put this proposition over the top is African-American voters, who, according to exit polls, overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8 by a whopping 69% to 31% margin — a 38 point spread! Latinos also favored the proposition. So, it was the support of the 2 biggest minorities in California that got this supposedly “hateful” and “bigoted” initiative passed. The reality is that this was never about hate. This was about people reaffirming the essential nature of something that has been the cornerstone of human society for virtually all of recorded history.

[Blue]

I think the opposition to Prop. 8 has reflected an interesting twist on the patronizing “White Man’s Burden” (a la Kipling) sentiments from a century ago. At that time, European/U.S. colonial powers thought it their duty to bring “civilization” to the “savage” (i.e., non-white) peoples of the world. The No on 8 crowd, which, as exit polls showed, is mostly composed of White voters, has adopted a very similar attitude with respect to gay rights/same-sex marriage and racial minority voters. Those minority groups have rightly rejected that forced “enlightenment.” The bottom line is that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue on par with race-based civil rights. The historical backgrounds of those movements are very, very different. Same-sex marriage is not equivalent to interracial marriage legally, socially, or culturally.

[San Diego Voice]

It is not about constitutional Issues or rights or hatred. Marriage is between a man and woman. Plain and simple. Get over it.

[Jacky]

Yep, Blue, I suppose we should somehow see it as positive that minority groups in this state who have often been treated as "second-class" citizens would see fit to discriminate against those who are viewed as "third-class" citizens. Go figure.

[Kurt]

To juniper: you say those who support prop 8 are not being Christian, who hate, who lie, who are bigots. Interesting how you know the hearts of ~52% of Californians. The question begged is have you really considered the arguments in favor of prop 8 or are you simply happy with ad hominem attacks and the expected, disrespectful, nasty rhetoric of the very far left in this state/country? The person who uses ad hominem attacks generally doesn't have a thoughtful, reasonable understanding of the opposition and frankly looks foolish. Prop 8 was a rebuke to the judges who trounced on the people's wishes regarding this issue (22). There are no "rights" being taken away from anybody. This amendment serves to reinforce what has been the norm for thousands of years. The left baptizing this issue in false analogy (racial marriage) and victimization ("poor me, I just want a relationship") rhetoric doesn't make a case, only a rant.

[Fryer John]

In light of Obama's win and Prop. 8's inexplicable win, the following quote found its way into my mind:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way."

[CS]

I say good for you California. The world is crazy enough as it is. I don't see the sense of defining the relationship of two homosexual people to be the same as to heterosexual people. I mean they are fundamentally different. Lets keep it that way.

[ed]

I don't understand why these religious people voting yes on Proposition 8 have to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat. There is a separation between church and state, why don't you people get it?
It's disgusting that this prop. was even put forth, we have passed the civil rights movement why are we still questioning giving equal right? This is about having same-sex "partnerships" and opposite sex "partnerships" named the same because we all deserve the equality and the dignity as all Americans. Go choke on your religious beliefs because God didn't create us as we are only to hate and smite us.

[Scott]

Taking away the newly added rights to SSM in California is a huge step backwards. While I am both straight and Canadian, this will never impact me, however, it is very sad to think of all these people who's lives are negatively affected by a Yes vote.

As far as I am concerned, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman a woman, what difference is it to me? Why would we try to stop this? All it is is discrimination. All you "Yes" voters should be ashamed.

The results are still undecided, but I hope for the sake of equality for all that Prop 8 does not pass.

[ThomasAlex]

Gay Marriage and the Rights of the Gay Community have nothing to do with your personal religious beliefs. If this was the case, then we All Must honor the other 4200+ Regions and beliefs, even if they contradict with our own. Gay Rights is just that, the Right to be treated Equally Under Law. They are not asking for anything "Special", but just to be treated as "Equals".

Using the word "Traditional" and "Marriage" together, is a misleading contradiction to Traditional Marriage. Where Traditional Marriage did not include; unmarried childbearing, premarital sex, interracial marriage, divorce, or adultery.

This may be seen as a step back on the "Gay Rights Movement", but as we lost California we gained Connecticut. So theoretically we're still where we were when we started. With Prop 8 winning with just a 4% margin, it leads to think of how easily it would be to Amend or Revise this Constitutional Amendment at a later time.

Ultimately through history we see, a fight to change the US Constitution would override all State laws banning Gay Marriage. Of course the Country is still about 20yrs out for such a change.

[Mike T.]

"So who are we to tell people what's OK for marriage and what's not?" Sincerely, Polygamy and Incest

[Renier]

It's not about traditional values, it's about natural values. The natural value that men were made for women and women were made to be with men. It's immoral because NO life can be created when this chain gets broken. It's because of these types of things that the world struggles like never before. What's next? Families marrying eachother? Teens marrying mature men or women? They have rights as well, don't they? Don't get me wrong, I do love gay people just as much as I love my heterosexual friends. But this is about what's right and what's wrong, plain and simple as that. There is no natural sustainability of life for homosexual couples, and for people to run around screaming that it's about rights? That is a crutch, and nothing else. Men don't have the right to chose what is right and what is wrong. Yes I'm a sinner, but never have I looked at my sins and picked which ones are okay and which ones aren't. It's a shame. And to make the ridiculous comment that gay marriage is in the same context as interracial relationships is a joke. Once again a man and a man nor a woman and a woman can have a natural birth of life. No wonder the divorce rate, especially in California, is so high. People have broken down the value of marriage and made it a total spectacle. And for the fool who thinks that Jesus would be ashamed of those who still value marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, please go read Genesis.
Unfortunately, we as Christians who support this proposition will have to listen to people throwing religious stones. Everyday, no matter who or what we believe, we have to make choices, choices of what is right and what is wrong. It's a natural ability that was given to us all. And things that are not NATURAL most surely can't be right. You are hot or cold, you can't be in between.

[Joe]

How funny that we'd vote to give animals rights, even though we slaughter and eat them, yet we refuse to give people, people who love and want to build a family and future rights.

[m-p]

People don't understand that marriage is not the issue, just the means to an end. The agenda is not merely to make marriage legal for everyone, it is to legitimize the entire spectrum of gay/lesbian life-styles across the board, to change the culture, to create normalcy. It has already been happening in schools and in the courts. If gay marriage is legal, then ALL gay issues are civil rights issues. That means if a photographer doesn't want to take photos of a gay wedding, they can get sued for discrimination, a civil rights violation. If a fertility clinic doesn't want to impregnate a lesbian woman, again, a civils rights discrimination issue. It's never been about marriage, or a piece of paper...its about changing the face of a nation.

THAT's what this is really about. Marriage?..no, most gays could care less about getting married; why get tied down to one partner? It's about legitimizing a life-style, force-feeding it down the throats of all for the sake of the few. I feel violated.

[Pete]

The homosexual community has spewed so much hate and misinformation at those who oppose their views that it seems they are the source of intolerance and bigotry. May God help them.

[jeff mcculty]

Marriage is not a right. It is a priveledge. That is why it is requires a license and particular people to perform marriages. Secondly the term "wrong " needs to be defined. For me wrong is based on the Judeo-Christian principles that have been around for thousands of years versus the sliding princpals of secular humanism which change daily based on people's opinions

[Crystal]

Leave God out of it. Separation of Church and State, right?

Call every union a civil union since it seems gay couples aren't good enough for your special word.

I am proud to be an American today. We might, for the first time in a long time, have a President we can fall in love with and really stand behind. But as a Californian.. today I mourn.

[Rajiv]

How dare Christians impose their religion on California's constitution. I am a Hindu and MY religion does not define marriage as between a man and a woman. But we still believe in marriage, just as strongly as people of other faiths. Why is it that only Christians can use their definition of marriage to discriminate against others?

Religion has NO place in government. That is a founding principle of this country. It makes me sick to see Christians or Mormons writing their agenda into government. They do not speak for me, and yet they can discriminate against others in my name thanks to this constitutional amendment.

Marriage does not belong only to Christians. It belongs to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Will the supporters of Prop 8 be OK if I write my Hindu beliefs into law? Or is Christianity the official state religion now?

Same sex marriages will become legal soon. Those under 30 overwhelmingly voted NO. When they replace the close-minded older generation, this bigoted amendment will be struck down. Prop 8 supporters will lose!

[Kira]

Take a tip from the patriarchs of the Bible . . . . . LETS ALL BE POLYGAMISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The word "marriage" has meant countless things over the years and held innumerable implications.

I agree absolutely with "Moses." The coming of Jesus signified the overturning of, moving past some very old ideas. Or, in a more positive sense, Jesus tried to teach people to follow the spirit, not the letter, of the law, and to look for God's true intentions and will in their lives, even when this meant seemingly contradicting previous law (and really just looking for a deeper, truer meaning in it.)

I was raised Christian, I studied religion in college and I look to the Bible for strength and guidance. My reference to Biblical patriarchs was in no way meant to diminish their greatness or importance. I just want to point out that if we are turning to the vision of marriage established in the Bible well over 2000 years ago, then it doesn't look a damn thing like proponents of measure 8 seem to think,

[Cassidy]

If the horrible people in this world want to "save" 'traditional" marrage, they should outlaw divorce, not punish the peopl who truly love each other

[Paul]

What makes some think that rejecting some elements of today's fickle and septic popular culture automatically equates to "bigotry", "hate", "oppression", etc?

If it does not fit THEIR agenda then it HAS to be "bigotry", "hate", "oppression", etc. right?

Wrong, and the voters realized this...

[Miguel]

For all those who are against Prop 8, i have no issues with you all. What we are fighting for is the definition of marriage not some church affiliated word. It is used in the secular world too. If prop 8 was denied, that would lead to redefinition of many words. Such as guys can marry their sisters or even their mothers. People can marry their pets, etc... The original language clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in the constitution that says we can change any word in the dictionary because of popular vote. Morality will always prevail over immorality. Marriage is made for a man and a woman. If you want to change it's definition, go ahead and go back 50,000 years. And best of luck with you all

God Bless America!

[Blue]

Jacky, I think your comment reflects the fundamental disconnect between many opponents of Prop. 8 (most of whom are urban, white, upper-middle class voters per the exit polls) and the broad cross-section of California voters (urban/rural, white, Black, Latino, Asian) who came together to reaffirm the essential nature of marriage. You, and others, continue to tow the line that this Proposition was about civil rights and discrimination. The supporters of Prop. 8, however, demonstrated a much greater degree of diversity than did the opponents. You simply cannot accept that honest and well-meaning people can disagree on the subject of same-sex marriage. Until you can step back from the shrill cries of discrimination and try to understand the non-discriminatory motives of the Prop. 8 supporters, you will never succeed in changing their opinions.

[Family Man]

Some pretty venomous rhetoric coming from Prop 8 opponents...most whom (I believe) would characterize themselves as tolerant, accepting, loving, etc...what gives? Accusing Prop 8 supporters as being hateful or discriminators, yet writing in angry and demeaning tones yourselves?

All Prop 8 supporters I engaged in conversation were neither hateful nor discriminatory when asked about Prop 8 opponents' views. In general, their support of Prop 8 was all about the massive repercussions on education, family sovereignty, foster care and/or adoption, small businesses, etc. that would take place by redefining marriage in our constitution. It has nothing to do with a hate for and a desire to discriminate against the homosexual community.

[Tim]

Congratulations to the backers of Prop. 8 who appear - at least for now - to have achieved the first and only constitutional amendment in our nation's history to eliminate an existing protected legal right for Californians. An achievement whose closest legal parallel lies in the 1935 Nuremberg Laws which dissolved the marriages of "Aryans" and Jews in Nazi Germany. Congratulations also for abrogating equal protection and subverting the ban on establishment of religion enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Finally, congratulations on demonstrating the moral and ethical bankruptcy of your religious extremism and its incongruence to the most basic American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - for all. Fortunately, it probably will not stand.

If the legal definition of marriage in the State of California is to be determined in accordance with a "2,000+ sacrament from God", then I encourage the GLBT community to immediately begin grassroots efforts to ban and reverse all legal divorces as an abrogation of that sacrament. The community will have no problem gathering the required signatures to qualify for the state ballot - year, after year, after year. Let the people know that "traditional" is a two edged sword.

Also - GLBTs, take your money out of California banks and put it into out-of-state banks. Direct deposit your payroll somewhere else, preferably Massachusetts or Vermont. As long as you've got a networked debit card, you'll be fine. Why should Californians have the benefit of getting loans and mortgages backed by the deposits of second-class citizens?

[wy2qt4u1980]

This is not about religion taking over government.. we all have various reasons for choosing our personal moral standards. For some of us, our reasons are based in religious beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with that. Our moral agency grants us that right to form our own opinions. But trying to mask tolerance as acceptance? Shame on you.
Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own.
Acceptance: favorable reception; approval; favor; the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable.

We can tolerate homosexual people's choice, but it does not mean we have to accept it. If your moral opinion is that homosexuality is wrong, that in and of itself does not make you a bigot (a word constantly flaunted by the opposition to prop 8)
Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

It means that your core belief in what is or is not moral is different from that of another.
And please.. the homosexual population's civil rights being subrogated? The domestic partnership laws protect them the EXACT SAME as married couples. Meaning:
Homosexual couples have the right to visit their partner in the hospital (the same, by the way for unmarried heterosexual couples)
Homosexual couples (as well as unmarried heterosexual couples) are considered the executor for their partners estate in case of death or incapacitation.
Homosexual couples (as well as unmarried heterosexual couples) get the same tax relief and kick backs.
This list goes on and on.. Please for the entire population!! EDUCATE YOURSELVES!! I'm tired of people flaunting information they've been force fed rather than learning the truth for themselves.

And in the campaign I've noticed several blatant lies aired by the opposition to proposition 8 campaign. They paid the California Superindendant of Education to say that gay marriage isn't taught in schools and Prop 8 wouldn't affect the curriculum. However, if you go to his website (California Department of Education) it says, "comprehensive sexual health education consisting of age-appropriate instruction in any grade from kindergarten through grade twelve.. to encourage a pupil to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, *gender roles*, *sexual orientation*, dating, *marriage*, and family.” Then the no campaign said that Obama was against Prop 8.. but I've actually seen several interviews where he has stated his opinion is that marriage should be between one man and one woman.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JblKTarBORc) Then, and this is personally the most agrivating to me.. they just came out with an ad where two LDS missionaries knock on the door of a same-sex couple, go in, rifle through their belongings and tear up their marriage license.. and they're saying that because members of the mormon faith have donated $20 million to the Yes campaign that validates this commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE).. it apparently doesn't matter that we've donated to a COALITION of ALL the major religious, and morally ethnic groups. I seriously think that commercial crosses the line. (By the way, here is the Church's response: “The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”)

[Max]

Let's remember that the slaves did not free themselves, and that until such time that society at large sees this as a civil rights issue and decides to fight for those civil rights, Gay Marriage will be illegal in the definition of the California Constitution.

Oh, what irony that it was Republican State Supreme Court judges that overturned prop. 22 but it was our Democratic populace that banned marriage between two people of the same sex. Further irony is that the historic moment of electing an African-American president, whom I voted for, resulted in record turn out by African-Americans, who voted in high number for Proposition 8.

But at the same time, electing Obama does instill a sense of hope in me for future of civil rights for gays. While I had and still have some concerns about an Obama presidency, none of which were about the color of his skin. I look back across my life and it is filled with strong African-American role models. I have already had numerous experiences of looking up to people with strong character, exemplary leadership skills, and a creative drive that also had a different color skin than my own. It shocked me to discover that in addition to being an historic moment in our country, it was visually an emotional one as well for African-Americans everywhere. But it was that emotional response that showed me what I must do. I must continue to persevere with the hope that by being a good role model for others, by continuing on faithfully, monogamously and lovingly with my spouse of 18 years I can one day wake to find people who are shocked my own emotional response of having such a triumphant experience.

Until such time I will be dismayed by the reality that my fellow Americans cared more about the freedoms we extend to chickens than those we extend to our brothers and sisters.

[Mark]

Gov't took a sacred and ancient institution (marriage) from faith/religion and applied laws to it -- not the reverse.

A long time later four judges felt they had license to re-define what is sacred and ancient -- what is God-given, to many. They may have had the legal authority for a time, but they always lacked the moral authority to make such a change.

And the voters were aware of this.

To the unbelievers out there, the presence of God is shown concretely in the passage of Prop 8. Thanks be to God.

[brandon]

If the right wingers and religious purists are so set on defining marriage along "biological" lines- let's really give them what they want.

I propose further ammending the constitution to restrict marriage to
" two persons who have the ability to reproduce".

Wanna get married? Prove you can have a baby.

Can't do it? Then why should the state recognize, underwrite, and support your relationship...just because you "love" each other? Please!

Some states still require blood tests, so requiring a fertility test should be no big deal.

That sure keeps out the dykes and homos.

Also keeps out people who get married in their 70's as a pension or tax dodge, and the thousands of infertile couples that gobble up state and federal benefits of marriage, but never follow through on their end of the deal: producing the next generation.

We could could go even further and not allow the benefits to start until the couple produces a child.
And no cheating with egg or sperm donors! Dont want someone trying to pull a fast one on God...I mean the State.

[Jake]

I would like to know how many prop 8 supporters who want to restore the definition of what they call marriage are, in fact, divorced, or at least how many have cheated on their spouse at one point or another.
I would like to know why prop 8 supporters have blatantly lied about the fact that opposing the amendment would change education when that is clearly not the case--this is clearly not even a matter of opinion like the rest of the debate, it is just an outright lie.
I would like to know why the Mormon church would spend so much money to keep marriage "sacred", when their traditional concept of "marriage" is polygamy.
I would like to know why prop 8 supporters would waste MILLIONS of dollars, that could go to causes much more in need, to steal the fundamental civil rights of a minority--it's a joke. A huge joke, in fact, and I think it's hilarious that prop 8 supporters have wasted so much money in this effort. Just like the women's rights movements before us, and just like the African-American civil rights movement before them, gays WILL eventually get their rights, just like anyone else. History ALWAYS repeats itself, and it's just a matter of time, so why bother delaying the inevitable?
I am gay, I was born gay, and I love God deeply...and I know he loves me and accepts every part of me just as much as he loves anyone else, because created me just the way he wanted me to be.
The bottom line here is that, no matter what you do with the law or the Constitution, in the end good ALWAYS prevails over evil. We can't use the insecurities within ourselves to create petty divisiveness upon the world--it can only breed more hate.
So, for now, if prop 8 does win, I can only say that this battle might be over, but that the war is far from finished. God bless us, each and everyone.

[RG]

If "marriage" really is a "2000+ year old sacrament from God," then *nobody* should be issued a marriage by the state. Remember a thing called separation of church and state? That thing that was created to prevent personal religious beliefs (of which there are multitudes that often conradict each other) from influencing a supposedly and ideally objective government and vice versa? So, if "marriage" is nothing more than a religious institution, (after all, all legal issues are taken care of with civil unions, right?), then the state has absolutely no business issuing marriages to anyone, heterosexuals included.

If you truly believe that marriage is a strictly religious instution and that God opposes same sex marriages, then according to your beliefs any marriages granted to same sex couples on this earth will be invalid in the eyes of God, anyway. The state cannot change that. The state is not trying to change that. All the state is doing is allowing people the right to not view marriage as religious, or to believe that God does approve. You can still think those people are wrong to do so, but let them be wrong!

How does this affect your personal morals? Are you so weak minded that your morals cannot stand up to opposing viewpoints? If your beliefs are held strong within you, it won't matter. You will still be able to teach your children in the way you see fit. They may learn about alternatives, broadening their minds, but that should stregthen them. It makes their choice of beliefs all the more meaningful. They won't believe something because it was the only option, but because their relgious convictions lead them to what they believe is the right decision. Christianity is about choices. God gave Adam and Eve the choice to sin or not. God could have made us all follow Him without question, but that would have been meaningless. Instead, He gave us free minds so that we could choose to follow Him. So, if you believe that God opposes same sex marriage, that is fine. Believe it: that is your choice. But do not force your choice on others, especially not in the name in Christianity.

[Appalled]

I am so incredibly appalled and disgusted that such a discriminatory proposition would pass in the state that is well known to welcome people from all walks of life, regardless of their characteristics. This proposition was created and fueled by religious bigots and homophobes who shrouded their desires to exercise discrimination with a plea for upholding "traditional marriage". What the hell is traditional marriage anyway?! Is it two 18-year-olds who don't really love each other, but are forced to get married because the female got pregnant and neither her parents nor their religion would allow the baby to be born out of wedlock? Or is it two people in their 40's who have been married for 20 years, who hate each other and fight daily (making their children utterly miserable) but who refuse to get separate because their religion does not support it? The idea of "traditional marriage" is absurd, given how often this institution has failed. I heard a proponent of Prop 8 argue that "The best family is one including a mother and a father." So what about all of the single parents out there, do they not make a good family? Let's not forget the rampant rates of divorce that our current society faces - did these not begin as "traditional marriage"? It is my opinion that some of these zealots should stop trying to take away the rights of two people who are in love and reevaluate how strong their "traditional marriages" really are. I will be truly disappointed in our country if this proposition is not considered unconstitutional. I am slowly recovering from having the wind knocked out of me with the news the this proposition has passed, and I am ready to fight against discrimination. Everyone deserves equal rights, and if anything, allowing marriage between homosexuals will strengthen the institution of marriage.

[Jennifer]

OMG Hilary, I totally agree with you!

It is 2008 and there is legislation which prohibits marriage based on ones choice of partner. The only word that comes to mind...DISCRIMINATION. This is a sad day for California.

[Greg]

To all the Yes voters:

They have SSM in enlightened, truly free countries such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and 2 US states. The world still turns. Life goes on. Your little worlds would be unaffected, trust me.

So put away the fear. Come out of the cave. Stop being so selfish.

I pay my taxes, leave me alone. This is a civil rights issue. Of course racial minorities fail to recognise it, thats a function of less access to an education.

Oh, and If marriage is only about children, lets ban it for infertile straight couples as well. Oops that might impact YOU! Er, i hear you say, better think about it a bit more deeply; perhaps be sure about all the arguments before taking THOSE rights away, eh.!

Yes, if it was YOUR rights on the line, I bet you'd want to be sure of the arguments for taking them away ... but when its only somebody elses, any 2 bit bob of scare mongering will justify it.

[Anthony]

The passing of Prop. 8: heartbreaking, unkind, cruel, misguided, shameful, and--without question--un-Christ-like and un-Godly.

A Christian is never to ex-communicate or condemn - Matthew 7:1
A Christian is not to judge a non-Christian - 1 Corinthians 5:13
A Christian IS suppose to judge someone claiming to be a believer - 1 Corinthians 5:12
A non-believer's judgment carries no weight with God - 1 Corinthians 2:15

Please stop using an uninformed Biblical stance to shield your irrational fears. If protecting marriage had ever really been the issue then, perhaps, the ability to divorce should have been addressed instead of destroying the same-sex rights that, until yesterday, were legal. Remember, God and Christ have always been just. Prop. 8, on the other hand, is unjust and immoral, and is the casting of stones in the worst manner possible. That said, I will pray for those Christians who supported Prop. 8, just as I will pray that the Lord will forgive us of the shameful things we have done in His name.

[Billy]

Prop 8 was never about denying anyone rights. I think that LIE is what ultimately ensured the passage of Prop 8.

Legalized same-sex marriage is all about making the homosexual lifestyle more normative, more accepted.

That canard turned a great many people off. More than enough to pass Prop 8 in fact.

[Mark]

No, Matthews, the big LIE is what you're claiming - that same-sex couples can get all of the same rights and privileges as hetero couples. Really? Think the federal government is going to give tax benefits to civil unions or domestic partnerships? Think again.

[jpyesyes]

Prop 8 does not take away any rights. Gays and Heteros still have the exact same rights, to marry the opposite sex.

Its not about religion, God, Jesus, or The Bible, its about nature. Hopefully you were taught as a kid that boys are different then girls, no matter what you believe that’s not going to change. In nature opposites attract and belong together just as men and woman fit together like a a jig saw puzzle. Some how homosexuals got confused along the way, they were not born gay. Even if one day SSM is legal in California it will never be natural.

[P23]

Nobody has the right to vote on the legitimacy of my love for my partner except for me. It is the equivalent of taking it upon myself to vote to divorce a heterosexual married couple. It is discrimination- taking away my happiness and hope to one day have the marriage I always dreamed of is hateful and discriminating. End of story.
On another note, it is only a short matter of time before us gays can get married. I remain so hopeful...Thank you Barack Obama, can't wait for you to sign the Matthew Shepherd Act and get to work on overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[TIFFANY]

I AM A CHRISTAIN WOMAN..BUT NO MATTER WHAT ALL PEOPLE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS!!!! Using the bible or the so-called word of God to discriminate or hate others that are different from you! The bible should never be used to justify are laws and fairness.. the bible also states that incest is a sin does it not... if you believe in the Adam and Eve theory then wasn't the world then created out of incest?.. Think about it? Adam and Eve had three kids.. all boys.. then all of a sudden they are married and have kids.. where did these people come from?... My only point is that the bible is obviously missing information and has been told over and over and translated over and over again, and maybe shouldn't be used to govern our laws! Don't use the information in a book written by man thousands of years ago to justify your hate.. please! Only God is the true judge! All people deserve the same rights no matter what! Hate and discrimination only hurt all of mankind! Noone has the right to take other people's rights away..end of story! EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!!!

[Edgar]

honestly is not fair cuz everyone have the same rights.
we have the same rights such as a straight couple but
there are too many ignorant people.

[Jacky]

Yep, Blue, apparently I'm part of the big disconnect you refer too, despite the fact that I'm neither urban, white, or upper-middle. And I'm sure you're right too about people like me needing to step back from cries of discrimination. Let's just call it "separate but equal" instead, okay?

[sonya]

Murder and rape are considered sin and are illegal, just as gay marriage is.
Some people think that just because they like something they are "entitled" to do it, even though it's wicked. Everyone wants their rights, me, me, me. Some like to kill and rape, but should they be allowed to bc they like to? Are we discriminating against them? Sin is sin, immoral is immoral if you don't like to consider God.
We don't speed on the road bc it's a danger to the other motorists. Just like we don't allow gays to marry (and really shouldn't be allowed to adopt either or "act gay" if you really want to get into it) because we don't want our children to be harmed. And yes, our children are being force-taught homosexuality is "OK". It deceives our children and even some adults into casting aside the sanctity of marriage.
We will be held accountable before God for all we say, did, and even our thoughts before Him. We are responsible to uphold His Way as well as protect the sheep from the wolves.

[Ronni]

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew and all you other haters. "Thank you God????" How arrogant of you to assume that YOU know God's will and that God had anything to do with the passing of Prop 8. And how arrogant of anyone to assume that their opinion defines "traditional marriage" or defines "normalcy." As the parent of a gay youth, I can tell you that his sexual orientation was determined before he was born. He didn't just come home one day and say "I think I want to be gay." How very sad to impose your own hatred and intolerance to others. Why would you have the audicity to prevent my son from having the very benefits of marriage that you or anyone else may have? No, don't thank God...he is not a purveyor of hate. My God is a God of love.

[Sonya]

Richard C
It's all about protection, protect children and marriage from the abomination of homosexuality. Protect chickens from greed/abuse.
Sanctity of marriage and sanctity of life.
It's a shame abortion notification didn't pass, how sad for young girls, they're already so confused and hurt,now they're lead down another destructive road as though they made good desicions in the first place.

[Tim]

Oh, I see. This was not a rebuke to gay people for having the audacity to want their unions to be given recognition by the state (because they already are, just called something else which makes no sense whatsoever) - this was a rebuke to the state supreme court judges who had the audacity to throw out the 2000 ballot initiative because it violated the state constitution we had YESTERDAY but not TODAY!

Isn't the constitution supposed to protect minorities from the prejudicial, bigoted whims of the majority by guaranteeing the SAME rights for ALL citizens? So, what - when the bigots run afoul of the constitution, that gives them the right to change the constitution to suit their whims?

Isn't it the job of supreme court justices to interpret legality according to the constitution, and to throw out half-baked ballot measures that violate it?

And isn't also true that those same "rogue" supreme court justices were conservative REPUBLICANS? You know, the old-fashioned brand of conservatives who stood up for personal liberties, not the Christian zealots who have declared "culture war" against anyone and everyone whose rights offend their "values".

SICKENING.

[Juan]

Matthew my friend.... In case I missed it, Opposition of Prop 8 did not mean that the Church would be obliged to offer the Sacrament of Marriage. Its a civil matter, you know : a marriage license though the registrar's office...

[Barley]

It is saddening that we acheived such a milestone in history by voting for a person of color while at the same time voting to restrict rights in California based on religious beliefs.

It is more disheartening to know that Obama did NOT make a stand supporting equal rights. It is his position, too, that marriage be between a man and a woman. How can e be so high and mighty? Iit was not long ago that African Americans could not vote nor could they marry a caucasian person. It is hard to believe that he is not getting more heat about this.

It is also a travesty that Californians, long considered the most open minded people, would overturn an equal right of its people. Shame on my peers!

Civil Unions are NOT equal rights just like separate water fountains were not equal. Different but the same is still different no matter what you call it. It is not an equal right when you cannot file your taxes as a family. I could go on and on.

Sad day!

[Shame on California]

California and its citizens have been shamed by this proposition's passage.

A very sad day for our state.

[asdf]

Not only does the gay community want to redefine marriage, but redefine "homophobia" and "discrimination" to include those

1) who do not desire a large social experiment

2)who believe that God might possibly be bigger than even homosexuality (as demonstrated by those in http://www.exodus-international.org/)

3) who believe they were born flawed and with struggles like the rest of the world

4)who have any disagreement is principle, or difference in perspective.

[Pierre]

Notice how many of the anti-Prop 8 people feel they can erroneously apply the label of "hatred", "discrimination", "bigot", etc. to those who do not share their views? What a sad joke.

Shame on them -- that's discrimination in itself. Not to mention ignorance, arrogance and a lie.

It's also what lost Prop 8 for them.

[Sean]

I voted yes on 8 and I am not religious at all. This all is about the definition of a word, marriage is between a man and a women. A civil union has ALL the same rights, just a different name. So will someone please tell me what the problem is?

[Jesiah]

Question: Can the the state constitution truly be amended if it violates other constitutional rights, i.e. taking away a "fundamental right'' from one group this is available to another?

Some thoughts: Allowing gay marriage is not forcing "normal" people to understand anything. It would not affect straight people in any way. Tell me, all of you people who are involved in a heterosexual marriage right now - how would you personally be affected by this? Really, your marriage is not somehow lessened or made invalid. Nobody is going to look at that ring on your finger and point and laugh. Nobody is going to come and take your marriage license away and run your husband or wife out of town and steal them away.

What a lot of people post here fail to realize here is that there are two parts to marriage: the religious ceremony, and the governmental bureucracy. The religious ceremony part is a totally separate issue. There are congregations and groups that already do perform religious ceremonies of any flavor for gay and lesbian couples. That is not what is at stake here. What is at stake is a huge list of legal rights and responsibilities - the governmental bureucracy side of things.

Whatever you call a union between two people, marriage or a civil union or anything else, it is more than wedding bells and cakes and vows and rings and embarrassing in-laws and romance and a honeymoon suite. Marriage is essentially a contract with far-reaching implications. This contract affects you legally and financially. Here are some examples:

-It affects how you file taxes, and might affect how much you pay.
-It affects your health insurance coverage and that of your partner and minor dependants. Your children might not be able to get coverage at all.
-It can affect your credit.
-It affects your standing as a party in a lawsuit should your partner be a plaintiff in a personal injury suit, or should you need to file a wrongful death lawsuit.
-It can affect a dependant child's ability to inherit money and/or property and other estate issues.
-It affects certain areas of confidentiality and health care (visiting your partner in the hospital, making medical decisions if they are no longer able to do so themselves, etc).
-It affects memorial decisions after death (burial and/or cremation decisions, planning a wake and funeral, etc).
-It can affect your ability to gain legal guardianship of a minor child.
-It affects your responsiblities owed to a minor child and partner after a legal divorce.

These are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head. Notice how none of those are exotic luxuries? Not only are those items dealing with your legal rights, but your legal RESPONSIBILITIES also.

Take my last item on the list as an example: the responsibilities you owe to your child and partner after a legal divorce. As it is now, if a man and a woman get married and raise a child, then later file for a divorce, one parent (whoever doesn't get the primary custody of the child) will likely end up making monetary payments to their ex-spouse and their child. There really isn't a way around that, and it makes sure that even if the marriage fails, the child is still provided for after the property and money are divided.

But, with laws as they are now, what happens if two gay men adopt a child, and later split? For all intents and purposes, their split is a divorce. However, there might not be any court-enforceable way to ensure that the child is still provided for, and theres no way to guarantee that one partner doesn't just walk off with all the money or take all the property. Because no contract existed in the first place, there is no way to handle the dissolution of such a contractual agreement. We're left hoping that neither of the ex-partners are complete jerks that decide to take all the money and move to another state, leaving their ex and their child in the dust.

Doesn't sound too fun now, does it? Nobody would dream of letting situation #2 happen to a straight couple. Why should it be the case for a gay couple? That's not "special rights" - thats equal rights AND responsibilities.

Sure, a gay couple that has their stuff together can go to a lawyer and make sure they've got documents in place to cover some of those events. But what about someone who can't afford their own lawyer to put in place what would automatically be in place if their contractual relationship were recognized? What happens when something bad happens before those documents can get put together? Even if you do have your legal ducks in a row, there isn't always much stopping a government or any other entity from looking at you and saying "LAWL Your fancy documents mean nothing to us cuz you're not married and you're just some freak LAWL".

Lets not even get started on how an amendment like this infringes on citizen's rights to enter into contracts. Whatever you call the union, marriage is a contract in the eyes of the government. The additional meanings attached to it - eternal love, fidelity, the sacredness of the home and marital relationship, etc - are all in the realm of religion and the religious ceremony. The government can't touch this stuff, though the argument is always made that "Big Bad Gays" are going to come and knock down all your religious views. Totally untrue. Frankly, who cares what its called anymore - marriage, civil union, anything. As long as all - ALL - of the rights and responsibilities are EXACTLY the same and equal, it doesn't matter what its called.

You think marriage is a religious thing? Fine. Have your marriage. Just recognize that the rest of us have rights too.

What reason does anyone have for wanting this proposition to pass, other than selfishness, ignorance, and hate?

[Abraham Cohen]

Keep your homosexuality out of my chosen religion!

[TR]

Hey, Abraham, keep you chosen religion out of my God-given sexuality.

[Christie]

Most of the people I know who are against gay marriage are also against interracial marriage. They even claim the Bible teaches against marrying someone of a different race, but its just the opposite! I feel terrible for those couples in California that are most likely going to have their marriage license taken away. I think the supporters of Prop 8 just want to be able to hold it over their heads that they still have the right to marry the person they love while same-sex cannot. I can't believe more people oppose gay marriage than those who oppose abortion...

[ASDF]

"Civil Unions offer SOME of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level."

[Steve Biscotti]

I am open minded. I do not feel the minority should dictate to the MAJORITY! Twice this issue has gone to the people and twice it was held by the majority that marriage is a civil union between a man and woman. If gays need a term so bad to define themselves then create your own term for the civil union of man & man or woman & woman! But my understanding of a Democracy is majority rules and it has done so twice. So it is time to accept, kind of like the child who is sent to their room for throwing a tantrum or is discipline now unacceptable, because it is thwarting someone's expression?

[Ollie]

The sheer ignorance on this topic amazes me.

You people who support prop 8 say its whats natural. Ok sure I will give you that because yes, it does take a man and a women to make life.

What I will not agree with you on is the "normalcy" and "morality" that comes with the passage of prop 8. Who says its normal? Who says its moral? Its like not gays choose to be gay, they just are. The same way your favorite food is pizza and mine is shrimp. Is Pizza the "normal" and "moral" thing to like just because so many people like it more that other foods? Does that make me immoral for not agreeing with you that pizza is better? Cmon people wake up. Get your religious views out of my constitution and keep them to yourselves.

If you don't want your church to recognize gays as married or wed them, fine don't no one is forcing you to. That's the beauty of the US constitution. Do you wanna hate gays with all your might? Go ahead and do it, just keep it in your head. Do you want to prevent your kids from learning about gays? Go ahead and pull them out of class when the topic is being covered (which it wont be anyway). Do whatever you like, thats part of being an American, but do NOT take away the civil rights of your fellow Americans that fight by your side to protect the same freedom you have enjoyed all your life.

Your religion is your religion. Practice is as you wish, but the government is not your place to demonstrate your beliefs. It's as simple as that.

[audrey50]

Well, what do you know? Gays don't run the state of California after all......

[a7467]

I voted YES on prop 8 because one of our purposes here on earth is to pro-create. You can NOT pro-create with two people of the same sex bottom line. None of us would be here if this was the case. Gay people have domestic partnership rights so instead of calling this "discrimination" they should just accept whats available to them and quit seeking to change the constitution to fit their needs. I don't have a personal problem with any gay person, its there choice and their life, however, from the beginning of time it was not set to be this way. So as I stated earlier, they have a option that is similar to marriage and I think they should enjoy that as well as their partner and quit pushing there thoughts on how it should be for everyone else.

[Blue]

TR wrote: "Most of the people I know who are against gay marriage are also against interracial marriage."

I urge you to speak with any of the 70% of African-American voters who supported Prop. 8. I think you may quickly realize the absolute falsehood of what you said there.

[Janine]

Let's face it.. if you get religious.. the marriage vows state "be fruitful and multiply" and people are basing the gay marriage ban on the fact that same sexes can not multiply. Well, then, abolish the unions of people who married in church and are unable to conceive.. Abolish the mixed religion marriages because the Jewish faith claims if you are mothered by a Jew you ARE a JEW and there fore the difference in religion are signigicant. Moresoe that those of same sex marriages vs. hetero marriages. LEAVE GAY PEOPLE ALONE. Time for change, we are ONE! Gay straight black white latino asian disabled and able bodied.. to somewhat quote our new presiden elect. We have turned about and elected a black man for president... lets let gay people have their lives in peace..

[S]

This article has one major typo in it....
"More reaction to Proposition 8's defeat in The Times:"

If proposition 8 was DEFEATED, then nothing would happen, gay marriage would still be legal.

Proposition 8 was NOT defeated, it PASSED which means we now have created unequal laws for equal citizens.

[Blue]

Oops -- sorry TR, I misquoted you. The quote in my last post should have been attributed to Christie.

[ThomasAlex]

Nature made Man for Women, a statement I hear all too much. But yet Science proves otherwise, so I ask why people are using their personal opinions as Fact.

Creationism is the belief that God made Man for Women, but this of course is all based on theory. Only Man and Woman can procreate.

Nature is the universe with all its phenomena, developing on its own accord. Man and Man can not procreate.

Science, documents millions of years of human, animal, plant, and geographical Evolutional change. Homosexuality has been documented in mammals for hundreds of years.

Why did Nature make 7% of Men and Women couples unable to procreate?

Why did Nature make 10% Man Gay?

Together Equal only 17% of the Population is unable to conceive children. So Naturally, life would have still continued to flourish.

[Laura]

Wow, Christie! That's a lot of mind reading that just isn't true. As a YES on 8 supporter, I do empathize with same sex couples who've married over the last year. I expect that many won't care or believe or even be upset that I empathize with their situation but i and many others do despite attempts like your post to de-humanize us.

Personally, I wish Newsom and the 4 judges who pushed this issue had never done so after we'd voted the first time -- there is a shared responsibility amongst both sides for the limbo that the 18,000 same sex marriages are now in and no matter how one voted, I think it is sad and sobering knowing what this vote might mean to those 18,000 personally.

However, what is also not true is that this vote was simply an act of bigotry or religions taking over the government. Try using that argument against the French or the Brits who also said no to gay marriage and you will be laughed out of town -- and an overwhelmingly secular town at that. There are plenty of fair minded folks who see important distinctions in hetero v. homo couplings that should guide us in making sound public policy and public policy is what this vote was about.

[Grayson10001]

My partner and I are a young, gay couple who have been together 4 years and are planning to move to California in a few months due to a job promotion. I have to admit I am disappointed that we will not have the choice to marry when we make the move. To feel like we were about to have the same rights as everyone else and then to have them snatched away.......I can't describe the feeling. Empty?

I try to put myself in other people's shoes who would vote Yes on Prop 8, and I understand where people are coming from religiously. But like many have said, it should be a matter of state and not religion. I can't really picture a sound moral arguement that would deny this right to a couple.

This may sound a bit odd, but I feel like my partner and I have played by society's rules: We were good students, came from good suburban homes, go to service, graduated college, volunteer in our community, fell in love in our early 20's, wear rings to show our commitment to each other, have good jobs, treat others as we would like to be treated, working towards buying a house together, have a joint savings account, talk about having kids....all these stereotypical socially 'normal' things couples do........but we can't marry.

I've seen some very passionate posts on here and rightly so, because it is a topic concerning love, rights, what is deemed right and wrong. Thank you for all the other posts from those opposing Prop 8. Hearing that it is passed makes me feel a bit alone in the world, but it is good to feel a sense of community with you all and know feel the same. To those who support Prop 8, I respect your opinions on here, but please do not belittle our feelings at being mistreated. One truly does feel like a 2nd class citizen when you are so close to being granted the same rights as others in society and then have that dream taken away.

[777ark]

all people should only be legally married after a civil ceremony and if you want, and your church approves, have a second ceremonial ceremony with your religious blessings. if churches do not have the right to facilitate a divorce on behalf of the state then they should not be able to perform a marriage on behalf of the state. this way everything is simple, clear cut and clears your argument that man+woman+church=marriage.