Prop. 8 poll: Evangelicals, Republicans were biggest backers of gay marriage ban

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that the ballot measure banning gay marriage in California received its strongest support from Republicans and evangelical Christians.

The poll was taken after the Nov. 4 elections and found that despite the heated debate over Prop. 8, opinions in California about gay marriage have not changed very much.

"When voters are asked the separate question of whether they favor or oppose same-sex marriage, they are divided, with 47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed, and 5 percent unsure," according to the PPIC poll results statement. "[It's] a result consistent with responses in the October PPIC preelection survey."

The PPIC survey, which received funding from the James Irvine Foundation, polled 2,003 California voters, who were contacted by phone November 5–16, 2008. The poll has a margin of error of 2%, perhaps more for subgroups surveyed.

Among the findings:

-- Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) were far more likely than others (42%) to vote yes.

-- Three in four Republicans (77%) voted yes, two in three Democrats (65%) voted no, and independents were more closely divided (52% yes, 48% no).

-- Voters without a college degree (62%) were far more likely than college graduates (43%) to vote yes.

While there has been much made about the strong support for Prop. 8 among African Americans, the sample size for blacks was too small in this poll to report separately.

-- Shelby Grad

Comments

[Flex]

I think that these self described religious people are the largest group of fools on the planet. They are subscribers to a weird cult whose central interest is the denial of gay rights. They can't attract anyone to their cause without gay scapegoats. They're a sexually starved, out of shape, and abnormally dumb in some respects. I would have more tolerance for them if they kept their pious views out of my intimate life. I don't care what they think about me as long as their opinions don't have teeth.

[JJ]

So, statistically Blacks voted like Republicans. The Republican party has an opening to enlarge their tent.

[Mott]

Education has very little to do with why people voted to ban homosexual marriage. Many people see same sex marriage as being the same as a son marrying his mother, an abomination. As far as education goes, you'd think the more education a person has, the better they would understand the design of the reproductive system. Now, as far as biology goes, the "backside"(putting it in street terms)of a person is a part of the digestive system. It wasn't designed to be used as a sexual organ and using it as such IS seen as an abomination. This was the Digestive System/Reproductive System difference of the human body(biology) they used to teach in school. That was real education.

[busytimmy]

So the folks who voted to take away equal protection under the law from their gay neighbors were generally uneducated, Christo-fascists? Great. Egged on by Mormons from Salt Lake and the Rove style Frank Schubert (Yes on 8)? Even better. Jesus, save me from your followers.

[Very simple]

Surprise, surprise. Ignorant, less-educated, so-called "Christians" and Republicans supported Proposition 8 by a wide margin. Who would of guessed?!

[cbk16]

The Bible condemns two men sleeping together, people were just voting on what they believe. If people believe less in the bible in the future, Gay marriage will pass. Anti prop 8 backers can attack the Mormons who supported this, but this is a Christian vs a not Christian issue, there are still a lot of Christians in California, Mormons only make up 2% of the population. Mormons were just more likely to donate money to stand up to their beliefs then other Christians were, however African American churches preached the pro 8 virtues from their pulpits more than other churches, this is why African Americans votes for prop 8. The anti 8 crowd spent lots of money to convince voters of voting against this, people looked at both sides, the Christian way of thinking won out. To expect Christian churches to go against their beliefs is silly, this doesn't mean Christians hate Gays, they just don't believe a man should be married to another man.

[Very simple]

". . . this doesn't mean Christians hate Gays, they just don't believe a man should be married to another man."

On the contrary. According to this bible these so-called "Christians" base their beliefs on ". . . If a man has sex with another man, kill them both."
Leviticus 20:13

If that is not codified hate, please explain otherwise

[Mark]

It's proof that the base of the Yes on 8 organization was uneducated, Evangelical Republicans. Not the kind of people I like to associate with.

[sean K]

cbk16: The bible says a lot of things. Half the things it forbids are archaic nonsense that was based on some obsolete social or political circumstance of the time. Like Mr. Black said in the youtube vid, you socially conservative Christians "pick and choose" which tenants to follow and which to ignore, which is what leaves you open to criticism. And furthermore, I suspect that your ilk would be against gay marriage regardless of your religious affiliation just out of general homophobia, and you therefore use these obsolete archaic bible passages to justify you views after the fact.

[Trevor Kiel Ballard]

I don't blame the ignorant who voted their prejudice, they shouldn't have the opportunity to vote on other peoples rights. I'm sure there are many who would vote to take away their rights too.

I do believe that the cult of Christianity is very dangerous to society, largely because of it's contradictions, but also because it's easily manipulated for the purposes of power.

It's such a simple issue. The legal institution of marriage must be a right for all citizens. The religious institution can be whatever each church wants to recognize. Are we forgetting that prohibiting gay marriage infringes on a church's right to preform one.

Civil marriage MUST be open to all citizens! And dictating who they marry is unlike any other law I know of in the United States. Or, we can just do away with civil marriage because it discriminates against single people and those who love more than one person.

[Sean K]

Very simple: Thank you. I'd like to see them weasel their way out that one.

[Michichael]

I find it amusing how often the educated persons are not only democrat they're also on the fair side of equality issues. Anyone else notice the link between being uninformed, uneducated, and outright ignorant to being Republican, religious, or bigots? Hmmm...

[Jay]

It is clear that the Christians and the Republicans are the bigots who are opposed to equal rights. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Kevin]

Christians cannot hide behind their beliefs and say it is their right to vote against other people's rights. Christianity and the Bible were used in the past to support SLAVERY and to support SEGREGATION. It doesn't make it RIGHT.

[P J Evans]

These "Christians" need to spend more time reading the lessons of Jesus and less time reading the lessons of Moses. (That would also cure their fondness for 'prosperity gospels', which are as 'Christian' as their bigotry.)

[how typical]

I find it very ironic that the same groups that have been discriminated against in the pastt, do the same to others when given a chance.

[Lewis]

If your religious, you're just plain dumb.

[Christine B]

Since the bible also condemns eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:11) we clearly need a Constitutional amendment that bans the eating of prawns, crabs, clams and lobster. After all, the bible says so, right? And while we're at it, since the bible clearly condones slavery, we should bring that back as well. Plus a woman must be subservient to her husband (and therefore shouldn't have the right to vote), and unruly children should be beaten. If we're going to write theocracy into our laws, why not go all the way?

[CA LDS]

I see a large number of comments making the reference to the people that supported traditional marriage (pro-Prop 8) as uneducated or ignorant. Are we to assume that if you do not have a college degree you are ignorant, that is typical of the elitist few of most of liberal and gay marriage supports.
There are a lot of successful businesmen and women who do not have degrees and had enough financial success to contribute to Yes on 8.
On the other hand with the way our Colleges and Universities are pushing the liberal agenda it should be no wonder that many graduates voted No on 8 but that does not make them smarter but rather more indocrinated by the Left.
Just my opinion as a Christian with a college degree.

[Jeff]

There is a great misunderstanding and much stereotyping of those who voted for Proposition 8. I have a PhD and I am a Democrat. I read the Bible from a Christian perspective, and I believe in it.

To accuse me of hating gays because I believe in the Bible, and especially to quote Leviticus, shows a lack of sensitivity to Christian teachings, as well more than a smattering of anti-Semitism. It is very offensive to call orthodox Jews, who love the Torah, "Christo-fascists," and it is religiously illiterate to suggest a Christian hates gays because of the Bible, when a Christian's most distinctive doctrinal tenet (held among all Christian sects) is love of God and fellow man.

To regard a practice as sinful neither requires nor encourages hatred of sinners--if one is a Jew or a Christian.

[pc53]

You have to read the Bible as a whole and understand it to be able to properly quote it. Before Jesus was born, there was a system of laws in place. The archaic rules are in the Old Testament. Jesus allowed people to receive mercy through the grace of his own death. Thus, we don't need to follow the archaic old laws to be saved from sin.

Still, there is nothing in the Bible that can be reasonably interpreted to allow same sex marriages. The marriage model in the Bible is only for a man and a woman.

[PD]

The ignorance on this whole issue is that this is a CIVIL issue and not a religious one. We have seperation of chuch and state for a reason. No one is saying that chuches have to recogize the marriage only that the state does. You can not get married in ANY chuch without getting a civil marriage license for it to be recognized. There is a difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage and people do not understand thatt.

Also if people insist on taking the religious stance and were truly "Christian" they would not be judging others as that is reserved only for God. Hypocrites.

Tobit 4:15 Do to no one what you yourself dislike.

Sirach 31:15 "Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."

Matthew 7:12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

[Mary]

Thank you LATIMES, now because I'm a Christian and attend church on Sundays, I have to fear being attacked by gays?? Are you serious?? Stop printing this stuff, you're constant attempts to stir the pot are going to make California a horrible place to live for everyone!!

[Eric]

All this anti-religion stuff warms my heart. I'm curious, though - where are the "yes on 8" voices? Do they not wish to defend their position? Perhaps they know that their perspective is rationally indefensible.

[Very simple]

"To accuse me of hating gays because I believe in the Bible, and especially to quote Leviticus, shows a lack of sensitivity to Christian teachings, as well more than a smattering of anti-Semitism. It is very offensive to call orthodox Jews, who love the Torah, "Christo-fascists," and it is religiously illiterate to suggest a Christian hates gays because of the Bible, when a Christian's most distinctive doctrinal tenet (held among all Christian sects) is love of God and fellow man."

Well it is in your bible. Where exactly does it say later on in your bible that you can pick and choose what is and what is not accepted dogma? Do you mean you have to second-guess everything that is written in that book?

[ScottE]

@ Jeff

You said, "To accuse me of hating gays because I believe in the Bible, and especially to quote Leviticus, shows a lack of sensitivity to Christian teachings, as well more than a smattering of anti-Semitism."

We refer to Leviticus and other Old Testament writings because it is the only justification Christians have for the prohibition on homosexuality since Christ made no reference. I've seen Leviticus and Deuteronomy quoted many times as justification. It is fair game.

I don't believe you are ignorant or stupid. I do believe, however, that your sense of what is moral has been deranged by a bronze-age belief system.

Be Well

[Libby]

By focusing on the hypocrisy of those Christians who may contradict themselves by picking and choosing to which Biblical doctrines they adhere and which they overlook, we ourselves are overlooking the hypocrisy of Republicans.

For a party that spews so much propaganda about how government is too big, too involved in people's lives, they sure seem at peace with the notion of the government mandating a person's intimate life. God forbid, however--literally--that my religion equivalent (good ole' morality) says private citizens should not be allowed to have guns. You can bet that Republicans will throw up their hands in protest of the idea of "taking away a constitutional right to bear arms." When it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, though...

Furthermore, if you don't believe in gay marriage because it is part of your religion--good for you! But if I don't share your religion, your religious views should not impinge on my civil rights. You either need to translate your religious justifications into universal truths in order to legislate them, or make a private decision based on your religious beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

[kristin]

As a college educated (MS), evangelical Christian who is considered a an "unsure" voter, I can say that the name calling by the gay marriage supporters is doing more to push me against gay marriage than anything else, including my own religious beliefs. Why in the world should I vote with a group that hates me so much? I've been called "dumb, ignorant, Christian Taliban, racist, hater, brainwashed" and those are just some of the insults that are printable. Keep on insulting me, and I'll move from "unsure" to "definitely opposing gay marriage."

[Tom]

(These "Christians" need to spend more time reading the lessons of Jesus and less time reading the lessons of Moses. (That would also cure their fondness for 'prosperity gospels', which are as 'Christian' as their bigotry.))

Jesus' preachings did not replace the laws given to moses, he just emphasized it more. yes, Jesus said to love one another, but he did NOT replace the beliefs from the old testament or Torah. I must be a bigot because I accept both the old and new stuff while those preaching Jesus are "experts."
A common argument gays use is "Jesus stuff replaces the old." LOL!

[K]

Gee, you didn't need a poll for this -- Karl Rove could have told you exactly who votes on the basis of gay bashing.

And the Republicans will continue going after gays along as their polling tells them they gain more knuckle-dragger votes from attacking gays than they lose thinking-people votes.

(Oh, and it would make a difference if Obama and the Democrats acted on their fine words about supporting LGBT Americans, instead of providing the anti-gay crowd with sound bites that could be distorted to get more votes for Prop 8.)

[Jay]

pc53 wrote: "The marriage model in the Bible is only for a man and a woman." Well, no, the marriage model is the Bible is patriarchal and polygamous. How many wives exactly did Solomon have? Hundreds. And many more patriarchs had many wives in both the Old and New Testaments, just as many were slave-holders or slaves. It is interesting that Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, but he memorably condemned divorce. One would think that the Bible-thumpers would be pushing constitutional amendments that prohibited divorce.

[kristin]

ScottE, the New Testament has a number of references to homosexuality as a sin: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-31.

You are cherry-picking parts of the Bible without understanding the full context. In fact, a cursory examination of the aforementioned passages talk about a lot more than homosexuality. From what I've heard from gay marriage supporters, they seem to claim that the sole point of Christianity is to oppose gay marriage. That is a stereotype born out of ignorance and political passion.

Gay marriage supporters stereotype Christians as much as Christians stereotype gay marriage supporters. But even if you look at the election results, most Asian-Americans voted against gay marriage, and most of them are not religious in any sense. Their opposition is clearly not religious, and as a group, they are probably the most highly educated racial group in the U.S.

[mark]

Wow. Look at all these hate messages against anybody that supported Prop 8. Quite ironic.

[sabio]

"The marriage model in the Bible is only for a man and a woman."
Nobody is questioning the marriage model of the Bible. What is at stake is the marriage model of our non-religious legal system.

"To regard a practice as sinful neither requires nor encourages hatred of sinners..."
That is the problem. It is not a "practice" or a life-style choice, it is simply who I am and as God made me. Just as God made gay penguins and monkeys.
Calling the act of simply being myself a sin IS hatred. It means I can't or shouldn't even exist.

[Jason]

Oh please Mary... fear of being attacked by gays? Because there have been so many instances of Christian-bashing in our history. Kids are shot dead in a junior high school in Oxnard, or strung up on rural fence posts to die in Laramie, or attacked leaving a gym in Salt Lake City for being... Christian?

GIVE. ME. A. BREAK!

[Black Sunshine]

Just goes to show that gays are definitely a faction of white supremacists, that don't understand that blacks are not down for every crazy thing that whites do, and seem to be perplexed that as a people that we are really basically conservative.
Now gays say that gay marriage is a civil right, but I have yet to hear of gays unlocking a slaves shackle, unlocking the gate at an internment camp, or preventing the genocide of a single Native American. or help a anyone go over the top at a concentration camp. Gay or straight. Hell, no they were and are the same people that enjoy the same benefits as these tomentors, and probably took liberties with ALL of these oppressed groups.
Now they have the nerve to paint blacks as some dimwits that good fortune just falls out of the sky on, but yet their lack of standing up for their rights didn't gel until those 'stupid negroes' fought for a few centuries to eventually gain their freedom. Where were you then? Now you want to villify the white male christian establisment whose privelleges you have enjoyed? Gay is the new black ? Yeah, now that the 'man' ain't on the loose with a noose. Blacks are not into whips and chains. We're to 'unsophisticated'.

[Bryan]

For all those that think leviticus is the only place in the Bible that says anything about marriage is wrong. The marriage model is suggested in many places, but it is merely implied without straight forward definition. The subject is usually about divorce, however the model is still there. Read Matt. 19:4-9; Mark 10:2-12; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7; and Eph 5: 22-32

I doubt ANYTHING from the bible will convince anyone to change their mind on the issue. Don't forget that Prop 8 is about labeling a traditional family. That's it. Stuff about rights, protecting children, and upholding society is all secondary to the actual Proposition. Oh and by the way, as far as civil rights are concerned a california domestic partnership (CFC 297.5) has it covered, so once again this is not a civil issue, it a "defining legal wording issue" so as to not confuse who it applies to legally.

[ddub]

There are plenty of idiotic comments from the prop 8 supporters here but there are a few arguments from the no side that keep coming up that make no sense either. Here are a few thoughts/suggestions from a "No on 8" voter:

If Jack Black is your only insight into the Bible and the religious prohibitions contained therein, you'd probably be best advised not to comment on it at all. (The shellfish argument? Really?)

Mindlessy repeating the phrase "separation of church and state" does nothing to advance the argument of revocation of tax exempt status for a religious organization that asks its members to donate to a cause, and not a particular candidate. (LA Times had an article on this very subject the other day)

Civil rights are not violated at the State level if all the same rights are guaranteed for domestic partnerships as for marriages. (Federal is another story - but that's for the USA to decide, not the state of California.) This proposition, however unneccessary, only defines terminology. The majority decided that they want the word "marriage" defined a certain way. Narrow-mindedness? Perhaps. But viscious, hateful, opression? Not at all. So enough with the Nazi analogies.

And lastly, MANY people like me who voted against prop 8 are really turned off by the backlash against those who won the vote, and the scapegoating of the most easily targeted. By libelously attacking Mormons specifically and religious people in general, the movement for legal recognition of same-sex marriage is shooting itself in the foot.

[Wow! I didn't get posted.]

Maybe the use of the word "behind" as a biological term in my sentence blocked it.

[GodzGift]

Religion is a lifestyle choice and it's not genetic.

[ScottE]

Kristin - Thanks for the bible lesson, but I didn't say the New Testament was Silent on homosexuality. I said Jesus was. But you're right, Paul did have a lot to say about it. He also had a lot to say about women knowing their place. He was wrong on that point too.

[Jeff]

There are a couple of issues I think I ought to clarify.

I choose religious discourse in the debate over same-gender marriage partly because I believe in my religion, and partly because I find the cold reasoning of evolutionary biology distasteful in this case. I personally prefer my religion's teachings that, while I should regard any sexual practice outside currently-defined marriage as a sin, I should also regard those troubled with same-sex attraction with love and understanding. (I do not consider it hateful or contradictory for me to love and understand someone and hold that marriage ought to be consigned to opposite-gender relationships only.)

Evolutionary biology, it seems to me, suggests that the only moral imperative is the healthy propagation of the species, and anything that does not contribute to that imperative should be culled from the herd. I don't like that, and I don't believe it, so I will stick to my religious ideals, even though they create difficulties in a pluralistic society.

Biblical teaching on marriage begins immediately after the creation. It is gender specific and reiterated later by Jesus: A man should "leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." Polygamy comes and goes in the Bible--usually for procreation. All sexuality outisde the male/female model is consistently referred to as sin.

I identified myself as someone who reads the Bible from a Christian perspective. Christians typically retain those parts of the Torah that are reiterated or reinforced by Jesus or the apostles, but consider the rest of the Torah to have been fulfilled. If I were an orthodox Jew, I would accept the Torah as explained by commentators in the Talmud--a perfectly reasonable approach to the text. If I were Muslim, I would accept the Torah in the light of Mohammed's revelations. I happen to be Mormon, so I accept the Bible in the light of revelations to Joseph Smith and his successors. There is no contradiction or hypocrisy in any of these approaches.

If you don't want religious discourse from those who supported Prop. 8 (Christians, orthodox Jews, and Muslims, with others), then all you have left is evolutionary biology, and it's not pretty.

[Heart Swells]

To Jason - get out of your cocoon for just a moment. Certainly you can recall - since you appear to be part of the side calling themselves more educated and therefore have a grasp of World History - that Christians have suffered persecution in far more numbers than have gays and for a much longer period of history. Christians have held fast to their beliefs and refused to dishonor God even while enduring the horrific torture (burning, quartering, beheading, systemic rape, crucifixion, impaling, etc - but don't forget the circus atmosphere of feeding them live to the lions with a blood thirsty audience!) , yet Gays have only recently found a unified voice but historical evidence proves homosexual behavior was not a recent discovery. Gay behavior was hidden and not open, now that society has transformed to provide protection for lifestyles and free speech we are supposed to accept homosexual lifestyles are a "right"? The most hilarious thing in this thread is the sad attempt to portray the No On 8 supporters as of higher intellect and more educated - let's see you act on that premise rather than keep playing at it and claiming it. It seems more likely that you've received a higher indoctrination from agenda professors and swallowed it without the ability to form analytical thought and individual process.
GIVE US ALL A BREAK

[Bluffricky]

Allowing the government the authority to define our personal lives and relationships is at the crux of this issue. Why should the state be allowed to define what we do among consenting adults? Remove ALL preferential treatment, no state-sponsored marriages of any kind, no tax breaks, perhaps allow some form of civil relationships for legal issues regarding property and health, and GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES!

[ScottE]

@ Jeff

Don't want to seem like I'm picking on you in particular since you take such a reasonable approach to the debate. But your interpretation of evolutionary biology principles is incorrect. Evolution has no moral imperative whatsoever. If a trait is beneficial, it is likely to persist in a population. If it is detrimental, it will likely not persist. However, there are many neutral mutations that have no effect on the overall fitness of the population. They may persist or not. Remember, evolution does not act on individuals. Morality is a completely separate issue. I believe that the most moral position is that which causes the least amount of suffering. Telling a gay couple that their love is fundamentally deficient as compared to a straight couple just perpetuates the second-class citizen stereotype, and that definitely causes unnecessary suffering.

[Jim]

kristen,

I suggest reading ALL of 1 Corinthians and Romans before citing them as a justification for banning civil marriage for same-sex couples. The bulk of both letters are about how to live as a Christian in a pagan world, the importance of respecting the rights and beliefs of others, and the vital importance of diversity in God's kingdom. Both missives were written by Paul, who did not have any direct contact with Jesus during his life (apart from a vision in which Christ told him only to stop persecuting Christians and go learn about the religion). This is not a strong case against homosexuality, unless you also accept that Paul's pro-slavery stance is also dogma and should also be the law of the land in California.

Please keep your interpretation of the Bible out of my civil rights. My church reads the spirit of Paul very differently, and overlooks his ancient prejudices.

[Jeff]

To ScottE,

While our differences are profound, my gratitude at your reasonableness and gentle tone is more-so. Thanks.

[RobertM]

Plain and simple math:

Republican = Idiot

Christian = bigger idiot

Republican + Christian = GOD help us ALL!!!!!!

[Ivan]

Obviously people with education have a more open sense of mind in regards to gay marriage. I don't understand how so many people oppose gay marriage. If you don't agree with gay marriage then don't marry someone who's gay period. :)

[Jeff]

To ScottE,

This is my third try at replying. The other two were eaten. If they suddenly appear, so much the fool I will seem.

Thank you for your courtesy; it is a necessary attribute in a discourse with little or no possibility of compromise.

I agree that there is no morality in evolution--real or implied. I meant that if there were morality, the most it could be would be the healthy propagation of the species.

That lack of morality makes me very uncomfortable.

I acknowledge, however, that we live in a pluralistic society, and there are a variety of moral centers (or lack thereof) among us; therefore, we have our elections, our electors, our laws, and our courts as arbiters of what is acceptable.

What I meant to insist earlier was that, merely because my moral compass leads me in a different direction, I may still be a reasonable human being. I am not a fascist nor a fool, and, reserving the right to protect my family, I don't mean to hurt anyone.

[Jeff]

A number of people suggest that it is inappropriate for government to be involved in the question of marriage.

Governments have long been involved in the sexuality of their citizenry. In fact, it is in the best interest of a people for their government to control sexuality to a certain extent.

Governments may do this by punishing sexual offenders, as we do with rapists and child molesters; or by granting or withholding benefits, as we do with tax breaks to couples who have children.

That children should be raised by the people that conceive them, that children should be loved and cared for, and that children should be taught to embrace these ideals are all appropriate things for government to encourage.

There is nothing wrong with this.

[Mick Miller]

Is there any one who can't imagine this:

A household with a gay male/female couple. There is one child age 6 living in the home. The couple do their very best to raise this child in a loving home.

NOW WAIT:

Do Gay and Lesbian couples all agree that there is absolutely no confusion, emotional upset or other irregular activity the child is being exposed too.?

This is considering all "Normal" homes trials and issues.

If this is what the majority of Gay/Lesbian believe then it is necessary and important to say. The very fact that they demonstrate a complete absence of morals and integrity in believing the above can be correctly perceived as "perverted". How many ways can a kleptomaniac justify his hunger for stealing?
How then can the Thief complain about not being treated equally as the other honest folks?

This is not political, it is not a valid argument, it is perversion in most countries of the world.

This represents the inner soul of our legislators, Senators, Congressmen and our lost integrity and lost common sense.

What a glorious day it will be when all people take responsibility for the condition their life is in.

Mick Miller

[Mason Davis]

If you want to see real hate, look at what homosexuals are doing to people of faith. Here, a news crew tries to interview a grandmother, who is attacked and drowned out by homosexuals who knock the cross out of her hand and stomp it before chasing her off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1AITHS2Wc

Homosexuals are the real bigots.

[subwarrior]

Having repeatedly tried to reason, I am fascinated and amazed at how reason has been so neglected in America. How I can sit and watch people honestly proclaim that civil rights has any relation to homosexuality at all. How I can watch as people ignorantly blare out support of moral perversion. How any right minded person can see this perversion as deserving any legal right of the sanctity of marriage at all. But it is true. Unto the pure, all things are pure. Every action in a person's life affects their thinking. Since we are in a culture inundated with violence, sex, and immorality on T.V., the radio, and everyday life it is little wonder that some have such a hard time realizing that the demise of America begins when our values sink. Make no mistake about it. Our nation is the mightiest on earth because of the bedrock of principles we have stood for. Might makes right. Virtue does not include homosexuality. It is a shame that you college educated "smart people" do not get it. Where are the educated scholars of Greece? Of Egypt? Of Babylon? Why did these great civilizations crumble? Do you not understand that morals alone lead a civilization to supremacy.

But because we do not deny ourselves our own lusts and selfish desires, we are stuck in a moral morass. People sincerely believe they are right promoting the gay agenda and have little idea how history will despise them as the starring actors in "The Decline and Fall of America". You cannot avoid truth. Should Prop 8 be overturned and gay marriage prevail, our nation will head where the nations of yesteryear have gone, and that is a fall from power. Homosexuality is a weak, enervating, dissipated lifestyle whose adherents deserve sympathy, but not the faintest recognition for their foul deeds. How many of our Founders were of this persuasion? The silence is deafening. Yet it is trumpeted, as if true, that our Founders wished this abomination to be tolerated and recognized as somehow noble! Ah, the power of lust.

It is like there are so many intellectual pygmies running around with bigot sticks, and when anyone proclaims the truth, they proceed to mercilessly beat that person with relentless charges of bigot, homophobe, hater, hypocrite, judger. When enought damage has been sufficiently inflicted, they run off to find new targets. It is sad.

It was truly written, and is true today,
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

[Phil]

Whatever your opinions on gay marriage, it is important that each side try to honestly understand where the other side is coming from, without resorting to predudice, accusations, demonization, and misrepresentations. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is so closed minded as to attack you of all sorts of mean and false parodies. I am seeing much more of this kind of negative and undesirable behavior on the "no on 8" side than I do on the "yes on 8" side. If this trend is a byproduct of "education", then I fear for the future of "education" in this country. I do know that liberals have pretty much a monopoly on education when it comes to the liberal arts, so that undoubtedly has some effect. These same educators tend to be very critical of religions and religious folk in general, and supportive of new "trendy" things such as gay marriage. Instead of trying to understand where religious people are coming from, they take the "easy" route of just making blanket accusations against them such as saying they're "dumb" and "irrational". As a college educated supporter of Prop 8, I don't hate gays, and am not interested in trying to dictate to them what they can and cannot do in private with another consenting adult. I am only interested in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. I am fine with a gay couple having pretty much the same rights as a married man and woman. However, I think there should be some exceptions, such as with adoption of unrelated children. This doesn't mean that I hate gays, I just feel strongly that it is in the best interests of children to have a mother and a father. Knowing that this can't always be the case, but I feel strongly that a preference should always be given to it, when there is a choice. If the traditional definition of marriage is not allowed to stand, I feel strongly that this will open a door to future abuse by those same radicals who are out to attack and defame religion. We can see ample evidence of this already, and I can easily see the day when these same radicals will do all they can to marginalize those who say anything at all negative with regards to homosexual relations. I think as far as being gay goes, some people could very well be born with such tendencies, but I feel that actually acting on those tendencies is definitely a choice. I have a great deal of respect for those who are gay who choose to abstain from homosexual sex, while for those who don't, I just don't want them to expect me and others to wholeheartedly accept their actions. I also don't intend in any way to try to dictate to them not to engage in homosexual sex - that is their own business - but just don't expect me to condone it, or try to force me to condone it through new "hate crimes" against anyone who disagrees with them. I should have the right to teach my children that it is not a good thing to engage in homosexual sex, while teaching them to respect others, including those who don't believe as we do. We can love others without condoning all their actions. I won't go around trying to "preach" to them, and I also expect the same from them. I can't for the life of me see how preserving the traditional definition of marriage is taking away anyone's "rights". They can have whatever rights they desire without this special privelege reserved for a man and a woman. It's like saying that we should lower the long standing traditional standards for qualification for a given profession because it's too "discriminatory" and tramples on the rights of those who really want this profession but aren't able to meet the qualifications for it. Such an attitude will harm the profession in the long term and does a disservice to those already in it, as well as those who will join it.

[Clark]

Mick, could you be a bit more clear on your thoughts?

[subwarrior]

I want to make a correction. I meant right makes might. I strongly disagree with the Macciavellian overtones of it's reverse.

[Jay]

subwarrior is a fascist, pure and simple. I think his and many other posts defending Proposition 8 illustrate the report that the most uneducated people voted for its passage.

[Limousine Liberal]

American history conveniently chronicles countless examples of injustice, intolerance and discrimination perpetrated upon non-white, non-Christian, and non-straight people. In fact, our history clearly illustrates how religion, notably Christianity, has been involved in many, if not all, of these occurrences.

Protestant reformers made history by burning suspected witches at the stake and southern Christians used Christianity to defend slavery. It was preached from the pulpit that the master class was charged with the burden of Christianizing heathens in exchange for rewards in the after-life; and slaves were tricked into believing that disobedience to their white masters would be perceived by God as disobedience to Him. Later, racial segregation in the South became the standard of accepted societal discrimination supported once again by Christian scriptures.

Many other groups continue to use Christianity to defame, discriminate, and harm minority individuals. They include, but are not limited to, the White Aryan Nation, the Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan , and the Westboro Baptist Church. These groups believe that Christian scriptures condone the killing of Jews, gays, and gypsies; or the lynching, and murdering of black people.

The Catholic church, in concert with other Christian churches, continues to fight to repeal a woman’s right to have an abortion even if the mother’s life is in danger. And the Catholic church has also been a fierce supporter of abstinence-only sexual education programs for children; they blatantly refuse to accept and endorse the use of condoms despite scientific studies that have concluded that condoms can save lives by preventing the spread of deadly sexually transmitted diseases as well as preventing unnecessary abortions.

Sadly, Christianity, and especially the Catholic and Mormon churches have not always been a friend to women. The inequalities and injustices that women have had to endure over the centuries due to the patriarchal hierarchy entrenched in Catholicism and the Mormon church are indeed staggering. Women, like black slaves, were the property of their husbands or white masters; women could not own property, they were frequently traded or purchased as if they were commodities, and they could not vote. For all intensive purposes, women were objects of convenience for men. They were baby-making-machines, mothers to their husbands children that they carried in their wombs, cooks, cleaners, and receptacles for their husbands pleasure and seed.

What a nasty walk down memory lane! I find it thoroughly amazing how Christianity can rewrite itself according to the times. I have come to call such revision, morality of convenience. For if one carefully reads Christian scriptures, one might be surprised to find that it shares many similarities with what many Americans refer to as radical Islam.

Last month we witnessed the Mormon church in Utah hijack the state of California after pumping millions of dollars into the California November elections to help repeal Proposition 8. This religiously-motivated political coup resulted in the redefining of marriage as a union between and man and a woman prohibiting the marriage of same-sex couples in California. Again Christianity resurfaced to steal the full citizenship of gay Americans in California.

Christianity also prevented gay Americans from equal protection under federal law. Just this year, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, commonly known as The Matthew Shepard Act, was a bill introduced in the US Congress. This bill would have extended the 1969 United States federal hate crime law to include among other things crimes motivated and committed solely based on the perpetrator’s hate for the victim’s sexual orientation. Although the bill was passed by both the House and the Senate, it never reached the Oval Office since our Christian President, Mr. Bush, had made it known that he would veto it. Imagine, a nation founded in part on religious tolerance for all people, becomes the schizophrenic, divinely-inspired oppressor of gay people. So much for the separation of church and state.

Full citizenship should not be dependent and contingent upon one’s sexual orientation. American history has chronicled the painful and unjust suffering of women (gender discrimination), Native Americans and African-Americans (race discrimination). The plight of gay Americans centers around sexual orientation. We’ve been a minority group disenfranchised from full citizenship ever since the founding of this nation. Legal, religious, and social roadblocks and detours have always stood in our way when we, like women and African-Americans, challenged the white Christian and straight status-qua. Indeed, America needs to erase the last remnants of apartheid that plague the our nation.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently stated, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” All Americans regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation should be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Just as America defaulted on its “promissory note” with African-Americans, it continues to default on its “promissory note” to gay Americans. And instead of honoring this “promissory note,” the US government simply writes “bad checks” to gay Americans, and these checks always come back with “insufficient funds” stamped on them. Still, we endure this inequality even as we pay our taxes which are then used to subsidize the full citizenship of our straight neighbors who live on Main Street USA. Talk about forced tithing!

Although Christianity does not have a monopoly on intolerance, injustice and discrimination, the United States was founded on Christian principles and beliefs. Therefore, it’s crucial to consider and review our history through the looking glass of Christianity. There are many denominations found in Christianity-- liberal, moderate and conservative. It’s imperative that the liberal and moderate Christians come forth and speak out against the injustices being committed to gay people by their conservative Christian brothers and sisters. Just as many Americans expect peace-loving Muslims to speak out against terrorist atrocities committed in the name of Allah, we expect and welcome liberal and moderate Christians to stand up and fight against those whose interpretations of God’s words only seek to do harm to God’s children. Not only is it the responsibility of gay Americans to mobilize and combat the injustices in our nation, it is the obligation of all Americans to stand up for those whose causes have yet to be resolved. Remember, silence is indifferent acceptance, and ultimately the fuel that fires all evils.

I am optimistic that Barack Obama will make gay rights an important issue in his first year in office. Often it takes another minority person to recognize the needs and injustices faced by others who live across town, not on Main Street, USA. Nevertheless, while we wait, we will continue to be creative and productive tax-paying citizens of this nation. However, we will also continue to fight for what is rightfully ours and we will settle for nothing less. And just as women and African-Americans finally secured their full citizenship through amendments to the US Constitution, gay Americans soon will, too.

[Elizabeth Plumley]

Women don't have an amendment that secures their full citizenship in the constitution. Still down three states I believe. The fourteenth is just for men, read it, and it seems the Saddleback boys are doing the Inauguration, so in practice it is only dominionist Christian men at that. Perhaps, you were referring to suffrage, but no woman or anyone for that matter has been allowed to vote in Florida in the last three presidential elections. We are watching the death of our democracy or whatever you call the little bit of freedom that got eeked out by a few for the last few hundred years. If you are waiting for BO to help anyone but himself, might as well be waiting for Godot, you know.

[Hans]

Some Christians talk about the "gay agenda" and the "liberal agenda". These are the same people who believe that America is or must be a Christian nation, that its laws must be based on Christian teachings, and that they must work to make it so or keep it so. These are the same people who believe that they have a mandate from Jesus to Christianize the world and that only their faith is "true". Any attempt to counter their claims with logic get met with "Satan is making you believe that!" or "It says it right here in the Bible!"

My God, this isn't funny any more, or even just frustrating. It's damn threatening. Most Christians are fine with me and are content to live and let live. Those in the fanatic's group are not content to do so. They seek not to share society with those of differing beliefs, but to shape it and make America into what they believe God wants it to be: Jesus Land. They will ridicule, condemn, "forgive" and pray for those who do not think as they do. They will whine when they don't get their way, change laws so that they do get their way, and then call those subsequently deprived of rights, "whiners".

How dare they presume to speak for God on behalf of all of us! How dare they seek to impose their understanding of God on everyone! There's going to be change in America, that's for sure, but not the one that they envision. When push comes to shove, it will be the intolerant, and self righteous who are going to get the biggest collective push into that dark corner of society where they deserve to be unless they get used to living their faith in their homes and churches and leaving the rest of us the hell alone.

I have been content for years to simply brush these people off as well intentioned folks with tunnel vision. Now I'm going to fight. My votes and my dollars will go to no one who supports them. I will seek to get the tax exempt status of religious groups who use their churches for political reasons withdrawn. I will do everything within my power to get limitations placed on THEM when they threaten my GOD GIVEN right to happiness as a both citizen and a human being who harms none and who hitherto has only wished ALL people - including all Christians - well. And if they think I'm alone in this, just they wait....