Skip wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:21 PM:But what about the CTA (California Teachers Association)? They just spent over a MILLION DOLLARS against Prop 8.

What about the teachers and No Child succeeds alone?

Bob wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:31 PM:As a conservative I can not understand why people are yes on 8. It is a civil rights issue and the government has no right to tell a citizen who to marry. Why do we want the government deciding who can and can not marry? What's next, are we going to go back 40 years and have the government decide blacks and whites can not marry each other.

To skip wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:34 PM:CTA takes the position that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Therefore, they are donating to protect the civil rights of teachers and students. There are many gay students and teachers and CTA is representing their needs. I would be more worried with the 4 million coming in from out of state.

Curtis wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:42 PM:Vote no on 8; we shouldn't mess with the Constitution.

jvc wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:51 PM:What is immoral and obscene about this
expenditure is that this money could have gone to help the poor...
why are we such hypocrites? The Christian right must stop using the pulpit for political purposes!
The Chritian right is using politics to promote the church for purposes of
increasing donations to the church!

ceebs wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:11 PM:Ask these Mouth-Breathing-In-Your-Bedroom-Lurkers to give one-cent sales tax to secure a good pipeline of clean water and repaired sewer line and they will have a melt down!

But as long as Teh Gays are denied....all is well.

Rod wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:15 PM:We're the richest! And we have the best homophobia! Yay!

(By the way, does anybody want to know what I did to the homeless gay couple I caught squatting on my golf course?)

Query wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:26 PM:After the election, I am willing to bet no one will tear down or remove a yes or a no on prop 8 sign. Matter of fact, do the Republicans or Democrats, ever think of recycling their signs. These political eyesore ads seem to hang around forever after an election.

Protect Steak wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:40 PM:Steak is a sacred institution that has been around for thousands of years, and now all of a sudden it's coming under attack by the Tofu Agenda and Activist Judges. They think it's normal to grill a piece of tofu and call it "Steak."
Steak has come from cows for thousands of years because that's God's plan. Did a male tofu and a female tofu get on Noah's ark together? I didn't think so!

That's why tofu confuses children. The little girl sitting next to my eight-year-old son at the school lunch table last week told him that she was eating a tofu "steak." He told her that that tofu can't make "steak" but the teacher told him that it's NORMAL and he came home crying!

If people want to eat tofu in the privacy of their own home, that's their business, but I don't want them to push their radical tofu agenda on me and my children. It's a slippery slope. What if I want to grill a piece of my dog and call it "dog steak"? Before you know it, people are going to cut a slice out of a watermelon and call it "watermelon steak." One of my friends forwarded me an e-mail about a man in San Francisco who was fired, sued and arrested for eating traditional beef Steak!

VOTE YES ON PROP S to protect Steak!

Bill wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:42 PM:It's ironic that fringe religious groups like Mormons, Catholics and holy-rollers enjoy the protection of the 1st amendment, yet are bent on forcing their religious views on others.

The arguments for prohibiting gay marriage are religious and Proposition 8 is all about violating the separation of Church and State. Just look at what Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in Rancho San Diego says on the front page of their church web site: " Skyline joins with thousands of pastors and churches across California that encourage the biblical definition of MARRIAGE."

Mike S. wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:51 PM:Right, jvc. "All these commandments I have observed; what do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Nothing there about "Go, write out a check to influence voters so that others will follow your interpretation of the commandments."

bill wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:57 PM:Hey Bob,

If the gov't has no right to tell a citizen who to marry, then please explain why bigamy is illegal? Every single argument in support of gay marriage applies to multi spouse marriage. And no, I am not in support of either.

To Bob JVC and all of those opposed to Prop 8 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:58 PM:61% of the people voted to ban gay marriage and FOUR judges within the system decided to tell us differently. Do not make your argument about the government telling us what not to do, because they have done just that with taking away the voice of the people. What the government has done is wrong and now the people are fighting back for what they already had the majority vote for. There is nothing immoral about fighting for your voice that should have already been heard. If anyone is a hypocrite it is the government for saying they are a democracy and listen to the voice of the people when they obviously did not. Yes on 8.

DowntownSD wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:05 PM:Just another reason NOT to move to North County.
Loving your neighbor as yourself is much harder when your neighbor is a bigot.

No on 8.

What hypocrisy wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:06 PM:Christ never taught to love the sin, but he did teach to love the sinner. There is no hypocrisy for Christians voting Yes on 8.

mom of 3 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:20 PM:Vote yes on 8! homosexuals already get the same rights by the law. We are trying to keep MARRIAGE between a man and a woman. Gays can go ahead and have your committment ceremonys. Thats fine with me. Just don't make me have to tolerate your immoral behaivor. I don't want my kids to learn about homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism,etc... in the classroom. The no on 8 people want to shove it down our throats. Wedding photographers, caterers and churches will be sued for discrimination if this doesn't pass! If yes on 8 doesn't pass, the private schools are going to have a huge influx of children. Little girls who play together and hold hands will get teased about being lesbians. Little boys who think the girls have cooties will be teased about being gay. This will happen in elementary schools! I don't want this for my kids, or anyone elses!!! I will be one of those that chooses to homeschool my kids if this doesn't pass. Yay Mary Fellars!!! You've been through a lot this year and have set an example for me!

Double standards wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:35 PM:What I have seen from the " No on 8 supporters, " has been very enlightening to me. It is clear that with all the sign theft by the hundreds, 2 arrest, vandalism of people's homes and cars, several video surveillance of thieves caught in the act of removing and destroying signs, that tolerance is what they preach, yet fail to practice. Now is this the equality No supporters seek?

I am offended by this behavior and attacks on Christians for standing up for their Christian belief. The name calling, theft and intolerance for the views of others by the No supporters is NOT helping their cause. I do not understand why it is okay for the opposition to prop. 8, to scream for tolerance and understanding for their agenda, but it is NOT okay for the Yes supporter to do the same. So typical of liberal thinkers. Double standards always!

I support Yes on 8.

Bildo wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:37 PM:Marriage promotes social stability, and that's as true for gay couples as it is for straight couples. We don't allow multi-spouse marriages because they're not inherently stable -- have you seen the way Hugh Hefner goes through bunnies? Besides, nobody is born "multi-spouse" the way that people are born gay or straight. The bigamy argument against gay marriage is only slightly less wacky than the "I wanna marry my dog" argument and the "I wanna marry my sister" argument.

To all and Bill wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:39 PM:The reason why we have a Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. Just because people voted to ban gay marriage does not mean that it is Constitutional. That is why we have checks and balances. To take a civil right away is unconstitutional.

I do not know what bigamy is but polygamy compounds exist all over the US; and as long as they do not endanger children the government leaves them alone.

Remember that God will judge people not you.

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:41 PM:Many writers against Prop 8 direct attention to rights. Free speech is a constitutional right. Yet, both the State and Federal governments penalizes church members if their pastor asks its members to vote for a particular candidate.

Quoting the IRS, 'In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity.'
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

Johnson, a Democrat, was irked by churches in Texas supporting his political opponent during his Senate campaign.

Thus, a statute was used to punish the constitutional free speech rights of pastors. Church members have been under constant political attack by similar measures.

If Johnson, who did not run for reelection in disgrace, had been stopped in Texas, the Vietnam war may have been prevented, and the lives of thousands of young men could been saved from the acts of this vicious man.

However, Johnson infected America with a GREAT SOCIETY of government projrams that promoted fatherless family and no-fault divorce.

Wrong-headed Government wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:43 PM:For most of history, marriage was a private agreement between two families. Until the seventeenth century, the validity of a marriage was accepted by Christian churches on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows (even without witnesses) the churches accepted the marriage as valid. The state was never involved in forming marriages, and NO LICENSE was required.

In the early days of the United States, state courts routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Until the mid-nineteenth century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid in the United States, but thereafter the states began to invalidate common-law marriages.

The growing requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. was justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect all citizens from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.

In the early part of this century, the marriage license became a requirement in all states. Some states, but not all, then used a marriage license as a way to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. At one time, 38 states prohibited such marriages. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

Nothing in the long history of marriage among humans justifies changing the centuries old and liguistically long established meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Further, if issuing marriage licenses only to a man and a woman violates constitutional equal protections, then the better remedy is to invalidate the state's licensing system, which would result in less government in the personal lives of the state's citizens. Instead, an oligarchy of judges decided to expand its political oversight, further inserting the state into the private affairs of the people.

It is exremely ironic for the courts to declare that requiring couple to obtain a state issued license, which license becomes a public document, protects the PRIVACY rights of the people. What a bunch of political hogwash!

Vote for less government. Vote for privacy. Vote for parental rights. Vote YES on Prop 8!

YES on 8 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:44 PM:Maintain the traditional definition of marriage: between a man and a woman.

jvc wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:47 PM:Where is the Christian Left..the party of Jesus's ministry? Jesus was from the liftest party of tolerance! And, yes
the church of postering politics from the pulpit is a political party!

Yes on 8 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 9:48 PM:Redefining marriage to means any consensual relationship between two adult leads to a diminished commitment to a marriage to the point where marriage mean nothing to society, and fidelity and faithfulness between a man and women is made to be naive and old-fashsioned.

TrueRepublican wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:06 PM:I wonder how much these so called Christians give to help their fellow man. Just think of how much better off we'd be if these people who are waving signs on corners spent that amount of time working in the soup kitchen, mentoring foster youth or cleaning up a park; or spent the $24 million on helping the homeless. Remember God will judge you by how you helped your fellow man and will condemn you for bigotry and hate. Vote NO on 8.

Why wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:17 PM:are No on prop 8 people so intolerant?

Karen wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:34 PM:Thank you North County residents who donated money. We have already voted Yes to 8!

Nuts wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:58 PM:These left-wing wachos, homosexuals and feminazis are driving me str8 to the ballet box to vote YES ON 8

msgalnca wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:01 PM:Okay...let's go through this slowly, because it seems that the people who are in favor of changing our constitution might need a government lesson. The JOB of the state and federal SUPREME COURT is to interpret laws according to the state and federal constitution. In 1948,almost 20 years before the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue, the California State Supreme Court ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional according to the 12th amendment - for those who don't know, that is the "equal under the law" amendment. SO, what the California State Supreme Court did in May was to rule that according to the 12th amendment, domestic partnerships, because they DON'T provide all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage (check it out if you don't believe me, were NOT equal, and therefore, gay and lesbian citizens weren't being treated fairly under the law. Now...that isn't so hard to understand, is it? Let's go a little deeper. I am from Mississippi...and I was talking to my Mom (who still lives there) last night. She was telling me about the 1948 vote in Mississippi to change the state constitution to ban interracial marriage. She said that the slogan was "protect marriage" and that the argument was that they weren't taking away rights - because everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race. Sound familiar? This is not about god, religion or "protecting marriage". Heterosexuals have screwed up marriage so that protecting it is no longer an option for them. If you have been divorced, cheated on your spouse or committed spousal abuse, you have no right to an opinion on who anyone should marry. And the rest of you...I know that many of you feel that it is a "tradition" - but until 1948, in California, so was same race marriage.

Brad wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:01 PM:How disappointing to read that concepts like inequality and discrimination are alive and well in North County.

Campaign of h8 wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:14 PM:The yes on 8 people are showing their true colors. They can not answer the question of how 2 men or women marrying each other harms them or their children. Gay marriage can be taught in schools whether 8 passes or not. If it passes, the lesson will be that 2 men were allowed to marry until hateful Christians, Mormons and Catholics took their rights away. Maybe they can teach it along with the history of slavery, the Holocaust and the persecution of the Pilgrims by the Anglican church. If preserving traditional marriage is so important, I urge your churches to reject divorce and not allow senior citizens to marry because they can not pro-create. Why not do this?? oh, because you are rationalizing your bigotry of gays with all your mumbo-jumbo talk of "traditional" marriage.

Alex wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:15 PM:"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

"Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God."

(Gordon B. Hinckley, past President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)

That is why I will vote YES on Prop 8

Prejudice is as old as the Bible wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:21 PM:Throughout our history there have been people who claim to know who God accepts and who will burn in hell, based on the words in a book written by ancient people who claimed they spoke for God. We place so much importance on this book that many believe it is the actual word of God, but despite the fact that we have no proof of this, many take it on pure faith. That would be their prerogative (misguided as I think they are) but they aren't happy to just believe their own supernatural explanations of reality. They feel they have the right to police other people's actions by words in this book and tell them who they can marry. Religion has no place in our courts, our government or our bedrooms. Believe the writing in this ancient text is from God himself if you want to, but stop trying to force your religion into the law books making everyone else submit to age-old bigotry in the name of religion.

Marc wrote on Oct 27, 2008 11:51 PM:Religious people have a right to express their views, and to work to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Why is it that the anti-religious are so determined to tear down all the moral standards and traditions that are the foundation of our society? Take a look at the state of the world around us. Do you think it's better than it was 50 years ago? I don't. Child abductions/molestation, political corruption, divorce, teen pregnancy, DUI/manslaughter, and the list goes on... Almost all of these things are now a daily occurrence. And what has been the catalyst for this change for the worse? The systematic dismantling of all the principles of faith, morality, hard work, and personal accountability that this great nation was built upon. I mean homosexual people no ill will, but it IS a deviation from the natural order of things, so they don't have the right to co-opt the definition of marriage to make themselves feel better about their lifestyle.

Justanother wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:30 AM:Just another reason to move out of North County. I have a friend who moved there about 5 years ago with his family. He is even conservative and cannot stand the bigotry and narrow mindedness that exists in North County. I have visited several times and find the area without culture extremely boring, very racist and uptight and stuffy. Without the weather and beaches it is just like Utah,

Polo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:55 AM:I really dont understand what the fuss is about. If two people want to get married, let them get married. If your church thinks gay marriage is wrong, then dont allow it in your church. This is a government (civil rights) issue, not a religious issue.

Lets explore some issues that Prop 8 supporters continually bring up. They say that gay couples receive the same rights in a civil union and "whats the big deal about marriage". Well if there's no big deal about marriage, why the big hoopla, morons?
this is a civil rights issue. To get married, you need to get a marriage certificate. Is this issue all about wording?
Change the name of a marriage certificate to civil union certificate. Problem friggin solved. then if your church supports gay marriage, get married there. If your church is "straits only" and thats your flavor, then get married there.

another issue brought up is that this is like marrying a 12 year old or having 4 wives. No its not. You have two consenting adults making their own choice (in a gay marriage). You cannot marry someone under legal age, because the state is looking after their rights. Plain and simple. a gay dude cant marry a 14 yr old gay dude either.. . . as far as bigamy, its more of a gray area, but still similar. nobody would chose to share a mate with someone. the state is looking after the interest of girls being taken advantage of.

in one of these forums some guy said that this will force religions to accept gay marriage. If that is true, then i am against this prop. There is no way the state can tell the church what to do. Just like the church cant tell the state what to do. I hope that was misinformation. But i will check it out tomorrow morning.

Lastly, i leave you will the greatest image. I was driving home today and saw a large group of Prop 8 supporters on and intersection. Amongst them were about 8-10 people dressed in nazi outfits and some had KKK sheets on. How fitting was that. Best thing i've seen in months. At least a few of them are able to show their true colors.

I cannot wait till the bigots in this town dwindle down. Then those prop 8 supporter that are left will at least be ashamed of themselves and have to cover their faces. Start up a new KKK.

I was just at city hall last week and with as many bigots as there still are out there, i'm surprised i didnt see any "straits only" lines. Or "straits only" drinking fountains. I mean geez, if we're going to pass out "straits only" marriage certs, why not just go the whole way!

bill has a whacky definition of fringe wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:04 AM:"fringe religious groups like Mormons, Catholics"

Catholics = over 1B members
Mormons (LDS) = 12M+ members and one of the fastest growing
"holy-rollers" = several hundred million members

please tell me how these are "fringe", Bill?

Carmen wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:19 AM:PROP 8 is NOT about hate !! I don’t hate homosexuals, I have no reason to. They choose their life style the same way I choose mine.

Prop is about protection marriage. I ALSO HAVE RIGHTS. IF MARRIAGE IS NOT DEFINED as between a man and a woman ... then it can be ANYTHING. Two men and two women, three woman and one man. One donkey and one man, anything goes.

Homosexuals may sue any church that refuses to marry them, alleging that it’s 'discrimination'. They could sue pastors or any clergy that teaches that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' claiming that 'hate speech' is being taught.

We must PROTECT our right to free speech and freedom of. I vote YES on 8.

Jaric55 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:23 AM:No, polygamy changes the NUMBER of rights given...while same-sex marriage only changes WHO gets them. If more than one spouse..who assumes the debt after death? What if one married later or earlier? What about health decisions? These things change in polygamy, but not same-sex marriage. HEY CHRISTIANS!! YOU DON'T OWN THE WORD MARRIAGE, and YOU DON'T HAVE A COPYRIGHT TO DEFINE IT! NO on 8!!

Well if it does pass wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:01 AM:I am all for creating a fund in order to create another loop hole for the law. Marriage is only for a man and woman right? Great thats fine and dandy, to beat the system what lengths will they go? If they want to get a sex change, hey I support that because they are going the extra mile. So thus they can get married right? Spread the word about sex changes and see what the government comes up with, if not the people.

Also, I LOVE hearing about keep marriage sacred. It's only estimated at 50% true. Yet if you break it down, those that are still with each other half of that 50% were cheated on. So where is the sacred marriage? You also have the families that are DIVORCED that RE-MARRY. Are you kidding me? How big of a hypocrite are you? The supporters of 8, I've met quite a few, yes they are good followers of their faith but they are divorced and re-married. Here's the kicker, their spouse they divorced isn't dead! Imagine that?

As for the government overturning the decision, yeah that sucks but it now gives a fighting chance for the younger generation to actually speak up against their own parents. To actually think out of the box instead of being scared of your own shadow.

We live in AMERICA PEOPLE. WAKE UP! Though our forefathers might have not even imagine the country what it is today in turmoil doesn't mean all hope is lost.


I do agree though that outside money from other states and even the money for this proposition should have been used more wisely. Such as donating it back to the school and things that matter most for nature. I'm not sure what you would pick but what is more important, "man's ideologies" or mother nature?

Semantics wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:49 AM:Marriage is a word. Who cares? All committed adult relationships should enjoy equal rights and constitutional protections.

NSShirlock wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:57 AM:Assuming that God created ALL of us, we need to ask why some of us are considered to be lesser beings and not eligible for eqality in law and society.

Marc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:09 AM:Religious people have a right to express their views, and to work to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Why is it that the anti-religious are so determined to tear down all the moral standards and traditions that are the foundation of our society? Take a look at the state of the world around us. Do you think it's better than it was 50 years ago? I don't. Child abductions/molestation, political corruption, divorce, teen pregnancy, DUI/manslaughter, and the list goes on... Almost all of these things are now a daily occurrence. And what has been the catalyst for this change for the worse? The systematic dismantling of all the principles of faith, morality, hard work, and personal accountability that this great nation was built upon. I mean homosexual people no ill will, but it IS a deviation from the natural order of things, so they don't have the right to co-opt the definition of marriage to make themselves feel better about their lifestyle.

Marc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:49 AM:Religious people have a right to express their views, and to work to
preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Why is it that the
anti-religious are so determined to tear down all the moral standards
and traditions that are the foundation of our society? Take a look at
the state of the world around us. Do you think it's better than it was
50 years ago? I don't. Child abductions/molestation, political
corruption, divorce, teen pregnancy, DUI/manslaughter, and the list
goes on... Almost all of these things are now a daily occurrence. And
what has been the catalyst for this change for the worse? The
systematic dismantling of all the principles of faith, morality, hard
work, and personal accountability that this great nation was built
upon. I mean homosexual people no ill will, but it IS a deviation from
the natural order of things, so they don't have the right to co-opt the
definition of marriage to make themselves feel better about their
lifestyle.

No on 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:19 AM:Vote no on 8 to preserve the rights of the non-hateful churches. A lot of Christian churches oppose 8 because it is wrong, unfair and hateful. Its the usaual suspects, the evangelicals, mormons and catholics fueling the hateful fires. Stand up as a True Christian and oppose the h8.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:21 AM:Yes on 8 people are no more and no less than Segregationists. It was wrong in the 50s and it is wrong now. I point them out to my daughter and tell her to remember their hate towards their fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and how they will be remembered by history just like I remember the Segregationists of the South when I was growing up and how they are remembered by history.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:23 AM:Wrong-Headed,

You must be a fine student of George Orwell and 1984.

Hypocrites wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:42 AM:I wonder where we would be as a society if the money spent by "Christian" Prop 8 supporters was instead spent on charity?

Does anyone else wonder why a religious group which sponsored bigamy is trying to tell us how to define marriage? Much of the money is from the Mormans.

It's even funnier that supporter of Prop 8 are using interracial marriage as an example of why we should support Prop 8. So they're homophobic and racist?

Get real folks. It doesn't affect you. Churches can already deny people from getting married in them and no one sues them. All of your arguments are crap.

jvc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:46 AM:I hope these self-rightous Christians
can do something about the horrors
of poor medical care within California's
prison inmate medical system!
We are all hypocrites to treat humans this way especially in times of prop 2!

to Polo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:07 AM:Don't forget one of the main defenses these "NO on 8" people stand behind is that the people voted 61% to BAN gay marriage. That is NOT a defensible position in our country!! We are lucky to have a Constitution and, specifically a collection of constitutional amendments (which over half of Cali voters seem to have NEVER HEARD OF) called the Bill of Rights to PROTECT minorities from the majority if the majority is violating the basic human rights protected therein. Get a clue people, the judges who overturned the vote (and it really should have been unanimous) were following the guidelines of the Constitution and protecting the rights of millions of people. Stop the Hate, No on 8!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:10 AM:hmm...WWJD...probably throw up when he realized that his messages of love and acceptance were perverted into opposition to gay marriag and the extension of equal rights to tax payers, oving and committed adults who want nothing more than to live their lives like others. The religous folks once again lead the way for intolerance and once again attempt to stop others from exercising their rights. Give us all a greak and just pray in chaurch please. WWJD - get ill at the thought of spending a million dollars on promoting intolerance. How many needy families could be helped with this million dollars, instad they invest in gay bashing. Shame is their only prize.

lucki wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:14 AM:WHO CARES?!
All you supporters of Prop 8 need to stay out of other people's busniness and start living your own lives. You can get married and the validity of your marriage will not change at all. You cannot dictate what other people do. Quit getting involved in something that doesn't have anything to do with you. NO ON PROP 8!

Escondido Homeboy wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:18 AM:Hey Raza, just to let you know that this Saturday morning, we expect to see you all at Qualcomm stadium to pray for our election day. If you care about the future of our children please come and join us for prayer. Even if you are an atheist, Jesus welcomes you !

Viva Jesus !

JSten wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:26 AM:Well its nice to see that there is so much loose money lying around.

No need to worry, the economy can go into the crapper as long as we can say what others can do with their daily lives.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:29 AM:Marc,

You are an example of exactly WHY people should fear Prop 8 and what it stands for. You call anyone who disagrees with your view of civil right and wrong as "anti-religious". You say that today is worse than 50 years ago..of course it is....if you are a White Male Dominionist who believes that the only way to go is to keep others not like you (blacks, hispanics, women, handicapped, etc) down in second class citizenship.

Thank you for providing a crystal clear reason for voting NO on Prop 8.

To mom of 3 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:31 AM:The teaching of gay issues in grade school is (*surprise*) a misleading statement by the 'Yes' campaign.

I'm not interested in having government meddle in my life.

NO ON 8

Lady wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:37 AM:VOTING YES on 8,VOTING YES ON 8
You want same sex marriage GO to Mass..... where it is legal. Just as "some" want their rights,the rest of US have our RIGHTS!!!Leave marriage lic. ALONE

If you really cared about marriage wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:39 AM:If all you Yes on 8 people were truly worried about the sanctity of marriage, why aren't you trying to pass legislation banning divorce, criminalizing extramarital affairs? These are the human behaviors that ruin marriage, not two loving, committed souls who just happen to offend YOU because of your prejudice against them. You don't really care about marriage, you just harbor hatred and want to keep these people out of society. It's age-old "us against them" mentality.

Very sad wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:43 AM:Don't these people have anything better to spend their money on? Even in hard financial times we sent $15,000 this year to an organization that looks for a cure for a disease that is near and dear to our hearts. Do these people really feel that spending their money towards encouraging hate is better than donating it to a worthy charity?
If these people don't like our liberal laws in CA than MOVE!!!!
We support No on 8 and teach our children to be tolerant of all those around them, despite their differences.
I feel bad for children whose parents are supporting yes on 8. Teaching young children to hate is very sad. I GUARANTEE that some of you who are supporting yes on 8 will have children who are gay. I guess that is what it will take for you to learn tolerance.
Equality for ALL PEOPLE
VOTE NO ON 8!!!

Catholic Input wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:46 AM:No catholic input is needed here or anywhere else where the subject has to do with homosexuality. One only needs to look at the number of cases still being pursued, tried and settled with regards to catholic priests doing wrong with young boys to know that they are certainly the pot calling the kettle black on this subject. They really just need to sit this one out!!!!

Baggins wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:47 AM:Carmen wrote: "PROP 8 is NOT about hate !! I don’t hate homosexuals, I have no reason to. They choose their life style the same way I choose mine."

Here's the problem with your logic, dear Carmen: Assuming that by your "lifestyle" you mean getting married, you can then understand the problem: gay people can't choose "their lifestyle" if that's what THEY want to do. If, however, by lifestyle you mean your sexuality, then would you provide the date on which you decided to be straight rather than gay? Seems like that would be a date you would remember.

Arlo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:48 AM:Voted YES Yesterday. Thank you for your support!

Chubton wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:57 AM:Why are there misleading statements on the 'Yes' campaign television ads - for example a 'Yes' vote won't prevent teaching of gay issues in schools because there's no requirement to teach gay issues in schools?
I surely don't support the use of deception.
I don't understand why Prop 8 is needed to redefine marriage.
It's been fine all these years.
Why can't we just leave it alone?

I voted No on 8

ak wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:00 AM:Many proponents of Prop-8 say that it is not a matter of civil rights and that people against the proposition are falsely making it one - that GLBT people already have all the rights in California. Although I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets assume it is true. So then its just a mere word "marriage". Why then, are the proponents holding on to the word so tightly? This gives rise to another thought - religious tradition and values. I don't want to get into the debate of whether one religion is better than the other or how to interpret or read the religious text. That argument has been existent for centuries and to be honest I don't think humans are capable of resolving it. Precisely why the First amendment was written a part of which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
The establishment of religion clause means that the congress will not nationalize one religion or favor one religion over the other or over non-religion. Your religion may not allow gay-marriage but mine does. I'm free to practice my religion and you are free to practice yours. However, the state recognizes your religious marriage and not mine which is clearly a violation of the amendment. That is why its a rights issue.

About the concern that the schools will start teaching gay marriage, the schools are only supposed to teach the legal rights of a married couple. Even if the bill is passed, the schools should be teaching the legal rights granted to civil-unions. The other things that schools teach is tolerance which will be taught no matter what the outcome of the bill is.

So the people who think it is morally wrong, are free to think it that way but they should think if it is morally correct to deny someone their rights.

Bill you are so right wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:26 AM:While the churches enjoy a tax free status they try to force others to live by their religious beliefs. They are allowed to preach against and for political things in their churches on our dime. I don't see much difference between the religious right and the Taliban. I consider myself a conservative, but a TRUE Goldwater Conservative, not a Religous right conservative.

No Bother wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:29 AM:Marry my dad? Why should it bother you?

My brother marries my mom? Why should it bother you?

I marry my brother? Why should it bother you?

I marry my sister? Why should it bother you?

My brother marries my brother? Why should it bother you?

My Uncle marries my brother or sister? Why should it bother you?

Vote yes on 8. Conscience is not bigotry. Conscience is a compass to good.

Vista John wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:34 AM:Why should we let them be as miserable as the rest of us married individuals?

Yes on 8, they can makeup there own religion to get united, why do they need to be married. They could call it a number of things but not married. Kids should be taught that they are joined but not by the graces of the religion I studied. Just what religions do recognize gay unions?

To Arlo wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:39 AM:Voting NO today ... canceling you out! Just doing my part!

JP wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:39 AM:Prop 8=Socialism

What is up with wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:55 AM:North County residents? They demand that people be in our country legally and they want men and women to be the only ones to be wed as man and wife? Geeze I guess people of North County aren't slick, hip and cool. They don't under stand what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right.

Voteyesonly wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:56 AM:Vote yes if you believe we came from Adam and Eve, the sea was parted, dinosaurs were around 4k yrs ago.and all the other stories from that book written over 2k yrs. ago. Wake up people. We live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. Open your eyes and minds. This is why North County is so boring and prejudiced. I would hate to be a person that does not fit the white, SUV driving, perfect lifetyle living there. Prop 8 will not hurt your "perfect" sheltered life.

NO on 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:04 AM:At an earlier time people voted 61% to ban gay marriage.

This 61% majority is not a defensible position in our country.

We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the minority from the majority when the majority is violating basic human rights.

The judges who overturned the vote were following the guidelines of the Constitution and protecting the rights of the minority.

Stop taking the country backwards to the times when women were not allowed to vote, to segregation, to the killings by the KKK, to the Nazis incinerators.

Go forward. Stop the hate. NO on 8.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:07 AM:All one has to do is look at WHO is supporting Prop 8....almost all certain RELIGIOUS organizations trying to limit civil law to fit their RELIGIOUS view. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will. They are calling anyone who disagrees "anti-religious"...they are telling their parishioners how to vote. They are organizing church members to stand on street corners (like prostitutes) with their Segregationist signs, distracting drivers. Once you as a CA voter allow RELIGION to dictate PUBLIC law....what makes you think they will stop? Seriously.

"No one expects the Inquisition"....not so funny anymore.

Miranda wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:18 AM:The article is a bit biased as well and the Californian is a proponent of Prop 8. Whatever the case may be, Prop 8 will not pass. Civil rights are the foundation of our country. If we wanted legislation to dictate that Mormons could not practive their religion, I would vote against it. I could care less for the Mormon's religous falicies but I would vote to keep their rights. Vote no.

NO on 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:35 AM:NO on 8 means Tolerance and Respect for others. Civil Rights.

NO on 8 will not change your life nor your marriage nor your religion.

NO on 8 will not cause Public schools to teach "marriage".

NO on 8.

To Sleeping but Awake wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:51 AM:You are right in the sense that Jesus taught us to love PEOPLE, but He also to hate the SIN. That is what homosexuality is, a sin. This is where Yes on 8 supporters are being portrayed wrongly. We are being made out to be hate mongors, or bigots. We do not hate the homosexuals as people but it is the sin they are promoting that we are against.

This is not even close to being a civil rights issue. During the civil rights movement the fight was for equality for black's who did not have a choice in the color of their skin. But homosexuality IS a choice! So they are trying force theirces on christians. If you do not think so you are wrong. If Prop 8 fails it will not be long before every TV show or movie will be filled with scenes of men in bed with men, or women with women.

Pators, churches, photogrophers will be sued for not performing or photographing gay mariages. If you think not then I suggest you look to the state of New Mexico, where gay marriage IS NOT EVEN LEGAL, and the young couple who refused to photograph a union ceremony based on their religious beliefs, and got sued and lost. WAKE UP CA!!

So Cal Native wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:54 AM:Protect our childrens future and vote YES ON 8. This is about the children and our childrens, children. The gays want rights well, WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS to protect my children from this education? We all know this will hit the mainstream of education eventually. VOTE YES ON 8!! This has nothing to do about hate! YES ON 8, LETS KEEP IT STRAIGHT, marriage is defined as Adam & Eve not, Adam and Adam. VOTE YES ON 8!!

Straight in North County wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:13 AM:I am voting NO ON PROP 8!!

Karl wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:20 AM:There is enough hate and intolerance to go around on both sides of this hot one although IMHO the intolerance meter is leaning towards the "No" crowd.

Hmm wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:24 AM:It is naive to think that voting for Prop 8 is going to make a difference in marriage. In twenty years the next generation will not even care about the definition of marriage. It will all be accepted.

And it is another fear tactic that schools will be advocating same sex marriage. . .if you believe that then you haven't been around schools much, have you!

North County No on 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:29 AM:As a resident of North County it is embarrassing to read this article. I winced reading this article just like I wince at the abundance of Yes on 8 yard signs in our neighborhood. Not all in North County are intolerant - count our family in as North County No on 8 voters

Wow wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:35 AM:People forclosing, enconomic turmoil and all this money goes to exclude a group of people from civil rights? That's just sad. Next time donate it to the genocide in the Sudan or the femicide in the Congo...those are REAL causes.

Erica wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:37 AM:I live in North County and am so ashamed at the outpouring of support for 8. I'm straight and have the privilege of being married to the love of my life and cannot imagine why anyone, Christian or not, would want to deny that right from someone else. I've never understood the ban in the first place because it appears to me to be a clearly religious point of view. I'm not against religion in any sense, but banning gay marriage is religiously motivated and it doesn't apply in a matter that should be separated because of church and state.

I feel strongly that because of this overwhelming outpouring there has been a fear by many people who wish to openly oppose 8 for fear of the reaction by the public. I hope with all my heart that the Supreme Court ruling is upheld.

Radio ads from supporters of 8 have said they will be forced to accept this new definition of marriage, and no longer simply tolerate it. Well, gays and lesbians have been accepting the religious view of marriage for a long time now, so isn't that ironically hypocritical? It is 2008 and if we are as "tolerant" a society as we all claim to be, I hope that all of those people who are afraid to oppose 8 openly show up in droves at the voting booth and oppose it legally.

Are you naive wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:42 AM:I agree that we should protect our children against ideas that we don't value. That should be done in the home, though.

It is naive to think that today's children don't know what "gay" is. . .all of em already know! Don't believe it? Just go ask them . . .or your own children for that matter.
They'll give you more than an earful!

If you want to completely shelter your children, then send them to private school, turn off your TV at home and don't let them go to the movies or see their friends. That's really gonna work, isn't it?!

This is really a non-issue on the big scheme of things. Talk about religious micromanaging!

It's too bad we are spending all of this energy on Prop 8 when the economy is in the toilet and the current administration has mortgaged the future of our children and ruined the lives of millions of Americans.

North County Voting NO wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:56 AM:This proposition is being funded in large part by a religion that was founded by a man (Joseph Smith) who had 34 known wives, many of whom were teenagers, several who were married to other men at the time (bigamy?). I would rather a man marry another man than marry 34 women!

Rene wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:56 AM:Equality for all trough domestic partnership! The state overturned the citizen’s vote and decided to allow same sex marriage. Christians DO NOT HATE homosexuals but believe we should preserve traditional marriage the way God intended it to be. Biblically the bible states marriage is a reflection of our relationship with him. The bride is a representation of the church and the groom is a representation of God. It is a covenant that should not be taken lightly. I agree that the government should not have any part in it but they do and now we should protect freedom of religion. There are many hateful people in the world and some gay people hate Christians and will attack the church using this law in order to shut them down when they refuse to marry them based on religious beliefs. Please protect freedom of religion, traditional values and equality through domestic partnership YES ON 8!

greener pastures wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:02 AM:Well, at least one thing is obvious to me -- I need to move out of North County ASAP!!!

Karl wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:12 AM:Eureka, I've got it! Let the GLTA and their supporters have the word "marriage" and the Pro-8 and their supporters have the word "Union". As a man who married a woman I will cede the word "marriage", I could care less what you call my partnership with the lovely Mrs. It will show the Pro-8's as tolerant and the problem is solved. I've done my job for the day, it's time for some pasture pool.

to Chubton wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:23 AM:You are partially correct. There may not be a requirement to teach Gay issues in schools but voting YES on 8 (which I did this morning) WILL prevent ever teaching Gay marriage in schools. The way it stands now, it can and is being taught. Teaching Gay anything to my children is a violation of THEIR freedom of religion as they are Christians and believe that being Gay is a sin.

Confused wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 AM:From reading these comments it seems that some people are confused what Prop 8 is about.

If you vote YES, you are saying that Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

If you vote NO, you are saying that Marriage is between any two adults.

Honesty wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:48 AM:We all draw a line somewhere when it comes to what types of relationship we think the government should recognize as "marriage". Some draw the line at heterosexual monogamous marriage. Some draw it at simply monogamous marriage (i.e. any two people regardless of gender can marriage). Some agree with polygamy and draw the line only at age (any group of adults should be able to marriage, regardless of # or gender). Some think age should not matter, and that a boy should be able to marry a man. The point is that we all draw a line somewhere. For those of you that support same-sex marriage but not polygamy, are you not being discriminatory and intolerant?

All of these lines are arbitrary except for the line that is consistent with nature, anatomy, and history - that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. YES ON 8!

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:52 AM:Well, "To Bob JVC and all of those opposed to Prop 8" at 8:58PM on the 27th, you say "61% of the people voted to ban gay marriage and FOUR judges within the system decided to tell us differently.".
You do not understand or care about our California Constitution or United States Constitution.
ANY LAW or Proposition is passed, even by 99 percent of the voters, that violates EITHER Constitution MUST be struck down by the Court system when challenged.
Prop. 22 violated the the state Constitution by discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and was struck down.
It goes like this - THE STATE requires a marriage license to get married, THE STATE cannot discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, so THE STATE cannot prohibit homosexuals from getting married, that was the reasoning behind the decision. THE STATE can not discriminate based on sexual orientation in issuing drivers licenses.
Prop. 8 seeks to reinstate that very discrimination.
Vote NO on Prop. 8.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:57 AM:Well, "Confused" at 11:32AM,

If you vote YES, you are saying that Marriage is only between a man and a woman, thus making it legal to disciminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

If you vote NO, you are saying that Marriage is between any two adults, thus complying with the California Constitution's prohibition from discriminating against anyone based on their sexual orientation.

Regards, Alf.

Hey wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:02 PM:didn't we vote on this once before? Who's brilliant idea was it to spend all of this money on an issue that we have already voted for?

To Lady wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:05 PM:What "rights" that you "already have" are in any way changed by same sex marriage? The only "right" I can think of is the "right" rob others of something you already have.

You remind me of those mean girls in high school who fought to keep people out of their club because they thought by letting them in it would ruin their status as "better" than less deserving people.

Honesty wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:11 PM:A yes vote on 8 is not discriminatory, unfair, or intolerant. It simply recognizes the realities of nature, anatomy, and biology. Heterosexual marriage is organic, natural, and environmentally friendly. Everything else is artificial. Go Green! - Vote YEST ON 8!

RVG wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:16 PM:In the end...God loves all....even gay people..
all you who vote yes will have to ansewer to your maker

scientist supports 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:22 PM:to Bildo:

Regarding your comment that "a person is born gay or straight", there's no science that indicates there is any difference between a straight man and a gay man. All people are born the same and some choose to live a gay/lesbian lifestyle. Let's stop the fiction that people are born gay or lesbian. It's been perpetuated for years by the LGBTQ community without an ounce of science to back it up.

And another scientific fact - children do best when raised in a home with a mother and father. That's been proven by many, many peer-reviewed studies. Allowing LGBTQ couples to marry will inherintly encourage them to artificially create children to supplement their own sense of purpose in life. Children have rights, which is what we seem to have forgotten in our society today. Children have a right to a mother and a father. Prop 8 defends a child's right to a mother AND a father. The CA Supreme Court took that right away from children with their decision. Prop 8 does some, but not enough, to restore that right to children.

Honesty wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:27 PM:If opposing gay marriage is hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory, why did Barak Obama, at a March 2, 2008 rally in Ohio, go on the record saying that he does not support gay marriage (he thinkgs that civil unions are adequate)? Quote "I will tell you, I don't believe in gay marriage." Surely, you No on 8 people don't think Obama is hateful and intolerant, do you? Go to YouTube and you can see him say it for yourself.

To to lady wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:28 PM:Don't waste your time with Lady. Read her past comments and you will see she’s a lost cause. She's one who sees herself as holier than thou and fails to acknowledge her own fears of the unknown and misunderstood. She believes propaganda that supports her fears and wraps it up as God’s will. She probably hasn’t even read the actual initiative text, and funny thing, Prop 8 is the shortest by far. There’s nothing in the initiative that would prevent the schools from teaching this or anything else in class. It simply defines marriage as between a man and a woman, clearly denying same sex individuals from getting married. I don’t understand how people like her don’t see this as discrimination. I guess we no on 8-ters are more highly evolved……

P.S., To to Arlo, I'll be voting no a week from now. Now we're one up on Arlo......

To Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:29 PM:Re:Well, "Confused" at 11:32AM,

You left out some things.

Voting No will:
1. Open the door for the Man Boy Love Group to stand up and say they want the same rights as gay couples.

2. Allow gay teachers to talk about their gay marriage and teach your kids that it is ok, even if their "bigotted" mommy and daddy say it isn't.

3. The overflowing amount of ridiculous lawsuits that will clog the court system because pastors will not want to marry a gay couple, based on their religious convictions.

Baseball wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:33 PM:To me it's like someone bringing a football to a baseball game and wanting everyone to change. Go have your own game and leave our game alone.
(no offense meant to those who play either sport)

JC wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:33 PM:Too bad the million bucks didn't go to abused wives or children from broken homes... REAL ISSUES

to greener pastures wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:36 PM:Please do move. I don't care if you're for or against it. We've got too many people here.

Brad wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:36 PM:Alright!! The economy is booming again!!

Rich wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:49 PM:Here's an interesting question...if prop 8 passes it is in direct conflict with equal protection requirements already in the state constitution then how do the courts reconcile that conflict? If the state cannot discriminate base on race, relition, gender or sexual preference, then passing 8 creates a conflict within the constitution - do we now strike down the existing equality protections in the state constitution? Prop 8 forces government offices to violate existing provisions in the state constitution.

Marie wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:50 PM:Since the Yes on 8 are so concerned about the "Traditional Family" - why not include Intention to Procreate. Those who don't plan on creating a "Traditional Family" can't marry. How about not allowing Divorce, since that wrecks the "Traditional Family" too. Why are we allowing the Mormon Church so much power in our State?

Bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:51 PM:To Hey,

We also voted for Slavery once and to keep the vote from women once....Whose brilliant idea was it to spend all this money on issues we've already voted for?

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:51 PM:Well, "Hey" at 12:02PM,
see my 11:52AM post for the answer to your question.
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:56 PM:To Rene,

Your little metaphor of a married couple is cute...but the state of California is NOT the church. Get that thru your head, please.

And, I bet you don't think that people married by the Justice of the Peace or by other religions besides yours should be allowed their licenses either.

Beware of people like Rene getting their way and going for more!

No on 8!

I have a Gay Cousin wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:02 PM:who doesn't support Prop 8. He believes that a committment ceremony is more meaningful to him and his partner than marriage for the same reasons that are stated in some of the other postings eg divorce and cheating. He is committed to his partner and likes that term better because it doesn't have all the extra baggage attached to it. So we voted already YES on PROP 8

To Rene wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:09 PM:Rene - your argument is based on Christian marriage - is it your position that Hindus, Muslems, Athiests, etc should be barred from getting married in this fine country?

political CRIMES wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:12 PM:To all of those involved in sign theft: it is illegal. Disgusting.

To all of those involved in leaving political flyers (with or without postage) that touch any part of the mailbox (including the
mailbox 'flag') you have committed a Federal crime. Disgusting.

lisa g wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:16 PM:It's government by and for the people, people. The people of California said no (by over 60%) to gay marriage in a lawful election -- four judges should not have the right to overturn that decision.

The same voting process that approved stem cell research backed by my state tax dollars (to which i object strenuously) denied gay marriage in California. I respected my fellow voters' decision and would go down swinging to enforce it - even though it's not *my* choice. Its the whole point of having a Constition.

To all the No on 8ers: Suck it up! Some times the vote goes your way, some times it doesn't -- this time it didn't. We all have to play by the same rules. It's absurd that this issue has to be revisited and put to a vote when California votes have already spoken - loud and clear.

sarah wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:44 PM:Come on people this is 2008. Vote NO on 8! We have no right to disriminate and take rights away from people who choose to marry someone of the same sex. It is none of our business! Vote NO on 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Appalled wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:47 PM:"We need to do this for them," Bullen said, referring to children, "and they need to know where we stand."

Hope none of his kids turn out to be gay.

Puzzled wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:48 PM:We were made with corresponding puzzle peices for a reason.

To political CRIMES wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:51 PM:Don't you know... cities, counties and state no longer do anything to federal criminals!!

Bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 1:57 PM:To "I Have a Gay Cousin".

How very interesting. Let me use your logic. I have a Straight cousin who does not believe in marriage. Therefore I will vote to deny marriage for all straights. Gee this is fun!

Re To Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:03 PM:Responding to your list of items left out:
1. The Man Boy love group has to do with age of consent, voting no on 8 does not change current age of consent laws.

2. Gay teachers can instead talk about their gay domestic partnership...stopping gay marriage does not stop homosexuality. If a teacher is gay prop 8 won't change that. I guess it's better for your straight teacher to talk about her traditional marriage getting beaten up by her cheating husband!

3. Churches can't be sued for religious belief...it's not like I can go out and sue an Orthodox Jewish Synogogue for refusing to marry me a Catholic or an Athiest. Additionally, can Catholics sue the Roman Catholic church for refusing to recognise a second marriage after a divorce?

The fear tactics are unfounded. Prop 8 supporters are acting like there is an alternative ballot measure that changes everything and will turn the whole country gay! The gay rights groups do not have a measure currently on the ballot - only the narrow minded, gay bashing religious right are trying to change the constitution and treat the gay community as lesser citizens than the straight community.

Can I deny someone a job because their homosexuality offends my religous principals? Can I deny them service at my business? Equal protection under the law - read about it sometime!

Alf and Friends wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:03 PM:You are sooooo right. This is going to open the door to legalized pedophelia just like allowing interracial marraige led to people marrying dogs...oh, wait it didn't. Totally unrelated. Slippery slope and fear tactics.

Soooo.. wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:09 PM:If I am atheist can I protest God being mentioned in schools? Because I'm pretty sure there's already a law on the books for that one that was and always will be in the Constitution! Oh, too logical...can't go both ways, I see.

Civil Rights wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:37 PM:It cracks me up when people say this is a Civil Rights issue. Being homosexual may not be a "choice" (science has not definitively proven that people are born gay), but engaging in homosexual behavior is absolutely a choice. This is disrespectful to those who demanded equal rights based on discrimination over things they had no control over, ie. race. I am all for strengthening Civil Unions laws instead of calling them marriage.

Mechanic wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:45 PM:I'm a bit confused. I once blew an engine in my Toyta, but I had an engine from a Chevy. When I tried to install it, it didn't work. No amount of pushing and pulling, it wouldn't fit. I just couldn't understand it. Since they were both from cars, they should be interchangeable. Funny how I found out that theory isn't true.

Bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 2:51 PM:Puzzled,

I'm sure that you (or your wife) NEVER use breasts for more than breast feeding, feet for more than walking, ears for more than hearing, etc.

And we sure need to illegalize marriage for anyone who doesn't STRICTLY use sexual organs for that old missionary position for procreation only.

You betcha.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:00 PM:Well, "lisa g" at 1:16PM,
see my 11:52AM post, then get back to me.
Also, please take the time to understand our system of government.
Regards, Alf.

To scientist supports 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:04 PM:You are no scientist. If you were you'd know that studies have shown clear differences in brain structures between gay and straight men. You don't even know what "inherent" means, nor can you spell it properly.

You can put a lab coat on a pig, but that doesn't make it a scientist.

Al wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:14 PM:I am a very liberal person and If two from the same sex want to get married "SO WHAT" We hear from all these religious groups it will hurt our kids. Are you kidding me, kids are learning so much around their peers even in the grade school level and during preschool. All you religious people want to keep your children shelter and I bet you any money, those that are kept shelter will be those having problems in the long run.

John wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:16 PM:For all those haters out there, just remember one thing...Some of you may have children and your children will have children and what happens if one of your children turns out to be gay. What are you going to do

B wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:19 PM:It is pretty disguisting that they spent so much money on this stupid opposition when there are much better causes......Jerry's kids, homeless shelters, schools, humane society, etc.

VERY SAD HATERS!!!! VERY SAD..

what wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:19 PM:Ok what is a gay. My 1967 edittion of Websters says nothing about sex or gender. I hope when the schools teach this to my great grandchildren so they will learn the history of gay.
I have several letters from my grandparents who talk about having a gay time,I do not think they were engaging in homo(seems corect word as per. webster) activities. Hope future generations will understand.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:20 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 12:29PM,
you are "out in left field".
FIRST, see "Re To Alf" at 2:03PM.
SECOND, the California Supreme Court decision specifically exempted churches from lawsuits in their decision, unlike other states. THIS point has been brought up before. READ the decision for yourself, use your mind instead of your ears.
THIRD, discrimination and bigotry are the "pig" onto which you put the "lipstick" of "religious" values in an unsuccessful attempt to make the pig look pretty.
Regards, Alf.

Contrarian wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:25 PM:What could gays possibly do to destroy the "sanctity" of marriage that John McCain and Cindy McCain's father and Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and Scott Peterson and so many others haven't already done?

lisa g wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:26 PM:Alf,
Could you be more sour grapes?

This 'cause' already lost once in a legal election, and is likely to lose again. No amount of your foot stomping and semantics spouting will change that.

Marriage, fundamentally and in every cultire, is between a man and a woman. That's irrefutable (though I'm sure you'll scrabble up some obscure reference to the contrary.) It is something simply not available, by very definition, to same sex couples. More Californians understand that than don't - and we voted correspondingly.

Civil unions for same sex couples with full protection of the law -- absolutely. Marriage - no, because it's llike calling a rock an apple. You can ccall it an apple until the end of time, but you'll never be able to make a pie out of it.

That's not hateful or homophobic - it just is what it is. Deal with it.

It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the law and state only exist to protect them and support their agendas.

To John wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:26 PM:They will "reprogram" them.........

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:27 PM:Well, "Civil Rights" at 2:37PM,
see my 11:52AM post.
Heterosexual sexual behavior is also a choice, what is your point?
Marriage has to do with love and personal commitment and considering how many babies there are that are born out of wedlock, I would say that sex and the results of sex are completely unrelated to marriage.
Regards, Alf.

Civil Rights Response wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:30 PM:So by that logic, you don't choose to be heterosexual but having sex is a choice? So is it an equal sin for heterosexuals to engage in ANY sexual act before marriage? Should we make a constitutional amendment for adulterers? Afterall, if it weren't for them, everyone would be in safe God abiding monogomous relationships and there would be no need to learn about STDs in schools. HOW DARE those heterosexuals thrust their choices into the curriculum of the schools. NEW PROP NEEDED to replace PROP H8!

10 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:34 PM:The number of gay friends I have from "religious" households including Mormon. You can't force anybody to be straight. You are deluding yourselves. Even if hate prevails, and YES wins...the opposition will have a reason to be that more vocal and your kids will learn about it if they aren't gay already...but not because they were "brainwashed" into it. You have shown that not enough brainwashing in the world can ruin all people.

Jip wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:37 PM:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...unless you're gay."

FYI wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:39 PM:There are organizations for YES that are trying to publish names of companies that WOULD NOT give them money so people who support YES can boycott. Can you say blacklisting? McCarthyism?

I hate wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:44 PM:people who claim to be for tolerance then, flip me the bird because I have an opinion and position that differs from theirs. No on 8 people have clearly shown nothing but hate, anger and intolerance for people that oppose their opinion.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:47 PM:Well, "lisa g" at 3:26PM,
I guess that you missed the point.
Prop 22 was approved by about 61% of voters.
Prop 83 was approved by about 70% of the voters.
Lawsuits were filed against both based on the grounds that they violated the Constitution.
Prop 22 violated the equal protection and discrimination clauses of the California Constitution, it was rightly struck down.
Prop 83 had parts that violated the U.S. Constitutional prohibition of punitive ex post facto laws, lawsuits were filed and those parts were struck down.
In both cases, "the will of the people" was un-Constitutional or contained un-Constitutional parts.
If the STATE did not issue marriage licenses, this would be a non-issue.
BUT, THE STATE cannot violate its own rules against discrimination and the STATE is in the business of licensing marriages.
NOR can the STATE impose RELIGIOUS rules on a secular society.
Regards, Alf.

Gay Cousin wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:56 PM:He just wishes that committment ceremonies would only be used for gay unions that are meant to last forever but realizes that is just wishful thinking - just like marriage. Although most of his friends that have had ceremonies are still together. I think since they fought so hard to get them recognized, they don't enter into them as lightly as straights do marriage. Face it we are a disposable society and marriage has become part of that.

To Contrarian wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:56 PM:A man and a woman are reading the paper over breakfast.
Woman:, "It says here that they're finally letting gays marry!"
Man: "Haven't those poor people suffered enough?"

retired wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:59 PM:I just filled out my retirement papers and there is an option to leave your pension to your "domestic partner". All medical is paid too. I've changed my mind I'm voting yes.

Read This wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:02 PM:The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.

In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.

The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear -- it is simply listed as "for special purposes" in the group's IRS tax form.

It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.

Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network -- which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society -- and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.

The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding.

When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself "a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students," it gave to some of the same groups -- partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.

It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg's archived Web site, are "to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing."

But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:

"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us," one page of the application reads.

dayz wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:05 PM:YES ON 8!!!

Thank You to whoever wrote this article, showing to me that some press is NOT liberal!!
We need more conservative rallying to do!

And I do not care if any one replies to this post hating on me. This is something I feel very strongly about and I know it is most definitely something GOD cares about (He states: marriage is between a man and a woman).
YES ON 8!

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:11 PM:One more thing, "lisa g" at 3:26PM,
I am not sour grapes, I am a realist.
Prop 22 got rightly overturned on Constitutional grounds.
Religious bigots were not satisfied and started Prop 8 to Amend the Constitution.
If there are sour grapes, they are the folks who deny the right not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation by the state in a state-controlled contract called "marriage".
As of this moment, there is no such a thing as the exact legal equal to "marriage", none.
And no such legally and precisely equal state-sanctioned contract is in the works.
You would remove the California Constitutional right that a homosexual couple has right now to marry and provide nothing that is the exact legal equal.
I have yet to hear how any heterosexual marriage has been damaged in any way by homosexuals being able to marry and getting married.
Have you?
Regards, Alf.

VOTE YES wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:12 PM:"Christ never taught to love the sin, but he did teach to love the sinner. There is no hypocrisy for Christians voting Yes on 8."

AMEN!
yes on 8!

Jessica wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:14 PM:Why do you all care so much? Getting married and receiving a state license does not make you married in God's eyes. So get a life and spend your money helping others. That is what will be seen by God's eyes! All of you donating money to "Yes on 8" are hypocrites and I can only imagine what God has in store for you for spending time on such a trivial subject that does NOT affect your personal relationship with him. I hope you are ashamed of yourselves!

Let our country do what are ancestors came here for, allow people freedom to express themselves without religious persecution!

NO on H8!

LISTEN to God wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:14 PM:So you think it is okay for gay marriage to be taught to little kids? They will think it is funny and will giggle!! 2 little boys play 'wedding' and believe and understand that they can actually get married.
2 words: HOW DISGUSTING.

Yes on 8.

No on Ha8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:17 PM:"I hate" can't live with him/herself, so he/she makes up stuff about No on 8 people flipping the bird and calls their disagreeing with her "hate."

But the only hatred I see on this blog is by those who want to deny gays the love and support of marriage. They claim to have the inside scoop on human morality. They choose to believe in the ancient notion of "sin." They aren't content to believe for themselves, they force their cruel, divisive beliefs on the rest of us.

And so, to "I hate"--before you spin my comments as "hate," read carefully what I've written. I have expressed frustration and opposition. I don't hate you. It is YOU who says, "I hate people who . . . "

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:26 PM:Well, "FYI" at 3:39PM,
the one that this paper had an article on was protectmarriage.com -
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/23/news/state/z7cd088b7b1558c04882574ec00025a68.txt. IMHO, that is "alleged" attempted extortion, pure and simple.
How positively religious of them!!!
How positively Christian of them!!!!
Regards, Alf.

Equal Civil Rights wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:26 PM:to Honesty 10-28-08 12:11pm & others

You have a closed-mind point of view.
A yes vote on 8 is based on discrimination, is unfair, and intolerant.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the law.

Civil Rights for all no matter what skin color, hair color, nose shape, height, eye color, etc.
The law (Constitution and Bill of Rights) does not care about our size and body shape.

The majority must always protect the minority (homosexuals are 10% to 15% of our population).

What are you afraid of. Your life will not change. Your religion will not change. The churches will not be forced to marry someone that they do not want to marry.

Our government was started by those that left England; left the Church of England.

Unfortunately in the late 20th century, attempts continue to open up the public to the idea of state religion. Hopefully we do not accept this 17th century idea.

lisa g wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:30 PM:Um, Alf?
You can toss as much rhetoric as you want to: it's not discrimination. Same sex couples are asking for something that is fundamentally unavailable to them. Spout all the propositions you want - marriage is definitively between a man and a woman. It's not a religion thing, it's a basic definition thing.

I mean... you call yourself Alf, but that doesn't (can't) make you a space alien puppet with a sitcom.

Or does it....?

Karl wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:40 PM:I hate
"[-] wrote on Oct 28, 2008 3:44 PM:people who claim to be for tolerance then, flip me the bird because I have an opinion and position that differs from theirs. No on 8 people have clearly shown nothing but hate, anger and intolerance for people that oppose their opinion."

Alf?

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:42 PM:I gotta do it ""lisa g" at 3:26PM,
You said "It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the law and state only exist to protect them and support their agendas".
I am a "liberal-leaning Libertarian" according to the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and that is where i pegged myself.
What you refuse to admit is that by protecting ALL the rights of some few Adult Citizens of which you may not approve, YOUR rights are also upheld.
The reverse is also true - that by removing the rights of some, you are also dimishing YOUR rights. Maybe not now, but taking away the rights of others does come back around when you least expect it.
As a wise person was reputed to have said "As you have done to the least of them, you have done to me" or words to that effect.
Regards, Alf.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:47 PM:Now, now. As we've seen in discussions with DD Wiz, you have to be wearing a WHITE LAB COAT to demonstrate that you are a scientist. Plus you have to talk with big words and have a lot of other people in their WHITE LAB COATS agree with you (peer review). That's what makes it scientific.

jake wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:52 PM:San Diego County, as a whole, will overwhelmingly vote Yes on 8, regardless of what a few, very active, posters who keep changing their names on this comment thread want you to believe.

You change your names, but your vicious and dishonest rhetoric gives you away.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:55 PM:I have an idea that the Yes on 8 people, if they succeed, will next move to deny the word "marriage" to all not married in a church...that means everyone who uses a Justice of the Peace will have a Civil Union, not a Marriage. But no big deal...after all, the "Yes on 8" people have told us it is good enough. What will be next, all those who don't marry in Christian churches? Then those who don't marry in the "right kind" of Christian church?

scientist supports 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:58 PM:to the poster who corrected my spelling error, thank you, you were right. but you failed to address my claim that children have rights. as is common among the No on 8 crowd, you attack the messenger, but have no reasonable rebuttal to science. please post where I can find one scientific study that differentiates a biological difference between a gay and straight man, that wasn't funded by a gay/lesbian organization to further their fiction, and I will gladly review it.

Roberto1 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:00 PM:I'm about as conservative as you can get but voted no on 8. Its time to get more inclusive in the fiscal conservative causes and let the social agenda go. For the anti-Bush head, imagine if Obama had to dealk twith the recent financial crisis? To me, that is scary.

jess wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:09 PM:lets all just worry about ourselves and loved ones and let others do what ever it is that they want. if i have the right to get married, every other human being should too. no on 8!

call me Johnson wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:11 PM:Ok Lisa G, I'll bite. Based on whose fundamentals? I suspect marriage was manmade. Did Neanderthals marry? When did modern humans begin a ceremony that differs from religion to religion? Does that mean that only Christian marriages are valid? The State of California isn’t in the position to differentiate between Muslim, Jewish or Christian marriages. If you say being gay is a choice (which science will argue against) it can be argued it’s a choice for one to change religious beliefs during their lifetime. What if someone decided to go from Christianity to Buddhism? Was that their choice, God’s will or the devil’s influence? Getting back to the State’s position on this issue; the State can’t distinguish between religious unifications. It’s constitutionally prohibited from doing so as “all men (women, gays, blacks, whites, etc.) ARE CREATED EQUAL”. Where don’t you get this? If the state offers a license for marriage, it must offer it to gays as well as straits……

LISTEN to Yourself wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:14 PM:Teaching little kids that gays are "disgusting" is how they grow up to hate them and vote for propositions that legalize their bigotry they learned as children.

Why teach your children disgust for people who God made different from them? It perpetuates the "disgust" into adulthood. It's like all prejudice against other races or cultures, or other religions, such as those who hate Blacks, Jews or Christians. It all starts from a mother or father who says, "HOW DISGUSTING."

Johnson to Jake wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:18 PM:Jake,

Just because people might overwhelmingly vote for something doesn't make it legal. Why do you think there is a separation of power written into the Constitution of the United States of America with an executive branch, legislative branch and judiciary branch? It’s called “checks and balances”. Were you sleeping in 5th grade when they explained that one?

JSten wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:29 PM:What would Jesus do?

Hate?

Destroy?

Deride his fellow man?

And one other thing: The fact that soemone has consensual contact with anothe adult does not make them a child molester.

And for those of you holy rollers out there who lost it during high school, that makes you a child molester too!

I for one waited until mommy said it was OK.

To Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:30 PM:I personally enjoy the objectivity and intelligence you bring to topics around here. One thing that you need to grasp is that, no matter how hard you try, you can't cure stupid. Zealots will always be zealots. These so-called Christians will always think it's wrong for the ___-Agenda (fill in whatever topic they don't agree with) to be shoved down their throats while they merrily go about the business of pushing their God-Agenda all over the place.

I'm sure you actually already know that. I just wanted to take a brief moment to let you know that you are not alone. Your efforts are valiant while futile. I only hope you have the energy to keep it up so that even the smallest numbers can be benefited by educational facts/logic instead of driven over by the 'my way or my way' crowd.

Good luck in all you do!

lisa g wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:33 PM:Alf and Johnson,
I've not commented on homosexuality as a choice (I don't believe it is)... Nor have I said that gays are not equal to heterosexuals (they are). But call it whatever you like, two people of the same sex making a dedicated union just isn't marriage - no historical cultural construct supports this. It's nothing personal, it's just a fact. It's not a bout religion for me, just accuracy of definition. Gay marriage -- nope. Gay protected civil unions -- yep. The former is definitively impossible.

Why do liberals always think it's about religion? Sometime's it's just about common sense.

Do you really think -- are you really arrogant enough to believe -- that $1 million dollars worth of donors in North County are just way more ignorant, bigoted or mean spirited than you, and that we all sit around looking for ways to foil the homosexual agenda?

Maybe -- just maybe -- we, as the majority, are on to something. Maybe we're not just a bunch of knee jerk hateful closeminded religious maniacs -- maybe we've considered this as part of the bigger pciture.

Cultural dignity, nobless oblige, and a concern for the prudent develop of solid laws and codes that put the main beneficiary and victim of marriages AND civil unions first. If Calfornia gets this wrong, it's the kids who will suffer. The law right now doesn't adequately support the fracturing of heterosexual marriages when it comes to custody and child issues... how well are we going to handle the more complicated issues of gay breakups when it comes to kids? That's a horse that should come WAY before the cart... but I've not heard one advocate for gay marriage talk about this as a priority.

Lisa wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:19 PM:Sweetie, they already have kids "married" or not. There already are custody issues. You really think if the YES on 8 magic wand gets waived then everyone will go back in the closet? Hate disguised as patriotism, religion, "for the kids" is still hate. What about the kids of marriages you are trying to disolve? What about the kids of gay families that have to see those signs and ask, "Why do they hate you mommy?". Everybody has kids, the difference is only one side's kids are actually under attack.
BTW the reason it has been labled as a "religious" movement might have something to do with the 20 million spent by the mormon church alone, then the catholics...then all of the "upright" citizens mentioned in this article that couldn't find a cause more needy to give to in these trying economic times. Nice try though.

Lame wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:21 PM:You all make me sick. Yes and No. What a bunch of losers. Don't you see people dying and struggling on this planet? Stop hating others and focus on something constructive.

Definition wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:21 PM:GAY used to mean happy. Definitions change.

To scientist supports 8 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:26 PM:I had to break it to you, but you can't pin the blame for single parent households on gays and lesbians. WE straights have managed to do that all by ourselves. And what evidence do you have that children of TWO same-sex parents don't do as well as children of TWO opposite sex parents? Exactly what legal "right" to a mother and a father are you referring to? I'm not aware of any such law, but if you truly cared about kids, you'd address the affect of divorce on them, a far more damaging ande long lasting emotional toll than single parent households.

Evidence for biological differences between gays and straights has been found in studies, from Harvard to the Salk Institute, and some interesting results in Swedish and British experiments, in twin studies and in organismic and evolutionary biological observations of homosexual behavior in animals.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:34 PM:Well, "Karl" at 4:40PM,
it wasn't me.
I prefer the discussion and debating and leave the "finger-saluting" to hot-headed people who are probably the same type who go around stealing signs.
Regards, Alf.

I agree with marc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:39 PM:50 years ago, kids respected their parents. You didn't see music artists promoting cop killing, drug use, etc. Marriage was encouraged and respected. Gangs were only in major cities like New York Chicago and Los Angeles. It wasn't "cool" for kids to have sex. True there was blatant racism and hatred, but it was opposed by many Christians. The good of those days far outweighs the bad. Oh, and interracial marriage is ok because race is not chosen.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 6:52 PM:Well, "lisa g" at 4:30PM,
"something that is fundamentally unavailable to them", is your opinion.
You have every right to believe whatever you want, but your right ends when you inflict your beliefs on others to the point that it violates their right to equal protection under the law and their right not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
Justify it, rationalize it until you're blue in the face, once discrimination based on sexual orientation was made un-Constitutional, since the STATE issues marriage licenses, the right of homosexual people to marry, to have EXACTLY the same LEGAL status as heterosexual people became the subject for legal debate.
All it took from there was a lawsuit to challenge the law, Prop 22, that violated the California Constitution.
Once Prop. 8 is defeated, you and your cause can try to do it again, squandering millions and wasting everyone's time for a Quixotic and anachronistic cause.
Regards, Alf.

um Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:10 PM:Prop 8 AMENDS the constitution. Meaning it would be now constitutional to have marriage be one man one woman.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:35 PM:Well, "lisa g" at 5:33PM,
life happens whether you want it to or not. A war or two, a car crash, the economy crash, trees falling over in the middle of the night, broken backs, the tarp roof blowing off the house I was building at 11PM in the rain and the redeployment of said tarp at 11:15PM, they all happen in and at their own time.
The fact of the matter is that for many paople there will NEVER be a "right time" to deal with the issue of having homosexuals be able to have an exactly EQUAL LEGAL arrangement to marriage.
Yet homosexuals are here, were here and will be here as long as mankind is here and they will fall in love, become committed to each other and want to have a union that has ALL the same rights and responsibilities as their heterosexual friends and neighbors. "Domestic Partnerships" and "civil unions" are not legally equal, anyone who says they are is uninformed or a liar.
Being on this planet for over a half-century, my attitudes have shifted over time. Having a high school friend who is as commited to her female partner as I am to my wife (of 16 years), yet not be able to have the same legal status as my wife and I, hearing the sadness and frustration in her voice every once in a while when I call her points out the inequity.
It seems that you see homosexuals and their issues as a someTHING, I see them and the California Constitution sees them as a someONE.
I truly hope that you never have to find out what it feels like to be treated as a "second-class", a "less-than", a "not now" THING that does not deserve the same rights as others.
It was not that long ago that you, a female (by your name), were not even accorded as high as second-class treatment or rights, how soon you forget such things, take them for granted and yet willingly cast others to the same fate.
Regards, Alf.

But I agree with marc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:43 PM:50 years ago there were "bad girls" and girls who "went to visit their aunt" for a few months. There were also hospital abortion wards that performed no abortions, they just dealt with the results and complications of "back-alley" and "coathanger" abortions. Yes indeed, the good old days.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:49 PM:Well, "um Alf" at 7:10PM,
you forgot a few words, the primary one and the most important one is the word "ONLY", placed between the "be" and the "one".
Prop. 8 does not repeal the proscribing of discrimination based on sexual orientation clause.
Regards, Alf.

Yes Yes Yes on 9 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:51 PM:Marriage is a public proclamation that recognizes a man and a woman as husband and wife, ready and committed to bear children, with the blessing and support of the surrounding community. A homosexual partnersip, having no child bearing component, cannot stake a claim on the same ground.

For this reason, it is absurd to assert that a homosexual partnership is the same as or equal to a marriage between a man and a woman.

Homosexuals cannot have children. That's it.

Think about it. What interest does society have in caring for an orchard that bears no fruit? The answer is, none really. Homosexuality is a private condition that results in nothing that society needs to witness, condone, or sanctify.

In contrast, marriage between a man and woman is special if only because it requires the public and very often religious sanctioning of an activity that has real social consequences -- sex for the purpose of bearing children.

To vote no on Proposition 8 is to approve what our California courts have managed to do all by themselves, and that is to demean the significance of marriage and to assert an interest in something in which we clearly have no interest.

So please, vote yes on Proposition 8.

We are descended from Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam, or Eve and Eve. That's all you need to know to understand why traditional marriage must be protected.

to the But I agree wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:58 PM:Yes there were girls who got pregnant. But they were very few in number, and it wasn't encouraged like it is today in movies music and tv shows. As for the back alley abortions, they were awful, but rare. Abortion today is still often risky to the woman.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:07 PM:To um Alf,

You are aware, I hope, that the CA Constitution must jive with the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps the most delicious result of this election is that if Prop 8 passes, a lawsuit will immediately be filed with the U.S. 9th Circuit court claiming that Prop 8 is UnConstitutional...that's the FEDERAL 9th Circuit Court, folks....I will be laughing at the $20 million dollars the Mormons, Knights of Columbus, etc. will have spent for nothing.

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:10 PM:Re: Yes, Yes, Yes on 9...first of all, learn to count. Second of all, are you telling us that those either unwilling or unable to procreate should also have the right of civil marriage taken from them? Is that the next step in your agenda to make us...all...like...you?

u.s. constitution says nothign about marriage wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:57 PM:and beasisdes, the feds have already passed and signed te Defense of marriage Act, whch passed constitutional muster.

msgalnca wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:14 PM:Alf - I must give you high regards, for your patient and calm explanations to lisag - although I don't really think that she understands that "equality under the law" means EVERYONE. The thing is that most of these people will never believe anything you say to them - because they have made their arguments in their mind - or had them made for them - and they can't change them now and look weak for their christian brothers and sisters. I just hope that a few will have a stroke of conscience when they are in that voting booth by themselves, and realize that the world is made up of more than just them and those like them. Oh...and actually, the term "marriage" was first used in ancient Greece - between two MEN who were joined in a marriage to signify their joint ownership of property or business. It was used between men and women first when women were given as "markers" for business deals. Oh...I am off topic...I meant to share this with all of you. You were talking about these people teaching hatred to their children. I am a school teacher, and we had a situation in school last week. A young man, very zealous in his christianity and his hatred for "queers", grabbed a young gay man in the bathroom, bent him over the sink, and mimicked sodomy. He told him that it wouldn't be the last time - that he would bring a mop handle with him next time, and show him what happens to "queers". So that is a good example of what happens to these young people who are taught "not to hate" gays and lesbians. And one last thing...the same young christian left the bathroom and attempted to sexually assault a young woman - I guess that he wanted to prove that he wasn't a "queer".

Marriage and Procreation wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:28 PM:If the fundamental purpose of marriage is to bear children than we really do need to do more to protect that institution.

We need to have much more stringent requirements for the issuing of marriage licenses. Those requirements must go far beyond making sure its a man and a woman. They also need to include whether or not the applicants are qualified to bear, support and raise a child.

There are far too many stupid people breeding as it is and, since there is no cure for stupid, we need to nip it in the bud as soon as possible ... before it gets any worse than it already is.

I agree ... Marriage may really need protection after all.

my little sister is gay wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:36 PM:I love her to death but agree marriage is best served between a man and woman. If christians hate gays so much why have they not fought against domestic partnership or gay adoption? I think this may very well just be an attack on the church and i don't think it is okay. I will vote yes on 8

bodecea wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:47 PM:#1...the US Constitution doesn't say something about a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are not rights. For example, it says nothing about procreation, but that is your right. Ever heard of the 9th and 10th amendments? Heard of Private Domain? No? Let me guess...you WANT the government telling us who we can and cannot marry. Gotcha.

#2...Could you show us the Court case where DOMA was challenged? I don't believe I've heard of it.

Jerry wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:54 PM:My religion says it's okay to have more than one wife. Oh, but the state says nay. But my forefathers looked into a magic hat, and gave me the thumbs up.

I thought we had freedom not only of, but from religion in this country.

So I put to you folks, both for and against this proposition: Why can't I have three wives?

(And please feel free to quote the Bible, but only if you allow me read passages from it about how we should treat our slaves).

jvc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:31 PM:HYPOCRITES!

BradMcM wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:14 PM:In San Francisco, children are 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, 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.

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.

Ignorance is bliss...not wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:17 PM:For all you people who dont want your kids to learn about gays, lesbians, or bisexuals, good luck! By keeping these PEOPLE from being married isnt going to stop the truth... I wont enjoy having to explain to my kids about all you CRAZY religious racist/ignorant people but it's inevitable...and the day i can judge your marriage is the day YOU can judge other peoples...there was a seperation of church and state for a reason...get a clue and stay out of the government!!! Get a life and stop trying to control the way other people live...If you want to have less gay people then straight people need to stop having them!!!

Jerry again wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:25 PM:"Homosexuals cannot have children. That's it."

Neither can an eighty year man and woman, but you wouldn't begrudge them a wedding. Is a fertility test in order for all weddings now?

Make some sense here.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:48 PM:Well, "Yes Yes Yes on 9" at 7:51PM,
don't you mean on 8?
No wedding (marriage ceremony) that I have witnessed or been a party in has made the assertion that "Marriage is a public proclamation that recognizes a man and a woman as husband and wife, ready and committed to bear children".
NOT
EVEN
ONE.
Not Catholic,
Not Jewish,
Not Methodist,
Not Episcopalian,
NONE.
Since bearing children is the crux of your "primary" argument-
Are you trying to say that infertile younger heterosexual couples and couples beyond child-bearing years should not be allowed to marry?
OOPS, infertile couples and couples beyond child-bearing ears are OK because they are heterosexual, is that it?
What two-faced baloney!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:55 PM:Well, "to the But I agree" at 7:58PM,
your statement "As for the back alley abortions, they were awful, but rare.",
the term "back alley abortions" applied and applies to any thing from coathangers to knitting needles to aseptic procedures by the local yahoo who would claim to be a doctor.
As far as being rare, you are wrong.
Hospitals did have dedicated WARDS, not just a room or two, to deal with the complications of such abortions.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:01 AM:Well, "msgalnca" at 9:14PM,
was CPS called?
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:14 AM:A quote from the 10-29-2008 Mark Morford column on sfgate (San Francisco Chronicle) regarding the possibility of Obama becoming President AND Prop 8 being tossed on its ear or rear -
"The message is this: You do not have to change your beliefs. You do not have to budge an inch on your views. You are still free to hate black people, still free to fear gay people (or demean women) all you like. It's simply that we as an Obama-led, gender-inclusive nation no longer have any real use for your brand of poison. We are done with you.
And if that's not a magnificent jolt of progress, I don't know what is."
Why did I submit this?
Because Mark Morford does not mince words.
AND
The stuff that McGWB and Prop 8 are marketing is pure, unadulterated poison for this country and its People.
Regards, Alf.

Polo wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:33 AM:Everyone continues to bring up god. Wasnt this country founded on the principle of separating church and state. Our forefathers were christians, but they smart enough to allow religious freedom. Let people practice their beliefs but protect their rights as humans. If god, allah, budda or even satan say marriage between two guys is wrong, that doesnt matter in this country, and its not a valid arguement in this issue. Gods laws and US laws are completely independent of each other.

Really wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:39 AM:Reading all the above posts are quite entertaining. The one I laughed at the most mentioned we are all are descendants of Adam and Eve. If parents still teach their children this then we have much more to worry about than 8. Vote no on 8..unless you believe the world is flat.

Polo wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:01 AM:just thought of a simple fix! this is sooo easy.

for those of you that so STRICTLY follow the bible and homosexuality is wrong, here ya go. This saturday, we will have a public stoning! Every single one of you will be stoned to death for working on a sunday. According to your very rules that you have been preaching throughout this whole issue, if you do ANY work on a sunday you must be put to death.

On friday you can sell your kids to slavery (also part of your rules) so that there will be someone to look after them since you will be put to death the next day.

dude, i love your rules. they just fix everything right up.

huh wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:35 AM:Jonathan Bullen and the yes on 8 crowd claim they do not want their children learning about homosexuality in schools, yet they USE their kids to promote their political agenda. Hypocrites. Their learning about homosexuality from YOU. And you are teaching them YOUR bigoted views. Jesus would NOT approve. Disgusting.

SAD wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:04 AM:This just makes me so sad that we can't just accept each other as humans, treat each other equal and most important separate church and state.

And it's also sad that this campaign is this heated. Just because a few people has taken signs, doesn't mean that the tire slashings are the same people. Remember innocent until proven guilty.

This is about EQUALITY plain and simple. We can't take that away from anyone.

NO ON 8.

To Yes Yes Yes on 9 751 PM wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:23 AM:Hello,

Homosexuals CAN HAVE children and the same way many heterosexuals have kids. Fertility issues require that heterosexual couples go to fertility specialists for help. (And I'm NOT talking about Invetro) They have to have a doctor implant the women. Same thing happens to a lesbian couple. Is there anything wrong with a man and woman doing this - NO. So, what's the difference. As for the gay guys, they are still able to have offspring through Invetro just like a heterosexual couple with a surrogate. Many couples use fertility specialists to conceive offspring. It is very possible to have blood offspring just like a man and woman.

So if you use that logic, then every heterosexual couple that can't have children shouldn't be married either. OUCH, that hurts.

People Never Learn wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:45 AM:To those against Prop 8: You can attack my posting all you want to. You can even attack my faith in Christ if you so choose. You can laugh, scorn, call names till you're blue in the face. It won't effect me one way or another. For it's really not me personally you attack.

Pro 8 --Or Christian Brothers/Sisters: Remember, these are indeed the end times. God's word speaks of these times throughout the Bible. Remember 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and on, especially. Also, remember Romans 1: 21-28. You know the end results. With that in mind, also remember that you being called in Christ are to love one another. Even those that are perishing. You are also called to pray.

To the Bible Thumpers: God never called true Christians to cram the bible down someone's throat, or beat them upside the head with it! You should be ashamed of yourselves. It's no wonder why many are angry. God's written word speaks for itself and is effective in touching hearts by merely speaking it's truths, or by one merely opening the book and reading it.

To those that refuse to listen to God's truth: I do indeed pray for you. I pray that your eyes be opened before it's to late. And yes, there will come a time that it will be to late. Matter of fact, if God's word wasn't true, then you wouldn't be phased one way or another by reading his word. So, with that in mind, I do challenge you to open your Bible and read it from cover to cover. You claim that it's just a book written by mere men (or as you call them, idiots). If that's the case, what are you afraid of by reading a mere book?

There will indeed come a time upon this State and our nation that will be filled with many woes. We are seeing some now. Are you ready for them? You better be! God is not slack in his promise regarding wickedness.

call me Johnson wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:00 AM:I agree with huh's observation. Driving home from work yesterday I was appalled to see a bunch of pro-8 protesters with signs at the corner of Oceanside and College Boulevards in Oceanside. The appalling part was the exploitation of their young children holding up signs protesting something the children truly couldn’t understand. Their parents have been arguing this proposition is about protecting their children from being taught about homosexuals in school (which is a flat out lie) and they are the ones teaching them about homosexuals by involving them in their argument. I was tempted to take my two very young daughters with a makeshift no on 8 sign, but that would make me a hypocrite too. I refuse to exploit my children…….

To people never learn wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:05 AM:ooga booga......

I find it hard to believe a loving god would create a cruel test where failing results in an eternity of torture and pain......

This reaffirms wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:15 AM:that I hate North County. I moved here from Ohio last May and I am shocked to see this community in the progressive state of California to be more backwards than anywhere I've lived. To all the Jesus/religion people: no one really cares about your personal religious beliefs, because this is not about you. Keep your religious views to yourself because no one cares and you can't base an argument on something that is based on your own personal faith, because that isn't a source of validity. Have you noticed that there are other religions out there? that there are other lifestyles?

There is one obvious case here for why to vote NO ON 8: NO ONE holds the right to limit what other people can do with their lives. Just because you think that marriage is defined as a man and woman union, doesn't mean that your belief holds true for others or that they should be forced to feel the same way as you. Two "boys holding hands in a mock wedding" big deal? Worried that your son is gay? Why do you care? Would you love him any less? Does his lifestyle have to change your relationship with him? Let people be people-While I'm disgusted by people who force their beliefs on other people like these yes on 8 folks-I believe you have the right to be who you are and live a happy life, and everyone deserves that.

I hope people do learn wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:39 AM:People Never Learn at 8:45 a.m. brings up several good points. Opponents of Prop 8 shouldn't attack Christianity or Christians, because Christians are not exactly the same people as Prop 8 supporters. The ones pushing Prop 8 are Christianists, Christians who misinterpret the Bible as commanding them to force its teachings on everyone.

To ooga booga 905 wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:47 AM:You show how little you know about what God wants. I suppose you think; God wants men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women; and that sounds right to you? Yup, you're pretty ignorant of what God wants.

Honesty wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:49 AM:Please, those of you who oppose Prop 8, explain to me why supporting Prop 8 makes one an automatic bigot when Barak Obama himself has gone on the record saying that he does not support gay marriage, and thinks that civil unions are sufficient (March 2 Ohio rally)? Certainly you don't think he is a bigot? I believe the same thing Obama believes. How does that make me a bigot?

Jake wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:57 AM:What is funny, how all these people are haters. What is funny, and I am letting all you married women know something, when your husbands claim they are going to the gym, word of the wise, they are most likely prowling the saunas or book stores to pick up other men.

Thank God wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:24 AM:this is America and I can vote how I want. YES ON 8!!! Now get over it and get back to work!

JB wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:32 AM:I too wondered how the Yes on 8 supporters explain to their children the reason for standing on the street corner waving signs. Seems to me the explanation would have to involve some discussion of same-sex marriage which is what I thought they were trying to avoid.

lisa g wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:35 AM:Johnson --
I agree with you - wholeheartedly - about the exploitation of children in the campaigning on this issue. I've seen a few kids holding up no on 8 signs, but far more holding up the 'yes' signs. I don't know if parents think that's persuasive? It's just sad. I don't need a 6 year old to campaign for a proposition I believe in but one in which he couldn't possibly have a fully realized opinion.

And what IF kids learn about homosexuality in school (or evolution, or creationism, or heterosexuality, or abstinence, or....)? It's not as if parents can't provide context, commentary and additional information... and that's coming from a yes on 8er. We shelter our kids WAY too much from alternative points of view from our own, missing teachable moments and opportunities for dialogue.

That's a bit off point... sorry about that.

Al wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:45 AM:I am going to Vote NO on 8. All those Jesus freaks out there want to point fingers at people but I thought God loves everybody. I know a lot of gay men and women who are nice people, some in Marine Corp, some in the public safety field, teachers, doctors, lawyers etc....I think those who are haters need to get educated, not every gay man or women use the term "devine" and kids these days are learning more stuff in grade school then you think.

bodecea wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:50 AM:To "People Never Learn"

Very nice, but what does that have to do with CIVIL law and (believe it or not) the millions of Californians who do not believe as you do? Are you intent on restricting THEIR rights to marry too?

Supporters everywhere wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:54 AM:I have seen SO MANY Pro-8 supporters the last week, on corners on nearly every major intersection in a few towns.

I think the writing is on the wall, Prop-8 should pass easily.

blm wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:03 AM:With 8 passed, our children will be protected (from learning about homosexual behavior), our traditional marriages will be restored (no more divorce, or single parent households, or infertile couples), and we'll have prevented a minority of committed people from inheriting their loved one's estate, visiting them in the hospital, sharing their health insurance or celebrating their Love with friends and family. I'm glad I have the comfort of an inflexible definition of how God says it should be...

Greg wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:09 AM:To: This Reaffirms: Perfect blog, you nailed and I totally agree with you.

ooga booga wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:41 AM:To comment at 9:47 am. How dare you call me ignorant! I consider myself open mined. Your position for proposition 8 shows how narrow minded you are. You think I haven't been raised with religion in my life. I'll bet you commit sins that are worse than man lying with man. Go back and put your head back in the sand!

call me Johnson wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:48 AM:To to ooga booga 905,

I think you're missing the point. Religious point of view is irrelevant. This is about people’s freedoms and rights that are protected by the Constitution. What harm is it to you if someone commits a sin in God’s eye if it doesn’t affect you? Doesn’t God make final judgment, not you? Oh, and don’t bring in the teaching homosexuality to kids in school, because this proposition does no such thing. Try to be a little more compassionate and open minded for once……

call me Johnson wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:51 AM:To supporters everywhere 1054,

So, does that make it constitutional? If you're talking about changing our rights by leaving out a minority, you're climbing a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for......

BA wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:20 PM:Oh give me a break about this "I don't want to expose my children." It's not a disease. My nephew has known about me being gay and has known my boyfriend since he was 3 and has no problem with it. He even likes girls...see it's not contagious. He's open to his friends about it and nor do they have a problem. Please step out of the stone age and realize we are every bit as normal and human as you are and deserve the same rights.

To Supporters Everywhere wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:24 PM:I agree, it passed easy the first time we voted on it and it will pass again. Sorry ACLU!

Melissa wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:37 PM:Did you read the article? The same amount of money was raised on both sides. And I guarantee you the Christians are giving money to charities that support the less fortunate.
Have you forgotten how the No on 8 folks boycotted a hotel in San Diego because the owner donated money to the opposition? Or that they picketed a Ford dealership for the owners donation also?
Last week there was a news article that spoke about a Gay and Straight Alliance group in our local schools for 6th-8th graders and they celebrated National Coming out Day.
What is that? Being homosexual should not be a political agenda allowed to overide the votes of millions of Californians.
There is hate on both sides. Don't act so naive.

call me Johnson wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:16 PM:To “to supporters everywhere 1224”,

What's with the lynch mob mentality? Where don't you understand protection of one's rights? It doesn’t take a majority to uphold constitutional rights. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances. One state can’t decide to begin slavery again if the majority wanted it, could they? If this proposition passes, it will make its way to the US Supreme Court where it will be defeated on grounds that it discriminates.

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:44 PM:Well, "To ooga booga 905" at 9:47AM,
have you ever heard of FREE WILL?
You say God wants us to do this and God wants us to do that, why then did He supposedly bestow upon us mortals this thing called FREE WILL if we must do as He says, no questions asked???
You make less sense than the usual.
Regards, Alf

First stone wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:50 PM:I hate people who hate people who hate people who hate people. Does that make me for or against Prop 8?

to justanother wrote on Oct 29, 2008 1:50 PM:We're all glad here that you didn't follow your friend and sort of wish that you'd just allow him to visit you from now on!

bodecea wrote on Oct 29, 2008 2:01 PM:To "To Supporters Everywhere"...

Seems to me that even with millions of out of state dollars being poured in to California to provide lying ads, "Yes on Segregation" still might not pass...and if it does, just barely. So...what happened to that 61% from several years ago?

Maybe people don't buy your Gay Boogeyman argument anymore....maybe they are growing up, just like we all grew up about rights for women and rights for other minorities.

Face it, Segregationists, you are on the WRONG side of History. Your children will remember how you dragged them out there and made them do hateful things against their fellow Americans. Do you think they will thank you?

The tribes are out there wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:19 PM:The Christian tribe, the Muslim tribe, the Buddhist tribe, the pagan tribe, the Hindu tribe, the Native American tribe, the gay tribe, the Druid tribe, the Witch tribe, etc, etc. Now which one is the one to decide who marries whom. If you argue for any of these tribes, you are the same as the ones throughout history who have enslaved, murdered, raped, pillaged, and subugated others with their beliefs. You are no different than Stalin, Mao, or any of the other popes and religious leaders who have forced their dogma on others. Good to know who you are so we cn avoid you.

LJ wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:34 PM:Anyone know one of the main reasons the Roman Empire fell.

Homosexuality.

Let's not repeat history.

Yes on Prop 8!

to Alf 144pm wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:57 PM:God gave us free will because He is not a dictator. Yes, he wants us to do as He says but He doe not demand it. It is up to each individual to decide if s\he wants to live their life according to God's plan or to turn their back on God and live as they choose.

No on 8 people are hypocrites wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:59 PM:They are against kids holding up Yes on 8 signs but when you see kids holding up Obama signs or No on 8 signs or some other liberal group they are like "wow those kids are cool to get involved"

aDAMANT wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:34 PM:TO BOB: We need to protect society. Marriage between a Man and a Woman is what our society is built on. Not to mention that homosexuality is a unorthodox behavior. It's not normal.

to No on 8 people are hypocrites wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:45 PM:Didn't you know? The elitists are smarter than you. What they believe and do is inherently cool simply because they believe and do it.

to bodecea wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:55 PM:As expected, the indoctrination is working. The denial about this by the no on 8 people is proven wrong already. That's why it need to be shut down now.

And as for the 9th, yet another decision that they will have overturned.

JSten wrote on Oct 29, 2008 5:09 PM:OK that was fun. Shall we vote now?

I move that we call for the question.

Any Seconds?

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 5:55 PM:Well, "aDAMANT" at 4:34PM,
Unorthodox.
Not normal.
These are the reasons that you offer to deny homosexuals equal protection??
These are the reasons that you offer to use the color of law to discriminate against homosexuals??
I have a relative who is a paranoid schizophrenic, should she be denied any of her Constitutional rights because paranoid schizophrenia is unorthodox and not normal unless she presents a real and present danger to herself or others?
Not on your life.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 6:08 PM:Well, "to Alf 144pm" at 3:57PM,
thank you for saying "He is not a dictator".
If He is not a dictator, what makes you or anyone else believe that you can or should pass a dictatorial proposition?
Face it, Prop 8 dictates that homosexual people can not have a valid or recognized marriage in California although they can have a second or third rate "Domestic Partnership" or "civil union" that will not be recognized on most other states, in other words, useless.
Again, if God is not a dictator, what gives the yes on 8 people to be dictatorial?
At least you will discuss things in a civil manner and, although we may wind up agreeing to disagree, it is appreciated.
Thank you.
Regards, Alf.

Appalled wrote on Oct 29, 2008 6:16 PM:What is truly appalling and down right disgusting is the Yes on 8 signs say 'Protect our Children' with kids holding the signs... Exploiting your child by using them as a political weapon is sickening. Not to mention that children COULD be protected by sending the millions raised to feed starving kids right IN THIS COUNTRY!!!

So disgusted with these people...

Alf wrote on Oct 29, 2008 6:24 PM:A minor correction to my 6:08PM post-
the 5th to last sentence should be
"Again, if God is not a dictator, what gives the yes on 8 people the right to be dictatorial?"
I apologize for the omission of a pertinent word.
Regards, Alf.

Who cares wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:34 PM:North SD COunty has less than 5 percent of the states population. They will not make an impact on 8. They are hypocritical, racist and self centered. It is unfortunate they could not have their children learn about tolerance, separation of church and state and help people in need. Instead they put them on a street corner to shout hate. What a messed up area you all live in.

Interesting wrote on Oct 30, 2008 9:02 AM:It's interesting that so many are appalled that No. County contributed over a million dollars to 'yes on 8' stating it could have gone to better causes.

Why are not those same people appalled over the California Teacher's Association 1.25 million donation to 'no on 8'? Considering the condition that our schools are in, wouldn't that 1.25 mil. have been better put to use in our schools? I thought this had NOTHING to do with schools or education!! You have GOT to be joking if you think this will not come into our schools.

To all of you threatening to leave North County...happy trails to you...

Oh, and I'm not catholic, methodist, or any of the others. I just have common sense and I'M VOTING YES ON 8.

Stay out of MY lane wrote on Oct 30, 2008 10:37 AM:Yesterday while leaving UTC, I signaled to get in the right lane to allow plenty of time to enter the 805 south, but an attractive blond 40ish woman in an SUV wouldn't let me over. I slowed down to get behind her, she slowed down to keep me out! I'm not kidding, it was as if to say, "now that I'm here, you can't get in my lane!"

As she turned, the last thing I saw was her bright yellow "YES on PROP 8" bumper sticker.

But Stay out of MY lane wrote on Oct 30, 2008 12:25 PM:True or not, that's the selfish attitude which is the hallmark of the yes on 8 people.
Vote No on 8.

No on 8 wrote on Oct 30, 2008 2:23 PM:We win!

To But Stay out of MY lane wrote on Oct 30, 2008 2:57 PM:It is absolutely TRUE, that is exactly what happened. I suppose it I ordinarily would have been angry, but the attitude was so metaphorical for the mentality of Prop 8, I just had to laugh.