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

[Brad]

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

Welcome to California, ca. 2008. (Well stated BTW, Jesiah).

Our once noble and proud state that once stood for opportunity and progress has become an epicenter for intolerance. If not racial intolerance, then sexual identity. A true nanny state run amok.

Never mind that our state is flat broke, up to its eyeballs in debt that future generations will inherit, faced with a crumbling infrastructure, third-world public schools, overflowing and brutal prisons, etc. It's much more important we band together and make sure those filthy homosexuals can't "steal" marriage from us -- and possibly denigrate it worse than we have.

Shame on you, CA. And especially Los Angeles.

[Phillip]

Homosexuality is God-given? LOL!! Talk about ignorance of God. It's a lifestyle choice!

[Gavin]

No, this door's not wide open now. It' not gonna happen -- whether we like it or not.

[Laura]

Grayson,

I find your words both candid and gracious -- I appreciate that honesty as well as your personal attempt to see both perspectives -- that really seems to be becoming more and more a rarity in this debate so to me your words have added measure.

You wrote “ I can't really picture a sound moral argument that would deny this right to a couple.”

In my own research of the issue, I found two arguments I thought were very compelling that others might be interested in.

Something they both make clear is that their arguments opposing same sex marriage are not a matter of moral judgment but of public differentiation based upon society‘s obligation to foster a climate in which children ideally have a mother and a father:

Canadian Ethicist’s argument against gay marriage

http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

AND

Condensed (though still very long) Report of France’s decision concerning gay marriage

http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France_Report_on_the_Family_Edited.pdf

Best

Laura

[CornetMustich]

Kudos to CT but a sad day for CA.

Have folks forgotten that just a few years ago blacks and whites were prohibited from getting married.

As a Justice of the Peace I look forward to officiating at the marriages of same-sex couples from CT and from around the country.

Cheers,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
Washington CT 06793 USA

For more info try:

http://www.jpus.org

http://www.lmfct.org

[Melissa]

First, I have to say that I find it troubling that a single court in the state can put down a decision that would have such wide reaching implications for the state as was the case in San Francisco last summer - I just do know how 'democratic' that is. As far as the same sex marriage issue, given the fact that a marriage and a civil union already grant all of the same "legal rights", is it really worth it to have this very expensive and almost nonsensical fight over who gets to use the word marriage and who doesn't? Can't we just agree to disagree on the terminology and move on to something more important.

[8Unconstitutional]

Prop 8 is not valid because it violates Section 1 of Article 1 of the CA Constitution which states that, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

It also violates Section 8 of Article 1 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex because Prop 8 basically says a man (or woman) is disqualified from entering or pursuing a strong inclination to a particular state or course of action (in this case, marriage) just because he is a man (or woman).

Since Prop 8 is contrary to such BASIC aspects of the
Constitution, it is invalid and must be thrown out.

[Melissa]

First, I have to say that I find it troubling that a single court in the state can put down a decision that would have such wide reaching implications for the state as was the case in San Francisco last summer - I just do know how 'democratic' that is. As far as the same sex marriage issue, given the fact that a marriage and a civil union already grant all of the same "legal rights", is it really worth it to have this very expensive and almost nonsensical fight over who gets to use the word marriage and who doesn't? Can't we just agree to disagree on the terminology and move on to something more important.

[Greg]

Homosexualtiy is a condition. It is not genetic. It is not hereditary. I was completely on the other side of the fence years ago. I am a psychologist in SoCal (PhD from Stanford). I did my undergrad at Cal (Economics, don't ask). I am a true blue democrat. However, my views on homosexuality have evolved. I was taught by professors and accepted the mainstream idea that homosexuality was not treatable and was was determined before birth. This was before all of the studies that have proved otherwise; they reveal that it is not biological. I started my practtice and started to get gay men that wanted counseling, and I started to discover that in each individual there is a specific cause for homosexuality. In speaking with my colleagues, more and more of us are coming to the same conclusion. Homosexuality is a condition, and it is treatable. I would never have believed it if I had not experienced it. I have since treated over 3 dozen gay men, and over half of them are in heterosexual relationships. They are so much happier than they were before. Granted, it took a lot of work and time for most of them. It’s tough at times, because society tells them that this is who you are and you need to accept it. You can’t change. I just can’t put into words how much happier they are now that they have confronted themselves and moved on. Like I said, I never would have beleived it if I hadn't witnessed it.

[Johan c wildhagen]

In what country on the face of the earth can a human being legaly be put to death for the color of their skin? none. Now find how many countries will do the same for loving someone of the same sex. This is not your struggle. Leave us alone.

[Veronica]

The supporters of gay marriage are constantly pointing out "ignorance" & "intolerance" in those who oppose them..

suggesting that anyone who disagrees with them is "intolerant".. does anyone else see the irony & hypocrisy in this worldview..

some people believe that homosexuality is immoral.. what does that have to do with being educated (ie- ignorant).. it's a moral issue.. a "gut" issue, not an issue of education or tolerance..

[ThomasAlex]

Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage may differ, but their battles are all in the same. It took the Courts to rule in favor of Interracial Marriage, not the Majority of the People. Were these Judges then, overstepping their duty? Through a long history of law suits, in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination's. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

After this ruling, the still 17 states that banned Interracial Marriage were no-longer in effect.

Through all the arguments of morality and society standards. One could only think how the world would be if Interracial Marriage was never fought in Courts.

[ThomasAlex]

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association
both believe that sexual orientation is in part caused by; genes, prenatal
hormones, and brain structure

If so by Choice, why is homosexuality Resulting from the upbringing of Heterosexual couples? Where would homosexuals get this behavior if not by birth? And if not determined by birth, it is understandable to say our children our choosing this unknown alienated behavior at ages 8 and down? How would anyone be happier by telling them they are wrong for who they are? And it would take just as much hard work to change your inner sexual choice as well.

If its not broken, don't fix it.

[Shame on California]

A lot of hate on display here, and all of it by people who purport to be religious. Very telling. Who would Jesus hate? Go on and spread your hate far and wide, and know this, it will all come right back at you in the end. Enjoy yourselves today, haters. Pay for it tomorrow.

[Dena]

How amazingly peeved will all the "Christian" phoneys be when they take their last breath and realize there's nothing afterwards? Nope. No reward at all for all your bigotry, self-righteousness, and hatred. Just the much-deserved dirt nap.

Christians are this country's version of the Taliban.

[Becca]

I have gay friends, coworkers and both of my tenants are gay. I love them all. I voted Yes on 8 and am glad it passed.

In California, they have ALL of the rights of married people, unlike several people here have indicated. If they don't have the same tax breaks, or whatever else on a federal level that married people do, well, I would gladly support a measure or amendment to grant those same benefits. Why doesn't the activist gay community spend $38M on doing something like this that would actually benefit people instead of being the true instigators of hate and intolerance?

I don't begrude anybody their ability to live their own life the way they want, but don't force YOUR lifestyle down my throat! You're fighting with me about a WORD, not any actual RIGHTS. If the radicals amongst the community hadn't tried to force this on us, this would never even have been an issue, and I wish it hadn't.

The level of hypocrisy by the self-professed "tolerant", when they are clearly only tolerant of people who think and believe and accept their ideas and beliefs.

Get your money and your ideals behind something that actually has to do with true inequalities, don't try to tell me that I have to accept your lifestyle as "normal" and I won't try to tell you that you need to accept your lifestyle as "abnormal." Leave the word marriage alone.

Again, I'll donate the same amount of money as I did to Yes on Prop 8 if your community will stop its hateful treatment of people who hold religious values and moral values in high regard and get to work on making sure that civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or whatever, truly do have all those benefits (tax breaks, rights of survivorship, etc.) that heterosexual marrieds have.

I have NEVER in my life put down gay people, not hired gay people, or in any other way discriminated against them (assuming I even knew they were gay)! But quit forcing YOUR beliefs on ME!

[Factsy Magee]

KNOW THE FACTS -

First off, 10% of the population is not gay. That is what the homosexual agenda/media advocate. It is less than 4% (many sources cite this - the first I found without researching - http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.htm)

Secondly, "Christians" that believe homosexuals should be married? How do you reconcile that with - Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and Romans 1:26-27?

You are supposed to love everyone. There is a huge misconception on both sides of this argument regarding "Christians." First off, if you don't believe in the passages above and choose to ignore verses like "homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God" etc., then you are clearly blinded by ignorance. ON THE OTHER HAND, if you preach hate and do not love homosexuals the way God loves all sinners (meaning you), then you are blinded by ignorance as well. Do you "Christians" really not know the Bible? Seriously?

Parents LOVE their children so they tell them they should not play in the street. Would you really love your children if you didn't tell them truth, that playing in the street is dangerous? If they do, do you then HATE them? Of course not. You need to teach/preach love, but not at the expense of truth.

Using the opinion argument (someone mentioned that their favorite food is shrimp as opposed to pizza and believes people are advocating "pizza" is right and shrimp is wrong regarding homosexuality is wrong due to opinion). That's a valid argument regarding opinion, however a terrible argument regarding "Choice vs. Innate." People change their choice of favorite food. People CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Equating this to being born of a certain race is NOT the same as choosing to be homosexual. People have changed their sexual preference. No one has ever decided to not be black and changed to being white.

As far as marriage and freedom, if Prop 8 didn't pass, the homosexual agenda would be enforced upon churches and PREACHERS WOULD GO TO JAIL FOR PREACHING THE BIBLE. It's already happened in other countries (Ake Green et. al). THAT is intolerance.

Where's the separation of church and state? If you disagree with the Bible, that's fine. Just as you can't be jailed for being a homosexual, nor should someone who disagrees with homosexuality be jailed, yet if Prop 8 didn't pass, that would be the case! It's already happened around the world!

My OPINION aside (since everyone is entitled to their own) I do not want to go to jail for what I believe in. THAT is one of the main issues here.

[ThomasAlex]

Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are considered a lifestyle. Every day heterosexuals force their lifestyles on homosexuals. Homosexuals are sunned to a 3rd class citizen, just because heterosexual believe their lifestyle is better than all others.

Civil Unions and Marriage, Separate but Equal? Why not give just whites "Marriage" and everyone else "Civil Marriage".

[Greg]

I note that white voters did not support Prop 8, and asian and latino voters were split.

Who carried Prop 8? Overwhelmingly black voters.

While we gays were by and large voting and cheering the election of Barack Obama and a victory for African Americans, they were selling us down the river ...

This won't be forgotten.

[Tim]

777ark brings up a very good point. In most democracies, the civil ceremony is what makes a marriage legal, while the religious ceremony is optional and carries no legal weight. Maybe that's what we need in this country. Have everyone - irregardless of gender-pairing - who wishes to marry legally undergo a civil ceremony to legalize their union, and those who want the sanctification part can then have a second ceremony with a religious officiant. Religious institutions would not have lost their ability to sanctify marriages according to their own doctrines if Prop 8 had passed. Divorce is legal in California, but has anyone ever successfully sued the Catholic Church for refusing to marry a divorced person? Or an unbaptised person? Not to my knowledge. Churches are free to discriminate against or deny santification to anyone they deem "unworthy" and that would not have changed. States cannot and should not discriminate against anyone for any reason.

Steve Biscotti, you might want to sign up for a refresher course in civics and government at your local community college. Constitutions are not put in place to defend the majority against the minority; it's the opposite, in fact. The Federal Constitution as well as state constitutions establish the rights and protections of the individual - not the majority. If you don't undertand this most basic of concepts, perhaps you should not be voting.

And Laura, you're right about the reaction of the Brits and the French to SSM; the only difference is that these largely secular societies couldn't mask their bigotry behind religion without looking like complete hypocrites. Not so here. And your empathy is pretty cold comfort to those who have been disenfranchised by "sound public policy" distinctions when constitutional language like "endowed by their CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights" is fairly unambiguous. Distinctions between "hetero and homo couplings" should not be the state's interest or business, unless the state really wants to delve into the reasons straight couples want to marry in order to determine whether or not they deserve it.

[Chuck]

Maybe it should be legal for a father to marry his daughter (or son), or perhaps the family dog? We voters spoke as to what the law should allow, I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but I shouldn't have to wait in line three minutes longer at the court because to dudes who met at a bar the night before wished to "get married."

[Lisa]

The bible says when a man finds a wife he finds a good thing not when a man finds a man or when a woman finds a woman I feel do what you wand but don't try to teach my children about something I don't beleive in

[THE TRUTH]

I find it DISGUSTING that all minority groups that were responsible for the majority of passing 8 have the NERVE to cry about"discrimination", and then go and do the same to others. WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.. If they can TAKE AWAY this EXISTING right, who's to say some day , somoeone won't TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS and send you race card carrying crybabies back to Africa and Mexico? Who's to say YOU won't have to sit in the back of the bus and drink out of seperate water fountains ONCE AGAIN. Yes the judges went "against the people" and approved same sex marriage , because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Do you think the "people" wanted YOU to be freed of slavery when you were, or able to to marry into other races when that was struck down? NO. The "people" wanted everything to stay the same at the time. The GOVERMENT STEPPED IN and said that was wrong - AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, which is the ONLY reason you are now free to do as you wish today. Karma.

[socaljd2]

"I have NEVER in my life put down gay people, not hired gay people, or in any other way discriminated against them (assuming I even knew they were gay)! But quit forcing YOUR beliefs on ME!"

I dont see why not, your beliefs are forced on me in every way imaginable. Homosexuality is not an "idea" or a "belief", it is a biological reality. Your argument mirrors those put forward in oposition to interacial marriage - using your religious beliefs to justify your bigotry. You call those who oppoesed prop 8 intollerant? You are talking people who have witnessed and endured decades of publicly sanctioned persecution in the name of morality. Gays as Intollerant of those who dont accept their beliefs? Tell that to the parents of the Mathew Shaperd who was beaten and left to die in the snow because he was different.

Lifestyle choice? Sexual preference? How many of you were provided with the option to choose who you are attracted to? When did this choice present itself? If and when a "gay" gene is found will all these arguments about choice and preference vanish into thin air? Will any of the bigots who supported this amoral proposition change their minds about denying SS couples a fundamental right? I dont attend your church and have no interest in gaining religious approval of my relationship - this has never been about the state requiring any religion to approve of same sex untions - look in the mirror and acknowledge that your "yes" vote was a direct manifestation of your personal feelings that homosexuality is wrong. Your hatred (not morality, your hatred) is wrong and we are continually forced to endure it. "I have plenty of gay friends" That sounds like the defense uttered by someone accoused of being racist...."I have plenty of black friends".

Look in the mirror - you are an intollerant bigot.

[chris]

There are certain rights and obligations that apply to everyone equally, but certain rights and obligations are dependent on what you are. While everyone should be treated equally, everyone is not the same. Government makes distinctions all the time and applies the laws differently dependent upon those distinctions.

Step-parents are not biological parents – the state can’t hold them to the same level of support
17 year olds are not 18 year olds –they cannot vote
20 year olds are not 21 year olds - they cannot be sold alcoholic beverages
Brothers and sisters are not first cousins – they cannot get married in California

Marriage has always been a way for the State to recognize rights and responsibilities between the parties in a family unit. The husband is deemed to be the father of a child born during wedlock, even if he is not. If he proves he is not the biological father he is still legally the father. He is responsible for the care and upbringing of the child, not the State.

Gay couples are not heterosexual couples. The State can assign rights and duties differently – and has with domestic unions.

While this is very emotional – at some level this is like the courts saying all men and women can and should use each others public bathrooms. Isn’t that the result if everything and everyone is treated the same all the time, regardless of differences.

[Tim]

Lisa, don't expect gay Californians to sit quietly by while religious zealots like you run roughshod over our civil rights just because you want your kids to grow up with a distorted view of the world around them. If people like you want to use your kids as human shields in your self-declared culture war, that's your business. It's not society's responsibility to prevent your kids from growing up confused, prejudiced, or enraged - that's your responsibility. God help them if one of them grows up to be gay. My religious parents thought it couldn't happen to one of their kids in the perfect Christian home they created. Thankfully they saw the light long ago and voted no on Prop. 8.

[Emma]

I am not shock to read all these hateful comments for christians, God & people who support Prop 8. This is really hating Jesus Christ. This has been predicted 2000 years ago:

John 7:6-7, 18-19 (Bible New Testement NIV version)
6Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. 7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.
18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

For those self-proclaimed christians above who said the Bible did not condemn homosexual behavior & choices. 2000 years ago, people already had homosexuals in Rome and read this. This talked about the sexual actions of gays & lesbians very clearly. God has given up on them, they wanted other to approve their actions. It is exactly what happened today in California:

Roman 1:24-28, 32 (Bible New Testement NIV version)
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[Adam W]

It's actually not just a ban on gay marriage. What unsuspecting voters did not realize is that, while on its face it appealed to an anti-gay bias and hoped to pass based on that prejudice alone, it was drawn up in such a way as to prevent second marriages.

That was the result of the heavy lobbying done by the "One Man One Woman Marriage Society," ("OMOWMS"), which is a kind of underground society formed by a coalition of Catholic and Baptist fundamentalists. It pushed for the amendment to define marriage as between "one" man and "one" woman. The original language included the additional language "at one time," which would have permitted second marriages and simply prohibited the marriage of one man to two woman (or vice versa) at the same time. But this particular lobby successfully defeated the inclusion of that language, and that is why the only marriage that is permitted under the amendment is that between ONE man and ONE woman.

Second marriages, at least in California, will no longer be recognized by the state, and formerly married individuals who apply for marriage licenses in California will now be turned down. Hopefully Governor Schwarzenegger will not appoint any activist judges who will read beyond the plain language in the amendment and start allowing second marriages. The OMOWMS obviously didn't want their efforts to become public, as they thought, rightly so, that although most Californians would want to prohibit gay marriage on the basis that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, those same Californians want the opportunity to remarry if they get tired of their spouses even though God probably didn't think that that marriage should be torn asunder by divorce.

[Debbie]

I have read through many of these posts. I can't stand the bickering. How easy it is to say that one side is discriminating the other. Discrimination is a two-way road. This is an argument that has no end. This proposition is about A DEFINITION! Marriage will be recognized as being between a man and woman. I have thought about this proposition quite a bit, and what I have concluded was brought about by looking at history. EVERY culture/civilization uses/d their religious leader to perform the marriage ceremony. No matter who their God was- it was the religious leader, a man and a woman. Even the Greeks and Romans (who we all know had their homosexual relationships). I understand that we "can't live in the past"- really I get that. However!- There are fundamental beliefs that have been on this earth for thousands of years. Those beliefs are generally of a religious nature. What many of the No on 8 supporters are asking for is people to go against their personal, fundamental beliefs. Does it hurt the inner being? Undoubtedly so. But both sides feel threatened and that's why this fight will never end. I'm tired of the name calling- it is immature. This government is not a theocracy. When you are threatening personal beliefs that coincide with religious beliefs- of course it will look like a religious battle! Personal and religious beliefs are linked too close together to really be able to find the separation. Get over the hurt. Democracy was at its greatest yesterday. The results were not all what everyone wanted. That is the beauty of a democracy. The people vote and the majority wins. Everyone won or lost in someway yesterday- enjoy the win and move past the loss.

[Eric Liu]

Shame on your California! What a bigotry state?!

[Jeff Westra]

It is so ridiculous to constantly compare gay marriage rights to the rights of certain ethnicities to marry. People of certain ethnic groups had no choice in how they were born. Homosexuality is a choice that is a result of a multitude of psychological issues stemming from social interactions and childhood. The fact that many people have "chosen" to leave the homosexual lifestyle proves the point. Please stop saying this is discrimination! Gay people have the same rights as straight people to marry someone of the opposite sex. If they choose to have a relationship with someone of the same sex that is fine...just don't call it marriage. The people of California have spoken. Not once - but twice now (2000 and 2008).

[Christie]

I think my comment has been misinterpreted. I said "Most of the people I KNOW (personally, here in Georgia) who are against gay marriage are also against interracial marriage". Many of the people in my own family are racist, sadly. They believe that God doesn't support different races marrying. I was talking about people around here in Georgia, NOT in California. Most of the opposition to gay marriage is from what the Bible says, and not everyone is Christian. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and Government, but its evident that's not true.

[Jack]

Now that this state is finally starting to make some progress toward protecting individuals' rights to their own beliefs, I HOPE we can start making some positive changes and undoing some of what the democrats have been doing here for the last 40 years.

I have apartment buildings, and because of "equal rights" laws, I have to take whoever applies for them. I can think of two of them that if I could get rid of the homosexuals and other assorted undesirables, that I might be able to attract a better class of tenant. The fact that I can not do that NOW is costing me money. Why should the government be able to tell me WHO I have to rent to if they are MY buildings?

[tincal]

To yes on 8 supporters:

In case you are unclear of the facts…

Who I love and who I marry:
- does not harm you personally
- does not harm your family or children
- does not harm you financially
- does not undermine your family, marriage, livelihood or religion
- does not diminish your fundamental rights in any way

However, your bigotry and religious / personal biases have:
- threatened and eliminated my fundamental rights
- threatened and undermined my marriage to another person
- threatened and undermined my right to have a family (the case in some states)
- harmed me financially (with respect to taxes, healthcare, loss of business, etc.)

So I ask you – how have YOU been harmed by me and my marriage? Your quest to ban gay marriage is fueled by religious and personal bigotry – it is nothing more than one group of people trying to dictate how another group of people should live. It’s not about children, it’s about you trying to push your personal beliefs on to me and others like me.

If prop 8 wins – it will be by a very narrow margin and it does not indicate the view of all people. Most importantly it still does not change the fundamental issue that no one person or group has the right to deny rights or equal protection of the law from another “person” – regardless of your personal / religious beliefs. You may not be promoting hate in your quest, but it is very clear that you are promoting discrimination to all of those that don’t share your views. And you cannot deny that you are nothing more than a hypocrite if you say that it is ok for you to have rights but not me – who made you the dictator of how I must live my life?

Your attempt to re-define marriage is purely to suit your personal and religious views / biases. Marriage should be between two people who love each other and make a commitment to each other, period. It has nothing to do with a right to procreate or the right to have a family – plenty of LGBT and straight people procreate, adopt, foster children, etc. regardless of if they are married or not and plenty of people who get married never plan on having children.
In respect to a child being better off with opposite-sex parents, to quote a NY Times article, “Scores of earlier studies have already shown that on virtually every level of psychological adjustment -- including peer relationships, gender development, intelligence, school performance and sexual orientation -- children raised by gay parents are not significantly different from those raised by straight parents. ''How the children turn out depends on how you parent, not your sexual orientation,'' Dr. Johnson said in an interview. Parenthood requires unconditional love, respect, patience, consistent but appropriate discipline, along with actions and words that build a child's self-esteem, confidence and respect for individual differences. These qualities are not the sole province of heterosexuals, she said. In fact, the study with Dr. O'Connor revealed that if anything, gay parents might do better, having gone to considerable trouble to become parents and being determined to raise children who respect themselves and others while remaining tolerant of diversity. An important goal of the parents was to instill a strong moral code in their children. Furthermore, she added: ''The sexual orientation of the parents seems to have no effect on the child's sexual orientation. The percentage of children raised by gay parents who turn out gay is no higher than that among children raised by straight parents.'' Nor is the percentage of couples who break up after creating a family any higher among gays than among heterosexual couples, said Dr. Johnson, who is an associate professor of psychology at Dowling College in Oakdale, N.Y.”
Oh and can you please just stop with the talk of oh next it will be people marrying animals – that’s just sheer ignorance.

For all those people who say we have the right to marry and same rights already – please brush up on your legal knowledge and get the facts straight - because I have news for you, separate or different is not equal – no matter how you try to spin it. Domestic Partnerships do not have the same protections as marriage. My partner and I have been together for over 8 years, we own a home and business together and I have the tax records, healthcare premium records, insurance, and personal legal documents to prove that we do not get the same state or federal protections, rights and benefits as married couples.

Many years ago, a majority of people were strongly opposed to a woman’s right to vote, integration, interracial marriage, etc. the majority was wrong and thankfully the courts eventually got it right and determined that it was not ok to treat people differently. This struggle for the LGBT community is no different and eventually the 14th amendment will prevail because like civil rights movements before us, we will never give up until we are given equality. That means, until we are allowed to have the SAME rights that you are given. We are not asking for anything more or anything less. All people are created equal and our rights should be too.

So I ask you yes on 8 supporters one question… Why do you feel it is necessary to restrict my rights and equal protection of the laws, but it is ok for you to keep yours?

If you cannot answer the question without including some religious basis in your reasoning – then don’t bother because last I checked we are suppose to have a separation of church and state. Plus, regardless of if you are Catholic, Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, etc. there are many other religious and spiritual people who do not share your opinion / view or support discrimination.

[Lori]

I am appalled at the hypocrisy displayed by the anti-Prop 8 camp.

Talk about hateful, bigoted and mean-spirited!

[loliann]

As a native resident of California, I have been deeply saddened and disappointed in the decision of over half its citizens made to eliminate the rights of same-sex couples. It even says so on the ballot. ELIMINATES. Prop hate has passed and how can we as Californians rally around overturning this misguided and unconstitutional proposition? This issue is not going away for me and I am looking for a way to make a change. I have thought about the other side of the argument. I have realized that we live in a country that calls for a separation of church from State. I have not found a single person that can give me a good answer when I ask, how have you personally been affected by the fact that same-sex couples have been getting married in this state? Because I can think of over a handful of people, my friends, my family members, people whom I respect, whose lives will forever change because of this decision. Since when has it ever been legal or right to tell someone who they should love? Oh wait, that's not what the proposition is saying. You can fall in love with whomever you want, even a person of the same-sex. The only thing, you are not going to be able to marry that person. If this proposition was intended to protect the traditional nature of marriage, why have we not made divorce illegal? It tarnishes the traditional values defined in marriage, so let's get rid of it. At one dim point in our history, California was the first and only state that tried to ban interracial marriages. Lo and behold, it was deemed unconstitutional as I hope prop 8 will be. If the Supreme Court cannot do anything about it I will, and I urge Californians to ELIMINATE the harmful tenets of this propositon!

[Kay]

Take away the Christian beliefs that this is wrong and blame it on nature.

[Anonymous]

OK, first let me say that I am not hating on anyone. I'm not even overly excited, I am just sort of typing stream of conciously, so I hope I express my thoughts in a way you can understand.

Now, my spouse and I are in our 18th year. I never like to say "we are having our 17th anniversary" because I like to look to the future so I say " We will be starting our 18th year." This keeps us lokoing ahead, but I'll come back to us in a moment. (Oh, and we are under 40, so we were real young too)

So up until recently, I can say that I have been a gay man against 'gay marriage'. I hold the rituals and traditions of culture as something that sacrisanct and helps keep that culture alive and well. I used to say, I am not Jewish...I do not need a Bahmitzfah, I don't need a quincenero party...because I'm not mexican. Therefore I would say, I am not straight I do not need a wedding. Furthermore, California affords me most of the rights of 'marriage' so why stir the pot. Then one day I argued my own point, yes I am not Jewish or Mexican, but it wouldn't be ILLEGAL for me to have a Bahmitzfah or Quincenero party it would just be in poor taste. So I have shifted my opinion so that I am now against 'GAY WEDDING' but am now in support of gay 'marriage'.

Plus, I thought the gay perspective could freshen up the concept of wedding and allow us to create our own event, like the blacks did with Kwanza, and make it super great to the point where straight couples would say 'I wish we could have a gay wedding', and their partner would say 'hush , you know that's not appropriate!' I think the gay community needs to understand that it is an effront to the cultural beliefs when they see two wedding dresses it's a mockery to their cultural beliefs just as it would be a mockery if some waspy couple had the bride wear a red bindi on her forehead even though she is not Indian.

So in my desire to create a new ceremony, I decided I would transform "wedding" into something more streamlined. Guests would show up an immediately be served something to drink, no more waiting around sitting in a church pew all silent looking at a bunch of strangers. Then we would sit down to eat, and instead of sitting at a table with strangers making small talk, we would get married (think Dinner theatre) then we would all sit down for dessert, then party!

But then it hit me, and I experienced something I can't quite describe. There's this feeling of validation when your certificate arrives in your mail box that does sort of reinforce that my union is recognized as just as lawful and valid as everyone else's. Which is why the majority Republican Supreme Court Judges found that the existing laws contributed to a 'separate but equal' legal definition which does smack of discrimination. But I was able to acknowledge that I need no validation of my relationship.

Until today. I can't explain how incredibly depressed I am. I shouldn't be. I shouldn't care, but I am. I feel isolated and alone, and even though this is an experience being felt many thousands of people, I can't help but feel as if I have been singled out and been told "you are worth less than the rest of us".

People say that my relationship is a choice, and they are 100% correct. I chose this man. This beautiful, brilliant and generous man who challenges me and stands by me and will love me forever and has done so for 18 years on an incredible journey that I wouldn't trade for anything and that has many years to come.

The 'marriage dinner' didn't go quite as planned. The officiant made us get up from the dinner and then asked us if we had vows to share. I was thinking "vows?!" this is starting to feel like a wedding, and then I blurted out, "I will love until your dead, you know where I stand". OK, not the romantic dream vows for anyone I know, but sharing them in front of friends and family and getting married was one of the most affirming points in my life. I will carry my liscense around with me until I die.

[Alex]

Go Prop 8!

I am so happy. The collection of sexual fetishes sold to us as 'gay' is certainly not my business, but when folks with these fetishes try to pretend they are a cohesive ethnic group and demand political favors, I draw the line. I wasn't really too excited about the passing of this proposition till I watched how the homosexual groups singled out a REAL minority group, Mormons, for persecution. Why didn't they also go after the Roman Catholics? Because Mormons are less that 2% of the population. They want to claim political favors as rights, but I don't remember any constitutional guarantee to the right to lower taxes, do you? There's no constitutional guarantee to cheaper health care, do you? Their arguments are fraudulent. I can't believe so many fell for them. Thanks goodness the people chose right. GO PROP 8!!!!!!!!!!!

[john]

I say do whatever you want, equal rights for you and your spouse. Just don't call it marriage, that's already taken by 1 man and 1 woman.

Come up with a new term..."Garriage" and "Garried". You can still gave a wedding and get Garried...whats the big deal.

If something is red and something blue says "I'm just the same as red, please call me red"...it just doesn't work.

Face it, gay by choice or birth, gay is gay and that's different from the majority of society. Different is good, so be different and leave marriage for the rest of us ordinary folks.

[Tonya Kamaloni]

Does the term Seperation of Church and State mean anything to anyone?

[Nicole Purcell]

I can hardly believe the things people are equivilating same sex marriage with... rape, incest, murder, bestiality... Just for the record, incest is a universal taboo, it's illegal for genetic reasons perhaps more than moral ones. And besides that, how can you even begin to compare a person who wants to marry someone of the same sex with someone who wants to marry their pet, or someone who gets off on rape or murder?!
In regards to another argument, it's true people of the same sex can't conceive together naturally.. but when did that become a qualification for marriage??? What about couples who get married and don't want children? Or people who are infertile?
Look deeply into your heart and decide if you deserve to take away someone elses happiness. Are your reasons universal? or religion based and circular? Does being gay hurt anyone? NO. You don't want gay lifestyles forced on you.. so don't go to the wedding. But don't you dare use your own interpretation of the bible or morality to condemn those unlike you. Love is a good thing, a pure thing. Everyone deserves it, get over yourselves and your self righteousness.

Thank you to all of the people who voted No on 8.. Thank you for saying yes to equality, to humanity, and most of all, to love.

[tir]

I recognize the emotions of gays who would like to marry as the same as my own - they are human emotions. I recognize that the sense of rejection and condemnation is real. I don't wish these feeling upon them, however, I do not believe that gay marriage is a civil right.

Rather, I believe that the strength of our society is based on the Judeo-Christian values upon which it was founded. If we turn away from these, I believe we will weaken as a society. The next generation must be taught the values and approaches to life that will carry us on. I don't refer merely to what is taught in our schools. Rather, I refer more broadly to what is valued and held as the ideal by our society as a whole. I don't see gay marriage as the only weakening component. Others include the objectification of women as sex symbols, parents choosing work and social priorities over parental and family duties, and a general lack of respect for both elders and those who are raising the children which will take over this world and uphold its structure as we grow too old to take care of ourselves.

Some with whom I have spoken have called gay marriage a "cultural evolution" and have encouraged me to allow it to happen. I agree that the word evolution is an appropriate term. I just think it is a mutation that will ultimately contribute to the weakening of our culture, not its strengthening.

I understand why those against my view choose to call this hate and bigotry. Those are powerful words designed to shut up those who see the facts as I do. Nevertheless, while I'm not omniscient, this is how I see it. And I would certainly be in favor of trusting the judgement of the majority on this issue, rather than a few who would legislate their view from a bench.

[Clint]

Seems to me they might have more luck fighting for benefits (or "equality" as they say) another way that redefining marriage, in attempt to get benefits that society gives those who are married. If they want to marry for tax breaks, fix the tax system.

[Dion Davison]

I am a 4th grade teacher in LA. I have never taught marriage in my classroom because it is not required by us teachers to do so. I was very disturbed by all of those commercials that lied about teacher's being required to teach gay marriage, if prop 8 didn't pass. I am extremely disappointed that African Americans voted overwhelming for prop 8. It made no sense to me that the same people who said that they were moved by Obama's victory voted overwhelming for a discriminatory proposition. In South Africa, black people there learned that discrimination was wrong and are the only country in the world to have prohibited discrimination of people based on sexual orientation in their constitution. Clearly, Black and White South Africans recognized that discrimination is wrong. Sadly, in our state, 70 percent of African Americans don't seem to care when others are discriminated against. How sad!

[TayFJ]

I don't know what the "rights" being taken away are.
Aren't ALL people still allowed to be married? Yes.
Aren't ALL people not allowed to be, specifically, married to someone of the same gender? Yes.
There is no discrimination. I don't know what it means to be "gay." I've switched between being gay, straight, and bisexual. When I have been gay, I have only been allowed a civil union, like everyone else. When I have been straight, I have been allowed marriage, like everyone else.

Let's say I'm bisexual. I'm in love with my 21-year-old-daughter and my 67-year-old-dad. Since marriage can only be 2 people, I'll choose, say, my daughter. We love each other. Why can't we get married? Aren't we two "consenting adults?" And why does it have to be 2? Why can't it be 3? Shouldn't my daughter, my dad, and I (we're all bisexual) be able to have a 3-some wedding and marriage?

This is like banning interracial marriages? Well, at least in interracial marriage the genitalia fit together. If you want to allow gay marriage based on a comparison with interracial marriage, you ought also allow a marriage between my neighbor and his dog, who are in love with each other. Also, there is no such thing as an interracial marriage because race is such an ambiguous concept that it doesn't exist at all. For example, I did a report on racial discrimination back when I was in high school and I found about 10 different definitions of race: no one agrees on what that is, so "interracial marriage" doesn't exist either because race is concept that is fluid. (If some a person says that “zbalit” is a paper, another person says it’s a computer, another person says it’s courage, another person says it’s the air, another person says…, then “zbalit marriage” has no meaning because we don’t know what “zbalit” is). On the other hand, gay marriage is clearly defined as a marriage between people of the same sex. Furthermore, same-sex marriage is taking the concept a step further than interracial marriage, in a manner akin to the slippery slope fallacy. Let’s start from A, which is a marriage between a man and woman of the same “race.” We go to step B, which is a marriage between a man and woman of different races. Then we go to step C, which is marriage between anybody (regardless of gender or race). How is step B (the legalization of interracial marriage) equivalent to step C? They’re not. Step C is clearly a step further than step B. Take an analogy. A is all people with gun licenses can own a gun. B is all registered adults can own a gun. C is all people (even criminals and children) can own a gun. So because we allowed all adults who register to own a gun, we must allow all people to own a gun because not doing so would be discrimination? I think not. And since we want to keep going we should: we should have step D: allow marriage between two sisters who are 7 years old and allow even people in jail and those in the presence of the president to carry guns.

This is reminiscent of “separate but equal?” I’m sorry, but separate but equal was talking about SCHOOLS (specifically black children being segregated in schools in which there were only black people, and likewise with white; guess who got all the money?). Quality of education = changing the definition of a word (marriage)? Huh? This doesn’t make any sense. My arguments above apply here. All people have the right to marriage and are prohibited from having a same-sex marriage. So all people are equal and not separate. A main problem with this is that separate but equal is talking about rights in a physical sense: the actual physical separation of children in schools. Proposition 8 isn’t physically separating anyone. It’s not like all gay people have to be detained in one city and aren’t allowed from going outside that city. They’re not separate because they’re allowed the same rights as every other person and can go anywhere they want. (Add onto this the fact that “gay” doesn’t mean anything; my sexual orientation has fluctuated over the years; my “race” has not, if race even exists). Therefore, I’m not sure how “separate” applies to the concept of marriage. I mean, if what advocates of gay marriage say is true, and somehow “people’s ‘rights’ are being taken away” then it isn’t even equal in the first place. So we can’t even being to talk about “separate”: we haven’t even begun to talk about “equal.” But for the reasons mentioned above, “equal” isn’t a valid concern. And everyone was fine with “separate but equal,” it was just that the governments weren’t following through. If both “white schools” and “black schools” got the same amount of money and support, everyone would have been fine with it. Additionally, if we wanted to take “equal” to its full extent, we’d have you sell your house and care and give the money to the poor so that it’s “equal”. We’d let your rival arrest you on the freeway and give you a ticket so that he/she is “equal” with a cop. Last thing I’ll say on “separate”: if we wanted to make concepts not separate, then why is murder and manslaughter separate? Why don’t we consider them the same thing? Let’s not make them separate: let’s make them equal and not separate. And I guess we can extend that to the concept of incest and sex, if it’s consensual. Let’s consider incest the same as “regular sex” so that these aren’t separate anymore.

Lastly, all pro-gay-marriage people should also be anti-abortion. You’re against taking away “rights” right? So you’d be against taking away the life of a baby, right? Especially sticking scissors into a woman’s stomach and smashing its head and dismembering its body parts, right? And you don’t like equating gay marriage with bestiality because an animal can’t give consent to a marriage with a human, right? So you’d also be against abortion because the baby hasn’t given consent to be killed, right?

The rights that are actually being taken away are the rights of those who want the definition of marriage to be clear and ambiguous and family values to be upheld. While it is a shame that many people have sex outside of marriage and get divorced while in a heterosexual marriage, it is no reason to take away the affirmation of family values in society. We shouldn’t kill all men just because some men are murderers. Likewise, we shouldn’t take away the rights of people to live in a society in which the family values of marriage between a man and woman are upheld just because some people abuse that privilege.

[Prop Eight = Prop Hate]

I really thought America was a free country. The homosexuals don't have the freedom to marry.
How free is America now?

All the people who voted yes on prop 8 just moved on with their life afterward.
While the gay/lesbian couples of America, lost their freedom.

Why can't gay/lesbians marry in the first place?
Give a good reason.
Because its "different" in the eyes of straight people?
Whats wrong with being different? It just makes us all unique.

Its not right to take away the rights for homosexuals to marry
Its not their fault they're homosexual; They were born that way
Its not a choice.
Why make them suffer for something they can't help?

Thank you America, land of the free. <---(notice the sarcasm)

[Samantha]

To all of those who voted yes for Proposition 8:

Shame on you. This is supposed to be a secular democracy. No one's religious views have any right to be involved in legislation. Religious institutions can decide what they want to and so can families, but the government must uphold equal rights for all, including the right to legally marry.

When the judges overturned the proposition passed in 2000 that said marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, I was thrilled it was finally rejected. Thank god the courts saw the stupidity and irrationality in the proposition and people who supported it. Now, thanks to more ignorant and fearful Californians who voted yes on Prop 8 (which should not even have legally been on the ballot), we have taken several leaps and bounds backwards.

To those of you out there who say it is not a religious issue, but rather an issue of what is natural--people just like you used to say it was unnatural for a caucasian person to marry an African-American person. Should we pass propositions on that too? No one has any right to tell another person who they can marry.

How can one embrace Barack Obama, and yet not embrace the values he stands for? Americans claim they want change but they are cowards when it actually comes to getting it.

Be fully aware, there are citizens out there like myself who will continue to fight for civil rights and Proposition 8 will be overturned!!!!!!!!

[Greg]

The American Psychological Association thinks that genes or hormones may play a role in homosexuality, but all of the research suggests otherwise. The APA is really just bowing to pressure from the gay community. It's stance has not changed since the 70's, even though studies have shown just the opposite.

Somebody asked about why homosexuals come from heterosexual couples. I have seen so many different causes, ranging from cases of abuse or neglect to more common causes. A typical situation I have seen is the following. A couple has a first son that is a good athlete like his father, and then a second sone comes along who is born more sensitive and maybe less athletic. The father has a tough time connecting with this second son, and this son grows up wanting the male attention he didn't get from his father. I can't tell you how many times I have seen this scenario, or something very similar. It's not the kid's fault. It's poor parenting, at best. It can be corrected, if the desire is there. It's not usually easy, but it can be done. Again, I am a liberal by nature, a democrat at heart, but I can't deny my own experience and observations. There is a growing number of psychologists who are experiencing the same success that I am enjoying. It has been such rewarding work. If I had one hope for our society, it would be that every father had to attend some parenting classes. They have no idea what the ramifications are when they start having children.

[Joey Boy]

Congratulations California. It just goes to show that even in the very state that Hollywood crams ideals into your face, telling you what to believe, some people still know what is right. Up here in Alberta, Canada a public vote would easily ban gay marriage, but unfortunately we don't have the level of democracy the good ol' USA has. We vote for a government that you can't believe in and then they go ahead and do what they want.

Christians out there claiming that homosexuality is okay, read this:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10)

Technically, everyone is guilty of these things. Quite often I'm greedy, I have slandered people, and swindled before. The point is that you have to strive to NOT be these things, including a homosexual offender. THIS IS NOT A HATE AGAINST GAYS! IT IS A DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE BEHAVIOUR!! A gay person still has fundamental rights and liberties. But marriage is not included because marriage is encouraging the behaviour.

Also, marriage is not a right. Its a privilege. If marriage was a right, then it could never be stripped away from anyone, ever. When was the last time you saw married 8 year olds? Do you know anyone who celebrated their fifth wedding anniversary by the time they hit puberty? Didn't think so.

[Diane]

yes Tonya, "Separation of Church & State" means something (learn to spell it please... guess all the ignorance isn't on the Pro-8 side after all...) Here's what it means... it means the government can't establish a religion and force you to worship... it means the government has to leave your church alone... it does NOT mean you can't take your opinions into the political "marketplace" even if they are (gasp!) motivated by your religious values. By the way, separation of church & state is not in the Constitution. Many people think it is.

[Mark]

Since it is not consistent with the bible that gays should have the right to marry, then lets be consistent with the bible in all ways. Let's stone people if they cheat, and outlaw divorce and second marriages. Oh, and we should ban marriage for non-Christians, atheists, and agnostics too. Let's ban contraception, and education for women as well.

Also, let me ask you Christians something. Who do you think hermaphrodites should be allowed to marry? Should they be allowed to marry either sexes or be banned from marrying both? Should the dominate organ determine who they can marry? Should they only be able to get married if they surgically remove an organ? Should the government check people crotches before they get married? Where does it end? Yes, pretty amazing isn't it, Jesus Christ creates hermaphrodites. Blows your mind, huh? But God creating gays is somehow not possible.

For those of you asking why gays can't just be happy with civil unions, you are missing the point. It is not about obtaining the term of marriage, or even getting a piece of paper, it is about having access to the same rights that all other people enjoy. It is about not feeling like a second class citizen.

Gay rights are the true test of civil rights and freedom in America. We are all a minority in some way. What makes you think your rights are safe if the gays don't have rights? If you are anti-gay marriage, then you are anti-American, because this country is about personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness, and is not about the bible. If the bible secured policy in the U.S., then the pope would be our leader. If you do not like the separation of church and state, then go to some other country where there is no separation. Stop pushing your religion on everyone else.

[Doug]

Watching from abroad and after 8 years of disappointment and at times disgust at the American people for the way you have conducted affairs around the world, it truly represented a hopeful new day that Obama, a human who represents such a new type of visionary leader was elected. The American people should be proud of this and for what it is worth you have earned a little redemption in the eyes of is foreigner.

However it is of great sadness to read of this action in California where the majority have voted to over turn a human right of a minority. All humans have the right to love and be loved and a fate of birth should not allow their communities to take away a legal and moral obligation to support their committed relationships in a fully equal way. It was right for the California Courts to move to protect this minority group as it is obvious from the outcome of this vote that discriminatory traits still exists in the majority of Californians.

Americans, including Obama rejoice in telling each other and the world that America represents the greatest nation in the world. However actions always speak louder than words and the vote in favour of prop 8 seems to me to render such words of self perceived greatness nothing more than hollow rhetoric, at least in regard to Californian Americans.

My heartfelt sympathy goes to all those Californians who will suffer so badly because of this selfish action by the majority.

[Maria]

Congratulations California! As a native daughter, I salute the many smart men and women who can recognize the difference between a civil license and an inalienable right.

[Vasiliy]

For all of you who are saying that it is all about religion... It is about human's biology! Man + Woman is not the same as Man + Man or Woman + Woman. That is two different things, and thus should be called different names!

[Beto]

Let's see how the numbers shift once Obama grants amnesty to the millions of Catholic California illegal immigrants. Then the No on 8 crowd will truly have no chance. This was their one shot, with a huge Democratic turn out and the Republican electorate within the state largely resigned about the Presidential race. From here on out, with the projected Latino population increases for the next 50 years dwarfing the population increase from enlightened Liberals and gays, the gay movement really has its work cut out for it.

[Straightshooter]

Prop 8 passed because the cynical right tried to create a wedge issue and Obama did not take the bait. The most liberal senator in the US Senate got elected President of the United States. Barack Obama is the President-Elect of the United States. Let me repeat that again, Barack Obama is the President-Elect of the United States. Should I repeat it again. In the future, Prop 8 will be overturned but President Obama will still have been able to appoint fair-minded judges to the Supreme Court. Congats on your win!! Job well done! You betcha!

[Matthew]

Homosexuals cannot reproduce; the ultra-left wing whacks jobs don't want to reproduce while those who favor conservative social values are having larger and larger families.

Guess what they future brings for homosexual marriage? ;)

[God]

It's only a matter of time, whether you like it or not, that gays will get the same rights as the heterosexual polygamists and born again Christians to marry one day and divorce the next. Continue your fight for liberty and just for all.

[Jo]

Why do we have to change the definition of "marriage?" Why not change the laws regarding Domestic Partners? Why would anyone who is as angry as the opponents of Prop. 8 want to be associated with the institution of marriage which is defined in the Bible. Why not promote a union that is better than marriage, which is often criticized because of divorce and infidelity that is associated with it. Perhaps the new union would make it impossible to obtain a dissolution and then would be better. The hatred as illustrated by those opponents is scary-I do not see that kind of hatred in the comments by proponents. Everyone had their own opportunity to financially or otherwise support either proposition. Why are people condemning religious communities-aren't the Gay/Lesbian groups tax exempt? The opponents of Prop. 8 raised more money than the proponents.

[MIke]

Marriage is a union instituted in our culture and civilization indicating committment to one another and support of the ensuing family. That gay individuals can live and commit to each other does not make them married or a family. They can have no offspring and will remain essentially "roommates". Although they can often raise children with ethics and love, they cannot create a family on thier own. The fact they want to be "families" and have "children" indicate that the need to create a family (lost due to their sexual choice) is in thier nature overshadowing their preferences in a partner. In all this, we need to treat others with respect... but the realitiy is - families and societies are stronger when the majority of biological parents raise and nuture thier children and don't abandon them or expect others to raise them. If we want roommate rights - tax benefit, etc. then fine... lets support those measures without attempting to redefine the very nature of marriage.

[Matt]

I feel that the only people who should be banned from marriage are those who voted yes on 8. Many of the people who have posted comments in favor of prop 8 are obviously hypocrites, they are obviously bigots, intolerant of people who are different from them, and at the same time, claiming the same about people who feel that everyone should have the same rights. Unbelievable some of the bogus excuses prop 8 supporters are using. At one point in time, at least within the US and Canada, African-Americans and women had very limited rights, and many African-Americans were also forced into slavery in the south, and now African-Americans, women, and white men all have the same rights, and an African-American has finally been elected president. Some day, hopefully very soon, same sex couples will have rights identical as opposite sex couples, the right to marry the one they love. Shame on everyone who voted yes on prop 8, all you are doing is teaching your children to discriminate against those who are different from you. Two people of the same gender getting married does not harm anyone in any way.