NSShirlock wrote on Oct 19, 2008 3:29 AM:This opinion best reflects my own. The issue is about equal civil rights for all. Religious questions should be separate. In colonial times, 'marriage' was left to civil law. It did not take on the religious component til later. Our forefathers had more common sense than we do today.

NCTs supports Gay Marriage wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:47 AM:Well just say so, this initiative is about defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman; it does not stop civil unions. But is does define gender for our schools. Our liberal agenda in this county has gone too far, it is amazing the editorial staff would not recognize their constituency. I wonder what position the Union Tribune will take. Time to change papers, at least in my bird cage.

bodecea wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:50 AM:Vote YOUR conscience on Prop 8, not some religion's interpretation of what we all must follow...the heck with equal rights under the law for all tax-paying, law-abiding California citizens.

Ridickulous wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:18 AM:Yes, the proposition does affect civil unions in very negative ways. Why can't you folks stay out of other people's business? These are consenting adults who have rights as human beings to pursue happiness. If you don't want gays to marry in your church then don't allow it. Under the Civil Law and Constitution they ARE entitled to equal rights and full marital rights and responsiblities. Can you not understand that they are human beings who feel and breathe and love and care about our world?

Observer wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:20 AM:I am voting no on 8. Its funny to hear the argument that the liberal agenda goes to far. Having been on this earth for some time, I have heard the same argument over and over going back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Somehow, the expansion of freedom and the rights of privacy always turns out OK.

Brad No on 8 wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:28 AM:"We agree all Californians should be afforded equal protection under the law; no one should be excluded without due process, and especially not within the state's Constitution." You have just summed up the fundamental flaw of Proposition 8 - the discriminitory nature of this vitriolic ballot measure should override any concern about the government's role in marriage. The government gives out marriage licenses, therefore they must determine who is eligible to receive them. It would be different if the state only gave out "civil union licenses," and marriage was a strictly religious institution. Perhaps it is time for all Californians to benefit from marriage, and religious marriage can take on a new moniker, rather than the other way around.

Charles_K wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:32 AM:I generally vote my conscience on all issues and I appreciate the balanced and reasoned tone of this editorial.

But one point in this editorial stands out for me: attempting to define marriage one way or the other is not a path we would choose for government to take.

This is exactly what Yes on 8 does. It defines marriage as only some Californians see it.

Voting No on 8 takes a the more inclusive view. As pointed out in the editorial, we exist in an era in which societal views on sexual orientation are in flux. Voting No on 8 allows communities, both conservative and liberal, to celebrate marriage as they see fit.

I'm not a fan of telling anyone how to live, even if they choose to do so in a way I would not. My conscience says vote No.

Connie wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:49 AM:Keeping government out of marriage is all well and good, but the fact reminds that the state government IS in the marriage business and Prop 8 would ELIMINATE and BAN a small segment of the population from the government contracted rights and benefits of marriage others are allowed.

It should remain all or nothing just like it is now so VOTE NO on Prop 8 to protect the status quo of EQUALITY FOR ALL.

voter wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:58 AM:This should not be on the ballot. The government has no right to tell anyone who they may love or marry

defining marriage wrote on Oct 19, 2008 11:15 AM:Defining marriage is unfortunately not something "best left to the individual and faith communities". It is a legal issue defined by our common state government and as such should not be restricted for "certain" types of individuals on the basis of someones 2,000 year old religion.

Retained Reader wrote on Oct 19, 2008 12:33 PM:Good job editorial writers! I won't cancel my subscription because you made sure not to offend me with a position I might have disagreed with. The ambivalence in this editorial is beautiful. The Union-Tribune said vote no on 8 and I'm sure all sorts of retirees who make up their subscription base got mad and threatened to leave. I'll bet many of you writers are equally more "liberal" than your readership at large, but why challenge us?

Bet it passes wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:04 PM:It is interesting to see the level of support for Proposition 8 displyed here. Be sure and vote YES for this proposition on election day and preserve marriage equality.

LGBT meets Sesame Street. wrote on Oct 19, 2008 1:31 PM:John McCain and Barack Obama actually agree on some issues. One of them is gay marriage. Both candidates oppose the concept, preferring instead the alternative of civil unions. In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. That proposition was struck down last spring by the California Supreme Court, thus clearing the way for gay marriages. The proponents of Proposition 22 have proposed another ballot initiative, Proposition 8, to amend the state constitution. After President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 — defining marriage as between a man and a woman and excusing states from recognizing gay unions approved by other states — supporters of gay marriage said the matter should be settled by the states. Now that Californians are trying to do just that, the supporters of gay marriage are yelling foul. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8.

Greg wrote on Oct 19, 2008 4:56 PM:Vote No on Prop 8; don't eliminate anyone's constitutional rights. Allowing gay people to be equal under the law hurts no one and benefits them.

Brad wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:31 PM:Those who are opposed to Proposition 8 (the marriage amendment) on the grounds that they are for "equal rights" should put more thought into their position.

First of all, marriage is not a "right". It is not in the Bill of Rights. Just because someone calls something a "right" does not make it true.

Marriage is an institution that has been passed down for thousands of years to provide a very formal and ritualized relationship between a man and a woman, who, in most cases, intend to conceive and raise children for the next generation.

The formality serves to keep the couple together while they raise their children. In the ideal case, the children are raised by their biological parents because they are the two people who have the strongest motivation in making sure that their children are successful. They have a reproductive stake in their children's success.

Secondly, when homosexuals say they want "equal" rights, they are implying that their relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship. This is not true because they cannot conceive children together. At best, only one of them will be biologically related to the children and this seriously erodes the children's chances for success. And, in most cases, they don't have any children at all.

The primary beneficiaries of the institution of marriage are the children who are being raised in homes with a mother and a father who are in a stable, committed relationship.

We are already burning up all of the earth's oil and leaving children with trillions of dollars of debt. Now the homosexual community wants the benefits of marriage for themselves in the name of "equal rights".

We should not be giving these benefits away lightly. The needs of children are far more important than any other consideration.

Please vote "Yes" on Proposition 8.

David wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:38 PM:Regardless of your views on marriage, history leaves us with one unequivocal fact: if gay people are the first in California to have their rights circumscribed by our constitution instead of guaranteed by it, they will certainly not be the last. The prospect of a constitution constantly in flux as the majority populations grant and rescind rights to minority populations according to prevailing sentiment, whims, or fund raising advantages is enough to convince me to vote no on this divisive and misguided proposition.

John wrote on Oct 19, 2008 9:28 PM:We do not need progressive liberals pushing their religion (or lack there of) on society. We have a right and an obligation to protect our children from moral degredation. Just because marriage is under attack from abuse, divorce, and a miriad of other things does not mean we should send up the white flag and say "anything goes."

Take a stand for morality. Take a stand for children, for marriage, for families!

Vote yes on 8!

Eugene wrote on Oct 19, 2008 10:48 PM:I know that the best thing for children is to have a mother and a father. That's why a man and a woman can procreate.
Please protect traditional marriage.<...

Joe B wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:34 AM:Proposition 8 is the removal of a citizen's civil rights, removal of equal recognition and protection of marriage under the law and most significantly, adding institutionalized discrimination to California's Constitution. This is profoundly wrong and it's insulting to all Californians. Please, vote NO.

lady wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:00 AM:VOTING YES on PROP.8 This Prop. is becoming "to much",my grandkids ARE not going to have this "gay" stuff put in their heads at school,AS is already happening in other cities.Taking kids to court house to WATCH a "gay" marriage... WHAT gives them the right,to RE-WRITE the marriage laws??? Enough already live your life leave other people alone. What next everyone on the bandwagon for more equal rights,paligamony etc.etc!!! Once AGAIN voting YES on 8,GOD has the last word!!!

Bubba wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:24 AM:Prop 8 doesn't go far enough in protecting marriage from all the wrong people. Only a union of true Christians (man + woman) should be called a marriage, everyone else gets a "civil union" or other some such. Who should get civil unions: agnostics, atheists, heretics, idolators, heathen...well, most Californians. IF only we true Christians had the political power to enact such a glorious constitutional amendment. I guess legislating against one group at a time will need to remain our strategy. Who's next?

OMG wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:41 AM:Why is it that Economic/Political Conservatives think that government should get out of our way so our economy can prosper, yet the Social/Religious Conservatives that are so closely linked to them want to tell us how to live our lives and deny every citizen equal treatment? Hypocrits all, I say.

Dan wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:59 AM:Just what are you trying to say with this tepid, noncommittal little eddy? How about your editorial board grow a pair like that of the Union-Tribune and denounce this bigotry once and for all. As we saw with racial segregation in this country, time will shoot Prop. 8 and all similar measures full of holes. Nobody's trying to force gay marriage on anybody's children and it will not be forced upon anyone's children in the public school system, as the pro-8 ads suggest. That is the lamest canard of all.

Fed up wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:08 AM:For all of you asking to "protect children and families" my question to you is this...wouldn't you rather have a child raised in a same-sex loving home than a dysfunctional "traditional" home"? Most "marriages" are miserable given the soaring divorce rate, so why are so many threatened by the concept of a home where children are being raised by two people who love and respect eachother?

Furthermore, if marriage was intended solely for one man and one woman so that they could pro-create, does that nullify the validity of a marriage between infertile couples or senior couples who marry after their ability to conceive is possible? I wish the ultra-conservative Christians would look into the bible they are so often thumping and read what it it says about judgement.

call me Johnson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:48 AM:vote no......

HAHA wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:49 AM:YES ON 8...A DYSFUNCTIONAL IS FAMILY CONSIST OF A MAN AND MAN...OR WOMAN AND WOMAN...THATS ONLY MAKES A COUPLE, HOMOSEXUALS CANT HAVE A FAMILY THEY CANT HAVE KIDS SORRY IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY...SO... YES ON 8...YES ON 8

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:31 AM:The gay rights people wont stop there. They will, if this fails, next mandate same sex sex ed in schools, taxing churches who disagree with the gay agenda, and even make speaking out against homosexuality a crime. Yes on 8.

JP wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:37 AM:Protect marriage, a man and a woman should only be allowed to get married and divorced 3 times each!

Harley wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:38 AM:There is great utility to defining and limiting marriage under the law. Without this amendment, anyone can marry anyone and claim equal protection, regardles of sex, age, blood relations or marital status. No boundaries or limits. Multiple spouses, siblings being married, etc. The argument is the same: "People should be able to marry whomever they choose, and government should stay out."

If you want to prevent that inevitable slippery slope, vote Yes on Prop 8.

Pom Pom wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:44 AM:Equality for all. I think people should have the right to marry whomever they'd like, regardless of sex, age, blood relation, or marital status. Polygamy, underage brides, and sibling love are all protected under the same equal protection argument recently accepted by 4 judged on the State Supreme Court. Vote No on 8 if you want to expedite the destruction of marriage as we know it.

I love wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:07 AM:how these whackos say marriage is this "sacred institution" that can't be interupted. If marriage is so "sacred" why is divorce so prelevant in this society? Why aren't the religious freaks attacking divorce the way they attack homosexuals? Why isn't there a proposition to ban divorce? I also love their scare tactic that kindergarteners are going to have to learn about homosexual sex if the prop doesn't pass. I'm pretty sure they don't learn about heterosexual sex right now.
MY WIFE AND I WILL VOTE NO ON PROP 8.

To HAHA wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:12 AM:Stop yelling ... it doesn't help your non-argument.

Betty wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:20 AM:Yes on 8. Gays and lesbians need to find a different route to binding their committment to each other. I'm not against gays and lesbians nor their civil rights. I'm against changing the character and definition of marriage in America. Please just find another way to find your union.

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:50 AM:My problem with allowing Gays to marry is that we are opening the possibility for other types of marriage. Years ago, it was thought that homosexuals were deviants. Today, it is claimed that they are wired that way and don't have a choice. The same thing is being said about child molestors - they are considered deviants but they are also said to be wired that way and not have a choice. NOTE: I am NOT comparing child molestors with homosexuals - I am only comparing how they were/are viewed. If we allow Gay marriage because "they don't have a choice", how long will it be before we have to allow adult/child marrige because "they don't have a choice"? Same hold true for multiple marriage and any other approach to marriage. Allowing Gay marriage is just the first step down a very slippery slope.

Alf wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:55 AM:Well, "HAHA" at 8:49AM,
dysfunctional heterosexual marriages, those that end in divorce are about
50 percent of all heterosexual marriages.
So, what's your point?
Are you trying to say that heterosexual marriages with a 50 percent failure rate are better for children than homosexual marriages?
Are you saying that homosexuals cannot adopt or, if female, cannot be artificially inseminated?
Regards, Alf.

To Eugene wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:30 AM:Protect marriage by making it illegal to divorce and fining those who are married and do not have children.

Why so much anger wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:35 AM:I stood at a busy intersection for an hour and half holding a sign that supports my views of Prop 8. Someone threw a 44 ounce soda at me. Why so much hatred from people demanding tolerance and spouting live and let live?! VOTE YES ON PROP 8. But if you choose to vote no, I won't throw anything at you.

DP wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:38 AM:More than half of 'traditional' marriages fail - what's so important about 'preserving' this??

Vote NO on 8

Matthew wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:52 AM:Why are people saying equality for all but limiting it to same sex marriages. I assume this people agree that if a) equality for all and b) the govt should not be the morality police they are also for brothers and sisters getting married. I mean why discriminate against them? Cannot use the risk of birth defects if they are the same sex can you now? Also equality for those who feel they can spread the love to more than one person. Why discriminate against them?

Embarrassed . . . wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:55 AM:That my church (Catholic - particularly the K of C) is pushing so hard for this, when my nearly 1/4 century old marriage is more threatened by the haphazard and freewheeling handouts of annulments by Church hierarchy than it is by the two gay guys or lesbian women who want to commit to each other and live in peace. No one has ever shown me which Gospel contains Jesus' round condemnation of homosexuals. They've been around since Genesis, and Jesus sure didn't pull any punches when it came to the Pharisees and Scribes. So, doesn't the fact that he didn't verbally browbeat gay people mean anything? I'm waiting, ardent supporters of Prop 8. Where's your evidence? Thanks to the wall between church and state, no court ruling will e-v-e-r force any church to peform Marriage ceremonies - nor should it. That aspect of marriage is in my church "sacramental" - a covenant between my wife, myself and our God. Spewing misleading ads and fomenting hate and misunderstanding ought to do in Prop 8; this practicing Catholic surely hopes it does.

Osider Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:29 PM:Who are these people that are trying to shove their beliefs down my throat and the education of my children with gayness. This is not a christian value and this is now what our fore fathers were thinking of. VOTE YES ON PROP 8 FOR THE SAKE OF ALL CHILDREN!!

GOP for no 8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:29 PM:I don't care. Everyone has the right to be misrable.

Greg wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:33 PM:If it was called a civil union rather than a marriage would the proponents of Prop 8 drop their attempts to restrict same-sex couples? I rather doubt it and that smells like discrimination.

Churches perform religous marriages. A ceremony performed by the Government is, in effect, a civil union--whatever you call it. I don't see anyone forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings. That would violate the separation of church and state. The same hold true in reverse.

Call me Johnson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:37 PM:To: Yes on 8 @ 10:50. In one sentence you state you are NOT comparing child molestors (sic) with homosexuals, you then go on to contradict yourself. Can you not see how absurd this makes you sound? Proposition 8 is about fear manifested into hate. It’s one more thing people like you can use to justify your “perfect” nature. Gays are an easy target for non-gays who must rationalize their own shortcomings.

Call me Johnson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:43 PM:Very well put. Unfortunately you’re trying to reason with the irrational.

the liberals show their true colors wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:44 PM:when they throw bottles at prop 8 supporters. All they are doing though is turning more people against them. Yes on 8 stop the hate.

To Why So Much wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:45 PM:You have the right attitude. As Jesus said, when someone slaps your right cheek you offer the other one. A right-handed person hitting you on your right cheek would be hitting you with the back side of his hand. To put this into historical context, in Jewish society in biblical times, getting slapped with the back side of a hand was an extreme insult. Fast forward to 2008 and a similar modern day insult is getting doused with 44 ounce soda. Good for you for not reacting in a retaliatory manner to an insult.

Billy wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:49 PM:Have you ever noticed that all things considered sins are bad for health and mental well being? Have you ever noticed that the opposite of Dante's seven deadly sins; pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust, are the Seven Holy Virtues, faith, hope, charity, prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice? Have you ever noticed that all seven of the deadly sins have to do with behavior? Have you ever noticed that those who conduct their lives according to the Seven Holy virtues are considered to be of good character and are sought out for advice? of the seven deadly sins consider the acts involved and how they are physically accomplished. Have you ever noticed - - - -.

To call me Johnson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:37 PM:From Yes on 8 @ 10:50...

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am NOT saying that homosexuals are child molesters and anyone that does say that is just plain nuts. I am saying that both behaviors have been considered deviant behaviors. Some studies now say that homosexuals are predisposed to be homosexuals. Studies also say that child molesters are predisposed to be child molesters. If homosexuality is ok because of this predisposition, is it that far of a reach to think that someone might argue that child molestation is also ok because of their predisposition?

Again, I am NOT saying that homosexuals are child molesters!

To Osider Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:44 PM:But it's OK for you to shove your beliefs down my throat? Gee ... that's might christian of you.

Cardiffian wrote on Oct 20, 2008 1:55 PM:Well Billy boy, you've got me stumped on that one! What the heck does this have to do with voting your conscience? I guess what you are saying is that one's sexual orientation is not part of the 7 deadly sins, or of their "opposites". One can lead a perfectly "virtuous" life regardless of one's sexual orientation. Bravo!, but please, don't let me put words in your mouth.....

Older Lady wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:07 PM:re: Prop 8
Please stop making it a 'gay' issue - it's a human-rights issue. Question to all the 'Yes' people: did not God preach LOVE/ If two people (ANY two people) are in love, what's wrong with that? None of them are going to demand your church marry them. As far as a Mom and Dad, what about single parents? The original plan was for a man and a woman to procreate an empty world. Times have changed - we have unwanted, abused, and discarded children. Vote for sanity and compassion - Vote No on Prop 8

Just Married wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:08 PM:If my marriage is ended by an yes on 8 victory, I intend to sue to invalidate the marriages of all Californians. If marriage is a religious institution then maybe it does not belong in government. The only fair thing to do would be to allow civil unions for all Californians and end marriage altogether. So people "married in Church" would also need to be "in a civil union" and no powers would be vested in any clergyman to perform legal unions. Vote No on 8!

George wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:15 PM:Gays and lesbians already have the same EQUAL right to marry a member of the opposite sex as any of us have ever had.

What they want is something special... something separate, yet supposedly "equal".

We all know that separate can never be equal. A redundant "mommy" is a poor substitute for a Father. Gender bias and sexism is no exuse.

To George wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:28 PM:Religious people have the same right to believe in my religion exactly as I do. What they always want is something separate and yet supposedly equal. A redundant God is a poor excuse for believing in the Father as I do. Duh George... We tolerate you right-wing religious people even though most of us favor our own religion and know that yours is false.

To Older Lady wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:45 PM:The Bible does say to love your brother, but not in the literal sense. It also does say in the Bible not to lay with a man as you would with a woman. However, I don't think that proponents of Prop 8 have a problem with Civil Unions. Marriage, throughout history, has tradionally been a religious event. It's when government found a way to tax it did it become a civil union. Today, marriage licenses are actually for civil unions. Marriages should be consecrated by religious clergy. Civil Unions should be for those who are agnostic, aetheist or gay.
George at 2:15, you are absolutely right on.

Re To call me Johnson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:46 PM:" If homosexuality is ok because of this predisposition, is it that far of a reach to think that someone might argue that child molestation is also ok because of their predisposition? "

Uh ... YES. Child molestation is a criminal act committed against someone against their will. Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't even remotely criminal with the exception of some of those backwoods states that still think they should control what happens in someones private bedrooms between consenting adults.

NO ON 8

To George wrote on Oct 20, 2008 2:47 PM:"A redundant "mommy" is a poor substitute for a Father."

That really depends on the father. They're not all winners you know.

Confused on this wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:04 PM:The article says not to let "California" decide what marriage is? Who is this "California" person?

I was undecided until I read through all the blogs here, I will vote YES on this proposition now.

Dont be sad. wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:10 PM:"YES" on Prop 8 will pass, so get over it and move on.
It was the will of the majority of Californian's once and it will be the will of the majority of Californian's again.

If you don't like it; move to Boston!

Your last gasp... wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:15 PM:Prop 8 will pass and this argument will be over once and for all.
Take all the shots you want, in two weeks the majority will rule and it will be through voting YES.

Concerned Parent wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:27 PM:When do I say enough is enough? When a 1st grade class is taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding as part of the school’s diversity training? It’s already happened. When a doctor in private practice who has worked his whole life to become a doctor is sued and told by a judge to find another profession because he will not go against his conscience and artificially inseminate a lesbian couple? It’s already happened. When kindergarten children are provided pamphlets on gay propaganda? It’s already happened. When church social services are closed after being sued for discrimination for not doing same sex adoptions? It’s already happened. You ask what would Jesus do? Even Christ defended his own house with a whip when necessary! I don’t have any ill feelings against gay people. However, I do have the right to defend the innocence of my children against the gay activists who are trying to twist my children into a gay lifestyle. Same sex couples have all of the rights in civil unions that married couples have, they should not have the right to twist marriage to fit their gay “diversity” or “sensitivity” agenda.

Didnt we vote on wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:28 PM:these before? And didn't some Judges who refused to obey the voters turn it over? Why spend the money? Send the judges to prison! We don't have the money to keep going over the same subjects year after year. Make it mandatory if a bill is passed it must go 10 years before being brought up for vote again.

How much money wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:30 PM:did ACLU drop on this issue. Isn't ACLU a non profit organization? Maybe time to write our lawmakers and ask the FBI be brought in to investigate.

to Re To call me Johnson wrote on Oct 20, 2008 3:56 PM:Now you are making MY arguments. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was illegal in just about all states. All it is going to take is an activist judge and child molestation will no longer be illegal because the adult is being discriminated against for something he is predisposed to do and has no control over.

To Dont be Sad wrote on Oct 20, 2008 4:05 PM:How about if you don't like it, move to Salt Lake City? Supposedly huge amounts of $$ to affect this measure is flowing here from Utah. What's up with that?

to Just Married wrote on Oct 20, 2008 4:05 PM:Sue the Constitution of California? Good luck with that!

To Didnt we vote on wrote on Oct 20, 2008 4:06 PM:Judges don't obey the voters they obey the constitution.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean it's right or legal.

Weird wrote on Oct 20, 2008 4:24 PM:I didn't know we lived in a theocrazy? In response to "your last gasp.." trust me, after November if Prop 8 is passed this will not be the end... instead we'll be LOUDER and MORE IN YOUR FACE. Trust me, it's one thing to tell us we can't get married, it's another thing to take it away from us. So you get your friends and family to vote yes, and i assure you, you'll hear us WAY MORE than you do now.

Stop the lying about Prop 8 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 4:41 PM:From California Family Code:

"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."


Enough already with the rights objections.

Tim wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:06 PM:Uh ... YES. Child molestation is a criminal act committed against someone against their will. Homosexuality, on the other hand, isn't even remotely criminal

You miss the point, homosexual say they should be able to redefine marriage to suit their desires, because they have these desires does it make it normal? The child molestor also has desires, because he has these desires, does it make it normal? It is obvious that both are not normal or natural.

Richard wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:23 PM:Judges are there to over-rule the tyranny of the majority. When bigots vote together they pass horrible laws. Maybe all the non-religious people in this state should start passing laws to chip away at religion. Then you all will be crying for the Judges and the constitution to protect you. Instead you want to screw with the state constitution to promote your narrow minded views. If Prop 8 passes I hope we can start amending the state constitution to chip away at religious freedom. Eventually one of the propositions will stick. And then we can say... the people voted. We don't want religion. Careful who's rights you trample today. Your rights will be gone tomorrow.

Too much money wrote on Oct 20, 2008 6:43 PM:Hey, how much-

If you're concerned about tax exempt groups contributing to ballot initiatives, why don't you start with the Mormon church , Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family, etc?

UseToLiveInUtah wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:38 PM:I find it interesting that the Mormon church is the money behind Yes on 8. They don't think Adam & Steve have the right to marry, but it is apparently okay for Adam to marry Eve #1, Eve #2, Eve #3, Eve#4, the more the merrier. The Eves can be sisters or first cousins, doesn't matter. Don't think the Mormons wouldn't still be doing this if not for the fact the U.S. government said they couldn't if they wanted to become a state. Check out the movie, the Godmakers, IF you can find it. I'm sure the church has bought every video out there though. It is a real eye opener to what their "co-op" religion is really all about. Brainwashing that starts as easrly as age 2.

Stop the discrimination. I can't stand those who think they are holier than thou. Vote NO on 8...it's the right thing to do!

Henry wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:17 PM:There is an imminent need for more respect and dignity to the gay community. They receive far too much criticism, bias, prejudice, etc. especially compared to individuals with lifestyles most Christians also do not condone, but nevertheless treat with love and respect.

But the truth is that promoting traditional marriage is simply promoting the truth that although individuals in other relationships (same-sex, single parents, grandparents, foster parents, and others) can oftentimes successfully rear children with love and devotion, traditional marriage still represents the optimal relationship for the creation, bearing, and raising of children. As a society, we should not lower our standards in the name of tolerance.

Proposition 8 protects the freedom to express this viewpoint, a viewpoint held by the majority of Americans, Californians, and many premiere sociologists. Together with already-existing equal protection mandates, failing to pass Prop 8 will contradict the goal of "equality for all” by limiting religious organizations from preaching and practicing what they believe.

If you do not believe that religious freedom is at stake, consider Catholic Adoption Services in Massachusetts forced to either practice against their beliefs, or lose tax-exemption. You may not “buy in to the slippery slope” argument, but that doesn’t change the fact that individuals and organizations stand ready to push the boundaries of the law beyond where they have been pushed already. ...

Osider wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:27 PM:To Concerned Parent, I couldn't have said it better myself. "THIS IS A DEFINATE YES AS A 3RD DEGREE OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS WE HAVE GIVEN 1.2 MILLION AND PUSH HARD TO GET THIS PASSED. IN THE YEAR 2000 WE WON BY 61%, BUT A JUDGE OVERRULED IT BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER AN INIATIVE, NOW WE HAVE IT UNDER A PROPOSITION, WHICH IS NOW CONSITUTION WHICH CANNOT BE OVER RULED BY A JUDGE. THE OPPOSITE WANT TO MAKE IT A NORM, AS YOU KNOW ITS NOT. THEY WANT TO TEACH OUR YOUNG KIDS THAT IT IS NORMAL AND CONFUSE THEM, BUT AS YOU KNOW IT WAS MEANT TO BE MAN & WOMEN JUST LIKE THE ANIMALS IN NATURE, ITS MALE & FEMALE.
VOTE YES ON 8

Sam wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:24 PM:Does my 20+ year relationship really threaten them that much? Are there relationships that fragile? Are their beliefs so tenuous?

Yikes wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:49 PM:Until Man and Man, and Woman and Woman can produce a child through intercourse.... Its YES ON 8

Maya wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:58 PM:No on 8! I am apalled at the lies coming from the Yes on 8 camp. In Escondido today, men held signs that said "less government" - what does that have to do with it? It's hate! I respect your beliefs, but why do you want to impose your religion in my country and in my laws? Our government can not be run my religion - this is why many people came to the United States.

Karl wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:14 PM:Using Mormons and their multiple wives to back up your arguement is lame. I know a few Mormon men and they all admit that one wife is all they need and can handle. You're talking ancient history here. Stick to the topic and don't throw innocents under the bus. Your side has plenty of arguements without lies.

Live in truth wrote on Oct 20, 2008 11:31 PM:Ward & June Cleaver:unreal characters

Gay people don't want anything more than equality.I cannot believe that here we are in 2008 arguing about this.
They do not want your life or your marriage they don't even want sex with you.They want the same benefits you as a spouse are intitled too.In my opinion they are entitled to them.
This is like being told to ride at the back of the bus if you are gay.Open your eyes and stop fearing homosexual couples.
I am not gay .I have no gay family/friends.But if I did...I'd treat them no different than the rest of my family & friends.See them with my heart wide open.We cannot control who we fall in love with.You are born gay.
Would God make a mistake regarding one's sexual preferrence at birth?
God gave life to all of us.
Who are any of us to judge the other?
Marriage is a legal contract.Adam & Eve didn't have a marriage contract.
Marriage is a committment of two people to beholding to one another.Forsaking all others.Marriage is in your soul.Not on a piece of paper.The paper you need for taxes,insurance coverage and spousal rights.
Parents teach your children the truth regarding homosexuals and they won't continue in this ignorance as you have.

To To Older lady at 245 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:50 AM:Marriage has not always been a religious institution. Our forefathers considered it as a civil law. It wasn't til later that it took on the religious aspects. Please reread history. It is all on record. There are reasons why this country came to be. We wanted freedom from oppression.

To Tim wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:44 AM:I didn't miss anything. I got the point ... it was just a stupid point that so over-exaggerates the issue.

There are many crimes committed by criminals with psychological defects that pretty much pre-disposed them to their criminal behavior (ranging everywhere from shoplifting to murder). Their acts, while arguably 'natural' for them given their state of mind, will never be accepted as 'normal' or 'ok' because they are still crimes and are against the law.

Comparing criminal behavior to any sexual orientation is just as I said before ... STUPID.

GT wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:18 AM:You "Yes on 8" folks are like the "Marriage Minutemen". Trying to claim that you're protecting the sanctity of marriage by supporting this proposition hides your homophobia about as well as claiming national security hides the racism of the yahoos patrolling the border with guns.

We're talking about a constitutional amendment here, folks. This is not to be taken lightly. We're a country of laws and we need to respect the courts even when it doesn't go our way. What is an "activist judge" anyway? From where I sit, it's just a judge that issues an opinion that you don't agree with.

Skip wrote on Oct 21, 2008 12:50 PM:Why I am voting YES on Prop 8.

Because I have read that the CTA (California Teachers Union) has donated a ton of money for No.

Vote Yes on 8

Curtis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 4:34 PM:Some of you seemed determined to see proposition 8 pass; even if it does pass, it is not over. We will continue to work for equality and no amount of money will stop what is inevitable. The percentage of people who support equal treatment under the law is increasing every year. Meanwhile your conservative churches are spending millions on prop 8 while thousands lose their homes, jobs, and even their families due to stress from the financial crisis. The money you have spent fighting gay marriage could have been used to help people in need, but you chose to use it to try to impose your beliefs on other people. What would Jesus think of that?

datrout wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:41 PM:The writers fail to address the point altogether and are trying to minimize the larger issues relative to Prop 8. It is not going to be left up to anyones individual faith community to decide! Allowing homosexual and lesiban marriage FORCES everyone to accept and recognize and does not permit anyone to decide for themselves. It furthermore then forces the teaching of the acts as being an everyday part of everyones normal life. That is contrary to religious teachings worldwide and put government decisions ahead of personal religious beliefs and freedoms. I find it odd that homosexuals and lesibans covet so dearly the Judeo/Christian tradition of marriage to begin with. Why not simply stay with "unions" which is a civil ceremony and fully accomplishes what these communities SAY they are after. No one nor anything forbids gay couples form cohabitating together or from any other aspect of living as a united couple. They however so desperatly seek to force everyone else to accept them as normal that they attack others belief systems and traditions due to their own insecurities. How sad and pathetic.

anon to datrout wrote on Oct 22, 2008 3:50 AM:Forget religion. These people just need the security that our laws apply equally to everyone. My 100% straight aged mother and her 'fiance'? might be affected by this. The issue is legal rights. Religion is a separate issue. Seperation of church and state? Is this no longer valid?

Lady wrote on Oct 22, 2008 5:14 AM:To Dan on here
READ/listen to the news IT IS effecting kids ALREADY. In SF & Mass. school. Hey HOW about I pull my tax dollars from schools(YES I pay taxes and own a home)who decide to teach this Gay right crap to kids!!! Gays have rights to ceremony,family code is STILL there. LIVE with it ALREADY. Right on "datrout" you hit it on the head!!!

Nancy wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:51 AM:I think that people would do well to support marriage between a man and a woman and vote for Prop 8 in California. I believe that marriage was instituted by God exclusively for a man and a woman. God gives us the commandments as a recipe to live a happier and more successful life. When we ignore God's commandments, I believe that we bring calamities upon ourselves. If you read the Bible, you can see the famines, wars and destruction that have taken place every dispensation of time where a people have chosen to ignore God's laws. I hope that we can learn from history and avoid the same mistakes - our society desperately needs all of God's blessings!

To Nancy wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:39 PM:The idea that you need some higher power to deliver 10 rules to live by so that you don't know it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you (or worse) is just plain frightening.

God = church ... Law = state ... and never the two shall mix!

Keep your bigotry in your church and leave the laws to manage fair & equal treatment to all legal, law abiding and tax paying citizens.

To To Nancy wrote on Oct 24, 2008 10:57 AM:"The idea that you need some higher power to deliver 10 rules to live by so that you don't know it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you (or worse) is just plain frightening."

10 Rules that remind us as imperfect beings what we should be doing. Not a bad idea at all.

So let's look at Prop 8 in the same light you look at the 10 commandments.

It is frightening to me that we HAVE to change the CA Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage has always been known to be between a man and a woman, common sense and makes sense. But since NO on 8ers have no common sence, now we have to modify the Constitution to remind you what a real marriage is about. It isn't about "Tax Breaks" it is about love. So every one yelling for the tax breaks, then it isn't about being with the 1 you love, it is about keeping your money. AND if that is true, THEN you are certainly voting Republican BECAUSE the Democrats want all of your money to give it to someone else that did not work for it...

YES ON 8!!! YES ON McCAIN!!! YES ON 4!!!

C.J. wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:12 AM:Your op ed staff is not very logical. You state "We believe the California ... government should not be in the business of defining marriage", yet the state already governs legal marriage in the form of marriage certificates. How can they legally grant marriage certificates but not definine marriage? Can you issue a speeding ticket without a speed limit?

Tiffany wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:46 PM:The idea that gay marriage will be required curriculum for schools is ridiculous. Using kids to scare voters is despicable. And it's illogical. What does "teaching marriage" mean, anyway? If marriage can be taught, aren't kids in "traditional" families already being taught at home? Every minute of every day, the traditional family environment in which kids are raised is normalized--becomes the norm. Why are parents so scared? Do they actually think that a few images of two-Mommy or two-Daddy families in a book or a story is going to undo the countless hours, experiences and images they have at home?

It seems that what proponents of “protecting traditional marriage” are really afraid of is that homosexuality will be taught in school. But that’s just more flawed logic, like kids can learn to be gay just like they can learn to do long division and diagram a sentence. People are made gay or straight. I've seen it in my own family, where of three siblings two of us are straight and one is gay. And he is an excellent example of humanity.

I have two children who are very young, very impressionable and very eager to learn. They are growing up in a family with a Mom and a Dad. And they have had two Uncles as a family unit in their lives as long as they can remember. Are they damaged by that? Am I concerned that it will “teach” them to be gay? Of course not. They will be gay or they will be straight according to who they are. What I hope to teach them is to respect all people and viewpoints, to treat people equally and with respect.

And being in the public school system, I know that my daughter’s principal and second grade teacher would never introduce course material that could be considered inflammatory without informing me and giving me the option to remove my child.

Let’s leave kids out of it, leave education out of it, and drop the scare tactics. Let’s focus on the core issue, which is equality.

BradMcM wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:18 PM:Children are already being taught that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are equal and that anyone that disagrees is a bigot. Every parent should be very concerned about this.

In my children’s grammar school in San Francisco, they are taught that they can marry either gender. Six, seven, and eight year old children play same-sex weddings in the schoolyard. Some of the kids are coming home to tell their parents that they haven’t decided whether they want to marry a boy or a girl when they grow up.

No one informed the parents that this was going to be taught. The parents had no opportunity to opt-out.

My daughter’s eighth grade history teacher taught them that the gay movement is similar to the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. How ironic. I am a taxpayer in San Francisco. Gavin Newsom has been using my tax dollars to buy the political support of the gay community by advocating for gay marriage. Now, THAT is taxation without representation.

If Proposition 8 fails this will only get worse.

Please vote Yes on Proposition 8.