Tyler wrote on Nov 1, 2008 11:16 PM:I saw a group of "Yes on 8" in Escondido using thier kids as political tools. Some of them had signs that said Prop 8 equalled free speech and freedom of religion.

OK, but the Constitution already guarantees both, and if anyone on the "Yes" side did his or her homework, the part where the court ruled that churches could not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages must have been missed.

Also, the ad saying that 96% of California school require the teaching of marriage is a distortion of the truth. Again, school districts draft what is taught, the state only mandates what the outcome is, not the means to reach it.

However, I am happy to see faith leaders in San Diego come together to show that God-- the Christian God-- accepts and loves everyone, regardless of sex, color, race, or sexual orientation.

The "Yes on 8" crowd needs to re-evaluate the teachings of Christ before they try to discriminate against a group of people in His name.

Teacher wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:26 AM:We will enjoy indoctrinating your kids about the gay lifestyle, "Whether ya like it or not!"

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:06 AM:Well, "Tyler" at 11:16PM,
just in case you hadn't noticed,
the "yes on 8" crowd picks and chooses whichever passage or passages from whichever Testament depending on what suits their purpose at the time.
Meanwhile the "no on 8" crowd remains consistant in their choices and arguments.
I argue two primary things -
1) Religion or religious beliefs are not and should not be the basis for civil law and/or Constitutional Amendments.
2) Since it is the state that issues marriage licenses and since the California Constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, even as an Amendment prop 8 is un-Constitutional and must be overturned when challenged in court.
Do not discriminate,
Vote NO on Prop. 8.
Regards, Alf.

JSten wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:06 AM:I thought there was only one god.

Now there is a Christian god?

Is there also a Jewish god? A Muslim god?

I am confused.

lady wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:14 AM:VOTING YES on 8 LEAVE our schools ALONE!!! This is no place for "some of you" to teach,voice ,push your thoughts,feelings on KIDS!!!

INfidel wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:43 AM:Tyler,

God does love everyone however he is also just and merciful that is why he says love the sinner hate the sin. He can not be divided amongst himself. Those that say he condones homosexual conduct do just that they put their opinions above his. Men were born men and women were born women. Put them together and in time they will cease to be. It's called nature!

Unless you have another way. I am all ears.

Brad wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:21 AM:You actually expect people to do homework before they vote... or even think for a second?

How preposterous! lol

Pluto wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:26 AM:Tyler's comment is right on. The "Yes on H8" crowd should consider that Jesus never said a word against homosexuality, and it's not one of the 128 "thou shalt nots" in Exodus 20-23 (why are they so obsessed with the first ten?) Jesus clearly spoke against divorce. Interesting how they pick and choose. They are so terribly misguided.

slanted wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:34 AM:Last week the Californian ran a picture of a group of "Yes on 8" supporters gathered at the temecula duck pond. The following day 3 times as many "No on 8" supporters were at the same corner... no story, no photo. I think we can now see how the Californian can and does sway opinion. This is a printed infomercial for their own causes.

Pluto wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:48 AM:Exodus 20-23 and other passages clearly command stoning for adultery. Why doesn't the "yes on H8" crowd enforce this command, because we are enlightened? Why are they enlightened on some things and not others? Either every word of the Bible is the word of God or it's not.

My theory, of course, is that so-called "Christian Conservatives" cherry-pick the passages that fit their own ignorance and prejudice (homosexuality) and ignore those that are inconvenient (no divorce, stoning for adultery, thou shalt not kill Iraqis).

AtheisticallyYours wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:12 AM:NO ON 8! So the polygamsists can be next! Then people will see how incredibly STUPID IT IS to have any level of government "recognize" a private, EMOTIONAL CONTRACT between consenting adults! Gay, straight, bi-sexual, polyamorous! Use some reverse psychology and VOTE NO ON 8!

To Pluto and teacher wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:20 AM:Jesus warned me that I would be persecuted for my belief, but he also told me I would have eternal life for being faithful to him.

You can attack Christians all day long, you can try to justify your sinful ways and thoughts anyway you want.

At the end of the day, those of us that are faithful to Christ , who have taken him into our hearts and acknowledge he is the savior and son of GOD. Will be the ones who will have eternal life.

You can choose your sinful ways or you can follow God's law , not man's law.

Christian's will still love our Gay brothers and sisters, we will just pray harder that they stray from the sin.

Peace, GOd bless and stop attacking Conservative Christian, God doesn't dig that and he will remember your unkind attacks on his children. That is a promise.

Yes on 8 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:23 AM:Myself and a huge Majority will be voting Yes on 8. No campaign can spend 10 times what we are , but you will not change they opinion of the masses.

You have already lost!!!!!!

RD wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:24 AM:The breakdown of Family and Marriage is just another tool SATAN uses against us, REMEMBER that!

Yes on 8, its not to late

But Pluto wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:31 AM:Didn't you hear?
God told Bush to invade Iraq!
Bush said so and Bush never lies!
And I believe in the tooth fairy!

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:38 AM:Well, "RD" at 8:24AM,
adultery and divorce are rampant among heterosexual marriages as witnessed by a current 50 percent failure rate.
Your fear, used against you by religion is all you have, hot any rational reason.
Vote not to discriminate!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

disturbed wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:43 AM:I cant believe that this proposition is so divisive! A yes on 8 is a vote for seperatism, segregation, bigotry. Get with it, folks. I dont remember ever having a class on 'marriage' in grade school or highschool. THat whole argument is b.s.

True Christian wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:05 AM:I remember four decades ago when well-meaning but misguided Christian friends used the same arguments to argue that blacks and whites should remain "separate but equal." Most of those people are now ashamed of themselves for twisting God's words and God's love in such a way.

One day, you will feel the same way about this issue. This is about civil rights, equality, and curbing hate.

I hope you realize this in this life, and not on your day of judgement.

True Christians vote No on 8.

Stop flasunting gasy pride parades in our face wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:07 AM:Is is that reason I urge a vote yes on 8!

Voter wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:13 AM:Teacher, who would enjoy teaching kids about same sex marriage? What will you say, when a child asks you how two men make babies? It is not a natural method of conception is it. It is a question that you will put into the minds of children that should be focused on education not fornication.

To Yes wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:17 AM:Polls are showing No in the lead...which goes to show that you can throw all the money you want at it, logic will prevail. Why can Christians persecute, but get martyred the other way around? You will still have to "pray" for your gay brother sand sisters...YES will not make them go back in the closet.

Honestly...... wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:24 AM:I am so sick of the gay agenda being shoved down my throat, I am voting YES. Plain and simple!!!

How Pathetic wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:25 AM:I have seen the teachers UNIONS use kids at school board meeting, city counsel meeting. Thur. I saw a group of kids protesting outside of the school on Oceanside Blv. and El Camino with NO on Prop. 8. I wonder why these kids were not in school and if their parents knew they were out there holding signs for the TEACHERS UNIONS instead of learning in school.

How Pathetic the Vista Unified School District TEACHERS UNIONS uses these kids to retain control of their political empire. Their presence at these meetings is counted as school credit.

A lot of anti Prop. 8 thugs are vandalizing with graffiti or stealing hundreds of Prop. 8 signs.

For a group that wants freedom they are acting like nazi's.

Todd wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:28 AM:Is it 1/20/09 yet? Count me as a YES!!!
Best part is, I don't have to justify my vote to anyone, but myself!!!

STRAIGHT TEACHER GAL wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:32 AM:The teachers union spent a million bucks plus hoping to win a no on # 8 and indoctrinate our kids on the benefits preversity.

Tyler wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:33 AM:Alf, I am voting No on Tuesday, as well as my wife.

Secondly, I saw at least two references to "hate the sin, not the sinner." What credible evidence do you have to substantiate that homosexuality is a choice? And spare me the Bible verses, I've heard it all before.

I've never been able to understand how people who believe in a guy who taught love, compassion, and generosity can think that allowing discrimination into our state constitution is a compassionate, loving, and generous act.

Racial segregation was wrong wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:35 AM:Because race is not a lifestyle. You can't choose race.

Wow wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:09 AM:look at the numbers 400 people show up to fight against prop 8.....20,000 show up in support of prop 8. Wow!!! that's impressive.

Shameful Warfare wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:12 AM:Prop 8 says nothing about teaching, let alone indoctrination, of children. That is a red herring.

Prop 8 support calls the Yes on 8 movement "WARFARE"—Jesus would be appalled at this fear and anger against God's children—our gay brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.

As a PEACEFUL Christian, I voted NO on 8

Throughout history, some have wished to take away rights from others with whom they hold personal animosity: other religions, women, and other races. They hide behind the Bible and the flag, to make themselves feel good about hurting their fellow man.

Prop 8 is the latest in this shameful history.

To Yes wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:13 AM:where are you getting you numbers? All the polls are showing yes on 8 in the lead. Again, those against 8 are misleading the public.....again.

To Racial segregation was wrong wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:16 AM:You can't choose sexual orientation, either. Did you?

Were you equally attracted to both sexes? Did you ever say to yourself, "I choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?"

OK OK OK wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:20 AM:Let's legalize all other kinds of marriage as well as homosexual marriage!

Why is it OK for government to say that homosexual marriage is OK but polygemy is not? Why is it OK for government to say homosexual marriage is OK but marriage between a brother and sister is not? Why is it OK for all of you to pass judgement on those kind of marriages but tell the people that believe that marriage equals one man and one womam is wrong and that it is all about religion?

This campaign in the big scheme of things is not about rights, it is about preserving the morals that this country were established on. All of you should wake up, it is only the campaign for No on 8 that have made this abotu some imagined lost rights.

Please wake up and see that this is a political campaign to errode this country not a campaign about rights.

The Teachers Union Supports No on Prop 8 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:26 AM:The California Teachers Union supports no on 8, because they know they will have to hire a bunch of new teachers to teach the new agenda.

I usued to think this was a joke, but now 1.3 million Dollars later for something that is not supposed to be in the classrooms, I am not so sure.

I voted YES, and I do not feel guilty about it.

Choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:33 AM:To Tyler,

Two things:
1) We know for sure that homosexuality is not genetic/determined because of the various identical twin studies where you have one homosexual twin and one heterosexual twin. That is not to say that homosexuality is a choice on the level of choosing what color shirt to wear in the morning. There is certainly both genetic predisposition and environmental factors that factor in to whether someone "is" a homosexual or not.
2) Even if homosexuality was completely genetic (no choice), it doesn't follow that homosexuality is therefore normal, moral, etc. That would be committing a logical fallacy called the is/ought fallacy. If one goes this direction, then you end up proving too much: you have to justify any behavior that someone doesn't have a "choice" in, whatever it may be (e.g. violent behavior, drug use, rape, "gay bashing" etc.).

So, when we approach this issue, we ought not go this direction.

Behavior is a choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:45 AM:I don't think that the talk about whether homosexuality is a choice or not is terribly helpful.

What does seem to be helpful is discussion about what types of behaviors ought to be encouraged in our culture.

Behaviors, as we know, are always the result of choice. As a culture, we discourage many behaviors even though people have desires to act out in those ways. Here are many examples: assault, adultery, stealing, slander, rape, sex with children, marriage to a family member, marriage to multiple partners, driving on the left side of the road, etc. Discouragement of those behaviors is not the result of hate or intolerance, it is the result of a desire for what is best for society.

So, if those who are arguing for Yes on 8 are arguing to pass the proposition because it is best for society, then their position is not about immoral discrimination, hate, judgment, intolerance, etc. It is only about what is best for society. They may be wrong in their understanding of what is best about society and that can be argued about. But please stop calling them names- instead, please offer some good arguments.

What you forget is wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:05 AM:We (homosexuals) CAN get married right now. This isn't a proposition of whether or not you would allow same-sex marriage, this is about STEALING marriages that ALREADY exist. We're not fighting TO get married, we're fighting to KEEP our marriages. If Prop 8 passes I can't wait to see who's marriages these people Steal next.

I hope. wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:07 AM:Yes on prop 8 = uneducated bigoted / racist fools. I hope the fool’s children get smarter than their parents are. Vote NO on 8. For mankind’s sake..!

Grump wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:10 AM:I agree with Honestly (9:24 AM). Who cares if Melvan loves Steve, just don't try to make the rest of us accept it as being normal. And what is with the churches in this article supporting gay marriege? I bet their God is pleased with that...another reason why I think religon is a joke.

Infidel wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:24 AM:Tyler,

Here is the evidence you requested. Three islands, one for all men, the second for all women and the third for men and women. The object while on the islands is to create off spring.

Who will win? Your turn!

TO I hope. 1107 AM wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:25 AM:I am voting Yes and I have an M.A. I guess I am not that uneducated. This has nothing to do with race, it has to do with marriage. How can I be a racist if I don’t want two people of the same sex to get married? LOL – you are funny!

Great debate wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:27 AM:Although I am not a fan of gay marriage I am still voting No on Prop 8. In my family. . .including my wife, most want to hang on to the tradtional values of marriage we were raised with. ..and voted Yes on Eight. . .but as the debate rages.. .it looks like time to adjust our way of thinking for all people. . .not just the white, pseudo religious who relish sanctimony.

Times have certainly changed and so has the interpretation of religious mantra and the mandate to separate church and state as the Constitution demands.

Prop 8 again, looks like a last gasp from those that choose to influence everyone's personal choices by outdated religious controls.

Religious freedom comes in many forms and in twenty years the next generation will not care how marriage or civic union is defined.

If churches continue to use religion to influence our Constitution, however, it may be time to recind their tax-exempt status.

Tyler wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:46 PM:To "Infidel,"


The problem with your statement is that you didn't explain how homosexuality is a choice: you only illustrated natural selection. While I may agree with your Darwinian example, you still did not answer the choice part.

But you got me thinking: because my wife and I refuse to have children, should our marriage be nullified or down-graded to a civil union?

To "Choice,"

Where did you find the information for your first point? I'm not trying to bait you or anything, just curious to read up on it.

Steve wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:54 PM:I don't like anyone bringing the bible into this 'cos the practice of slavery is nowhere condemned in the bible, and that is far more immoral to allow people to be beat into submission by their masters, and worked to death in the mines and fields with no legal rights. Ephesians, chapter 6 verse 5 says; "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, single mindedley, as serving Christ". When gays are mentioned in the same breath as rapists and murderes.

neffyh wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:59 PM:For those idiot who think God doesnt like homosexuals. Why do we do such things if he forbids them, Even though i hate dr laura, these is a good letter

Dear Dr.

Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.

Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.

In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.



Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.

Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.

Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.

Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.

Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27.

How should they die?

I know from Lev.

11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.

20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:23 PM:Well, "Tyler" at 9:33AM,
we, Mrs. Alf and I, will also be voting NO on Prop. 8.
I do not label homosexuals as sinners because love is not a sin.
Actually, I use the word "sin" only as a reference to the "yes on 8" folks.
The only crime involved here would be if 8 passes, then there would be the crime of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Regards, Alf.

But Behavior is a choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:31 PM:Please illuminate everyone when it was that you made a choice about the gender to which you are physically attracted.
What date? At what age did you make the choice? You can't have it both ways. You can't declare homosexuality to be a choice without also declaring heterosexuality a choice. If sexual orientation is a choice, when did you make your choice?

Got Rational Thought wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:42 PM:The above bloggers may want to read the analysis by Scott Harris in today's Perspective section. It may be one of Scott's best articles ... He brings up so many cogent points about Prop 8 that demand a response from those who blindly follow every word in the Bible . . . something even Huckabee and Romney refused to do but apparently escape some bloggers, though.

Times have certainly changed and so has the interpretation of religious mantra and the mandate to separate church and state as the Constitution demands.

Prop 8 again, looks like a last gasp from those that choose to influence everyone's personal choices by outdated religious controls.

Religious freedom comes in many forms and the next generation will not care how marriage or civic union is defined.

If churches continue to use religion to influence our Constitution, however, it may be time to recind their tax-exempt status.

Yeah right wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:54 PM:For those of you who actually believe that schools will be advocating same sex marriage in their classrooms. . . get real. It's time for you to visit a school and see the curriculum for yourselves.

Scare tactics made by the sanctimonious "not on my watch" right wingers have been spun throughout this election. . . . and just because someone says it . . .does not make it true.

This election will be close but Prop 8 will go down to defeat in spite of all of the lies and fear tactics.

why do gays flaunt it wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:00 PM:If they woud just keep it to themselves there woud be less upset people. But no its "I'm gay so I shoud have this and this" etc. Or, "Im gay so lets grope eazch other in public and call it pride"

To Honestly...... wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:01 PM:I'm sick of having the God agenda shoved down my throat.

Already voted NO on 8!

Maybe being gay isnt a choice but.... wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:02 PM:It's still immoral. The parts dont fit. Disease is spread more too along with anal injuries.

CAVEL wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:09 PM:Gays and lesbians would be denied first-class citizenship by Proposition 8. I quote from the decision of the California Supreme Court dated 5-15-08 "In Re Marriage Cases.": "Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and
discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a
distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships
whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will
cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to
be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass
citizenship." Exactly. Be fair, be just and vote NO on Prop 8!!

To Steve wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:09 PM:Since you brought up Ephesians, let me add the ending of that section: "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Paul isn't giving an endorsement to slavery or servants. He is simply giving commands to those who are already either masters or slaves. He makes is pretty clear that they are equals.

BTW, I could also quote verses that condemn the harsh type of slavery that was practiced over the last few centuries, but that is way off topic for this blog. They're there if you care to look.

I fear for thenext generation wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:12 PM:They are being taught that Christianity is evil, morals are evil, that separation of church state is in the Constitution (its not, the 1st Amendment says no such thing), and that if a woman gets pregnant she can just expel a living being from her body like an inconvenience. Jesus said in the last days evil would be called good and good evil. Looks like He is right.

Its simple wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:16 PM:The "Yes on 8" folks are just a bunch of perverts who want to be involved with what's happening in everyone's bedrooms and personal life.

freedom is the key wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:19 PM:The next step is putting Churches out of business if they don't fully buy into the Gay agenda. Marry us or we go into court. LOL.

To Neffy wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:35 PM:funny how you pick your phrases out of the bible with out counter phrasing them with the correct phrases. If you thinkg that bashing the bible and showing your hate for God makes you a happier person then by all means do so. Everyone just think about this for a minute. If man and a man married and a woman and a woman marry, procreation will cease. Yes, it will take centuries, but the stupid side of the human race is going to wipe out the human race. Just like the book of Revelations tells us...this non-sense of same sex marriage shouldn't surpirse anyone. My child who is under the age of 10 has already come home asking me questions about 8. A child in the classroom is announcing that his 2 mom's are getting married. Wow, tell me this isn't affecting our kids already. Prop 8 must pass!!! It's already in our school.

CAVEL wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:40 PM:This morning a flier was on my doorknob urging a Yes vote on Prop 8. It says that a Yes vote "Protects children from being taught about gay marriage in school." and that it "Restores traditional marriage." Such baloney. Prop 8 says NOTHING about teaching anything to anybody. At the bottom of the flier it says, "Major funding by Knights of Columbus..." Knights of Columbus is a mouthpiece for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholic Bishops are the same guys who have protected pedophile priests and who went to great lengths to hide and conceal their conduct from the proper authorities and public view. Cardinal Law was removed as Archbishop of Boston for his complicity in the scandals that have almost bankrupted that archdiocese. Many other bishops have been removed for the same reasons but only after public outrage reached a boiling point and the Pope had no other choice. It would be better if the Catholic Church taught children to be aware of inapproriate conduct by adults and to report that than to teach them hatred and bigotry against gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage.

warning wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:03 PM:"Yeah right" claims that schools won't be advocating same sex marriage in the classroom. That surprises me because as I looked at my kindergartener's homework handouts for the week, the bottom was clearly labeled "family unit". The stories we read include phrases like "I see daddy", "I see mommy"... So will it now read "I see mommy 1", "I see mommy 2"? By redefining marriage to include homosexual couples, you are changing everything. My aunt who is a teacher has explained that this will mean the inclusion of all types of books (like "King and King") into the classroom. It will be required if Prop. 8 proponents aren't able to restore traditional marriage from what the 4 judges ruled earlier this year.

Although other areas of the state wait to see how Prop. 8 pans out, there are those in the Bay Area who aren't being shy at all about implementing this new marriage mindset. How do you explain the busload of 5 and 6 year-olds who went on a field trip to their lesbian teacher's wedding (and on school time nonetheless)? Or how about the elementary school in Hayward California that had "gay day" a week and a half ago. Even the kindergarten kids had to sign pro-gay pledges. There was no parental notification etc. either. Wake up! This is the reality of where this is going. For all those who feel like kids are being manipulated, feeding this stuff to our kids is the ultimate manipulation. It's a parent's job to teach their kids and we should have the right to know in advance what they are being taught and have a say.

Finally, my middle schooler was sick the other day and I was called to pick her up. I find in ironic that the nurse could not give her Tylenol but the school will be teaching her all about the homosexual lifestyle. That same nurse who can't give my kid an over the counter med will, if prop 4 fails, be able to arrange for a pregnant middle schooler to get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent. This is the kind of world we are evolving into. Darwin himself would be scared by what we've become.

Please vote YES on 8!

If If Homosexuality is a Choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:03 PM:In order for it to be a choice, we all make the choice. If we all make the choice, we must all be equally attracted to both sexes (otherwise, it isn't a choice). So, were all of you who claim it's a "choice" equally attracted to your own sex? And when did you "choose" to go with the opposite sex? Did you then stop feeling attraction to your own sex? Or do you just suppress it?
Please explain.

Mormons on the Corner wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:13 PM:Why are the Mormons trying to hide that they are behind Prop 8? It makes you wonder what their true agenda is. Is this a test to see if they can play with the state consititution? There was a mormon bishop leading the pro H8 demonstration at College and Oceanside blvds.

pigme wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:16 PM:i am straight and have gay friends and relations.
All of them are hard working taxpayers and good people.
If they want to marry, then so be it.
i hope gays will come to California and wedd, it would be good for the economy.

Saying so, if prop 8 is voted in you can thank that loud mouth mayor of San Francisco!

Threats wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:36 PM:There are actually threats on here toward anyone who is not a "Christian?" If I accepted Jesus into my heart decades ago, but I'm still voting no on 8, does that mean I've fallen out of "His" graces and am damned to a life without eternity? Why is it that Christians are the most intolerant and judgmental among us? Isn't one of the mantras to "hate the sin but love the sinner?" Actions speak louder than words.

While I was raised to acecpt Jesus into my heart, I was also taught that we're all the same, have the same rights, and that God does not discriminate. And above all else, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

People are so afraid of children hearing anything about gay marriage - I'm guessing for fear that it might "make them gay." Do you know how much the "Yes on 8" people have done to get the topic of "gay marriage" out there? Congratulations.

Keep religion out of the public sector, please! Vote NO on H8.

To neffyh wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:41 PM:I sure would like to hear some type of response to your letter from the prop 8 supporters besides the sound of crickets.

Like Billy Graham wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:42 PM:has said,"Someday God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorah when it comes to America." We live in a country that sends a student home for dressing up as Jesus for halloween because he was causing too much of a disruption. And want to even consider that men marrying men and women marrying women and teaching our children this is right just because the 2 love each other is an abomination to God.

To But Behavior is a Choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:52 PM:Please reread my post above. You are responding to claims I didn't make.

Let me be clear: there is a difference between the attractions/desires one has and the behaviors one chooses to take. I was focusing in on the behaviors that are a choice of the will, not attractions/desires.

However, I would say that homosexuals do not choose the attractions/desires that they have. I believe that their homosexual attractions are the result of both nature and nurture factors. But, I do not believe that they should act on those impulses because that would be immoral, unnatural and not good for the society. This is the exact same approach I take to those who have impulses to have sexual relations with children (note: I am not saying that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same people, this is only an illustration to help you understand). I am not saying anything about the value of the person who holds these desires; I am only saying that acting out on these desires is wrong.

There is nothing racist, hateful, etc. about my position. If you think I am racist/hateful toward homosexuals, then you have to also argue that I am racist/hateful toward pedophiles, those who practice polygamy, those who assault people, those who steal, etc.

Hate or Love wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:59 PM:If it is apparently hateful for me to vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman, why do I have feelings of brotherly love for my homosexual coworkers and friends? Or is it possible (gasp) that I have thought through the issue and have good philosophical and ethical reasons for my vote while still maintaining that all humans are equally valuable?

Or for those who are opposing prop 8, is this too difficult a concept for you to understand? Because, as it appears in your postings and attitudes toward the Yes on 8 folks, disagreement with a fellow human being means that you also hate them and desire harm done to them.

To Cavel wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:00 PM:One correction: The term "marriage" would not ONLY be denied to same-sex couples. It would also be denied to men marrying multiple women, women marrying multiple men, men or women marrying children, etc.

TO To Honestly...... 201 PM wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:06 PM:Yeah, but if Muslims want something they get it. You libs just hate Christians. Muslims can pray in school, but Christians can't.

Identical Twin Studies wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:20 PM:Re the "Choice" post above and my citation of Twin Studies.

Here is some info I lifted from a 2005 Boston Globe article talking about where homosexuality comes from.

"[In 1991,] Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference."

In summary, because 100% of identical twins are not both homosexual, it is proven that homosexuality is not 100% genetic. That is very clear. From the research, it appears that homosexuality results from both genetic predisposition and environment (e.g. whether a father is present in the home, sexual abuse, other factors).

So, homosexuality is most likely neither "not a choice" nor "a choice"- it is something in between. So, we need to be looking beyond this issue of choice because it is neither morally relevant to the discussion (we don't want to commit the is/ought fallacy) or even informative.

Reality check wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:20 PM:According to the "No on 8" ads, California Teachers spent over $1,000,000 opposing Prop. 8. How can one possibly say this will not affect the school system. Of course it will. It will all come under the guise of teaching tolerance.

The CTA also spent $450,000 opposing Prop. 4. Funny how the opponents to Prop. 8, say "mind your own business and stay out of our bedrooms" yet see nothing wrong with telling other people's children it's okay for them to get an abortion without telling their parents. How's that for minding your own business!

Liz wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:29 PM:I do not understand how people could base their “choices” on how to love people based on a BOOK that a MAN wrote and call this book the word of the Lord humm... The God that I CHOOSE to believe in and teach my children about is a loving God that accepts us and loves us no matter what! Why do you people have to have a cult gathering at Qualcomm to show just how much YOU can HATE? Yeah you might want to second-guess your choice on the book you base your whole life on. NO ON 8 for PEACE!

Monte wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:41 PM:OK, let me break some stereotypes here. I am voting YES and I am an atheist. I also: can’t stand religion, eat organic, hate Bush, practice yoga, participate in environmental clean-ups and have an education past the third grade.

Alf wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:45 PM:Well, "Like Billy Graham" at 3:42PM,
If this nation was a theocracy you argument might be valid.
The United States of America is not a theocracy.
We are a democratic republic and the First Amendment of the Constitution is there to protect BOTH freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion for each and every one of us.
The Framers of the Constitution were still stinging from the crudola of the Church of England when they wrote that First Amendment.
A pox on those who attempt to interject religion into government, to codify THEIR religion into law.
Do not discriminate!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

Jeff wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:53 PM:I'm generally a conservative person, a registered Republican in fact, who is voting no on 8. I don't think homosexuals should be given special treatment and not be allowed to get married. I think they should have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else.

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:54 PM:TO TYLER: I understand that God wants us to love one another. Even our enemies. As far as homosexuality goes: He condemns is and is one of the greatest sins. According to the Bible marriage is between a man and a woman.

No on 8 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 4:56 PM:Prop 8 isnt about anything except eliminating rights by altering the constitution. There is nothing in the proposition about schools or children or anything like that. Why do the yes people insist on claiming this?

All Prop 8 does is write discrimination into the state constitution. It takes away the rights of gays to marry. Gays can already marry in California. Civil Unions are not marriage just like separate water fountains for whites and "coloreds" were not equal.

Discrimination is wrong. Hatred is evil. Vote No on Prop 8.

But Behavior is a Choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:03 PM:Simple word-play. I do believe that you have heard of the phrase "two consenting adults" and if you have, then you know that it applies to homosexaul behavior as well as heterosexual behavior. While religion and some segments may frown on many behaviors that are between "two consenting adults", society recognizes that there are limits on how much control it may lord over its members. The fact remains that marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual is between "two consenting adults" and that differentiating legal status between heterosexual and homosexual marriages is, in fact, discriminatory and such purposeful discrimination is in violation of the Constitution.

Susan wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:20 PM:Since same sex marriage has been legal for months now - how has it affected you? Christians can get married no matter what the case so ..... uphold the Constitution and

Protect religious freedom and VOTE NO ON PROP 8!

Pablo wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:48 PM:Who cares? You are losing your homes and the economy is in the crapper and you are worried about gay marriage?? Let them take the hit in taxes I do for being married. Get the government out of out bedroom!

Free Speech wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:54 PM:Well kids, I went to get my nails done today. Left my new car parked with my "NO" sign on the dashboard. When I returned my car had been hit with "YES" bumper stickers. So much for my free speech and personal property. I should have reported it as vandalism and a hate crime.

No on 8 haters wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:56 PM:Bigot , haters. Is that the best u can do. Thats what liberals do. To shut down a conversation or an opinion they resort to name calling.

God will make you pay dearly for attacking him, his commands and his children. When you are all burning in LLEH, we Christian's will have the last laugh won't we!!!!!!


Satan is in your heart, temptation is your worst enemy and you call it Tolerance. You better change your ways because the end is drawing near.

YEs on 8

Re TO To Honestly...... 201 PM wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:56 PM:"Yeah, but if Muslims want something they get it. You libs just hate Christians. Muslims can pray in school, but Christians can't."

------

You couldn't be more wrong. No one should be praying in school. The pledge of allegiance should be reverted back to its original text ... as should the words on our money. I am a confirmed Lutheran who believes God (whichever God you pick) is a mythological creature used by spiteful men (people) to obtain a desired result by spreading fear and loathing to the masses.

Don't get mad at me just because you happen to be one of those sheep who fall in line behind it.

I subscribe to no label and wish for even just a small dose of humanity and common sense to affect us all. The sad thing is that, for common sense to truly take hold, people have to be able to think for themselves .. which they are unable to do if they need some mystic in the sky to tell them not to steal, kill, covet or whatever.

Stop listening to the conscience being fed to you and find your own ... then vote it. We may still not agree, but at least it's something you could truly call your own ... and that's a start.

Already voted NO on 8!!!!!

Escondido Yes On 8 Rally wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:57 PM:On Saturday, there were several hundred people along Valley Parkway waving Yes On 8 signs. It was great to see.

Isaac wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:59 PM:This may come as a great shock to you, but some Americans are not Christian and are tired of having Christian morality foisted upon them. Some of us are even quite capable of making our own decisions regarding our private lives, without a church telling us what we should think is right or wrong.
Your way is not my way, and I don't want the State Constitution making your opinion into law.
Vote no on 8 & let people make their own decisions on how they choose to live!

Christian wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:59 PM:I am a Christian, but can longer bear to sit in church. The hypocrisy kills me.

To To But Behavior is a Choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:02 PM:Thank you for explaining your position. Your analogy of not acting on impulse in regards to sexual attraction to children is not applicable because children 1. are not consenting, adults, and 2. are coerced into behavior they have understanding of nor developmental readiness for. (Also, most sexual child abuse is perpetrated by straight men.)

But the logic you use is that even though homosexuals are naturally attracted to their own gender, they should refrain because of YOUR morality. There is an innocent victim involved. No one is coerced. But YOU think it's morally wrong, so you want to force others to conform to YOUR moral code. Why shouldn't consenting adults, decide what is moral for themselves, when there is no victim, no crime? Yes on 8 people want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else and that is wrong. Its discriminatory, born of fear and that is wrong too.

Rebel Against King George wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:03 PM:Ronald George has set himself up as our King with the power to bestow 'fundamental rights' upon favored subjects. Return the power of government back to the people. Vote YES ON 8.

how about this wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:17 PM:Give us back the Rainbow. The rainbow was for all races now it means you are gay. Why the gay pride day/parade whatever? Why be so gay, just be. People would freak out if they did a white pride parade. They have rights too you know.

Family man wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:18 PM:The problem with the issue at hand is the State of California passed Proposition 22 and it rules only a man and a woman could be married. The State Supreme Court over ruled it.

No the voters are going to vote for this again. What will the State Supremem Court do if this ammendment passes again? Will they over rule it.

The only thing I am concerned about is will the state start telling religious institutions they need to perform same-sex marriages? Churches need the right to believe what they want and if they don't want to marry gay couples then they shouldn't have to. Gay couples can et married at a place where they are accepted.

Pretty clear like it or not wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:31 PM:The bible is very clear about one thing. Homosexulaity is an abomination and totally unacceptable. Jesus told people he was with, good or bad, to turn from their bad ways, and follow him and his example. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed specifically because of homosexuality and perversions. You can try and believe something else, but the facts are there loud and very clear time and again. I don't belong to any church but I understand what is written.

S Jackson wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:47 PM:Listen to my commercial, discrimination is wrong in any form.

You need to trust that state certified teachers will instruct your kids on gay sex better than what they will learn on the streets. Might as well learn it in a controlled environment, right??

No, this will not lead to polygamism or any other chocolate fantasy you have.

Satan worshiper wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:52 PM:Lucifer, the prince of this world, commands all of his followers to vote no on 8. It is his will so let it be done.

Hypocrites wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:14 PM:I guess "religious freedom" is a good thing when it comes to demanding that gays get their rights taken away, but not a good thing when it comes to religious groups like the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodists, Episcopalians, Reform Jews, and others who WANT Marriage Equality. Admit it, you want YOUR religious freedom, but you don't want THEM to have THEIRS.

The Truth wrote on Nov 2, 2008 8:31 PM:Let's legalize all other kinds of marriage as well as homosexual marriage!

Why is it OK for government to say that homosexual marriage is OK but polygemy is not? Why is it OK for government to say homosexual marriage is OK but marriage between a brother and sister is not? Why is it OK for all of you to pass judgement on those kind of marriages but tell the people that believe that marriage equals one man and one womam is wrong and that it is all about religion?

This campaign in the big scheme of things is not about rights, it is about preserving the morals that this country were established on. All of you should wake up, it is only the campaign for No on 8 that have made this abotu some imagined lost rights.

Please wake up and see that this is a political campaign to errode this country not a campaign about rights.

What Prop 8 IS about wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:02 PM:Contrary to the many posts on here from opponents of prop 8, the reason I support prop 8 does not include me being bigoted, intolerant, hateful, etc.

The reasons I am voting for prop 8 include:
- Thousands of years of governments (including ours) have recognized that families are essential to providing stable environments for children to grow and develop.
- The type of family that is most conducive to growing children in the most healthy way is one in which the two people who came together to make the child remain together and create a supportive environment for the child to develop and grow.
- Therefore, marriage is about children. And because the relationship of one woman and one man is the type of relationship that naturally produces children, it is in the state's interest to promote that sort of relationship.
- Nature, experience and research shows that children need a father, a mother, a stable and supportive environment in which to develop.

So, that is why I am voting Yes on prop 8. I am not trying to "deny" the rights of homosexuals and polygamists to marry (in fact, they already have the same rights to marry that I do). I don't hate anyone, nor am I "intolerant." I am just trying to do what is best for our civilization.

To Pretty Clear wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:06 PM:The only thing that is pretty clear is that you have absolutely no comprehension as to the way our form of government works.

It doesn't matter what Jesus said when it comes to matters of law. Jesus is Church ... Law is State ... and never the two shall mix.

Re To Neffy wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:11 PM:"My child who is under the age of 10 has already come home asking me questions about 8. A child in the classroom is announcing that his 2 mom's are getting married. Wow, tell me this isn't affecting our kids already."

-----

Gee, I think I know someone who needs to step up to the plate, be a parent and have a conversation with their child about an issue that has come up through the course of a standard social childhood experience. Express your point of view. Instead of blaming other people for what your child has heard, put what he/she has heard in a context that is appropriate for you.

Once you're done, go somewhere quiet ... get down on your knees, fold your hands & bow your head ... then pray that your child never comes home to tell you he/she is gay knowing they have to second guess whether or not you will still love them.

To What Prop 8 IS about wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:16 PM:Point 1: Thousands of years of governments (including ours) have recognized that families are essential to providing stable environments for children to grow and develop. ... Just because it has been doesn't mean it always should be. Not all traditions are good ones.

Point 2: The type of family that is most conducive to growing children in the most healthy way is one in which the two people who came together to make the child remain together and create a supportive environment for the child to develop and grow. ... Good luck finding that today. Two people do not need to join to bear/raise children. My son is the product of a single parent household because my choice of mates at the time completely sucked. He never cared enough to participate and my son is better off for it. (still hetero by the way)

Point 3: Therefore, marriage is about children. And because the relationship of one woman and one man is the type of relationship that naturally produces children, it is in the state's interest to promote that sort of relationship. ... If you're so concerned with the kids you should promote some type of licensing process in order for someone to reproduce. We have far too many stupid people breeding today and it's only going to get worse if we keep letting just anyone do it.

Point 4: Nature, experience and research shows that children need a father, a mother, a stable and supportive environment in which to develop. ... Refer back to point 2

To To To But Behavior is a Choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:17 PM:Let me deal with all of your concerns and try to point the discussion in the right direction:

1) Every analogy breaks down somewhere, so you can just pick another example that you are comfortable with. How about denying licensed drivers who are intoxicated the right to act upon their desire to get behind the wheel and drive? That should work.

2) You think that Yes on 8 people are trying to stop homosexuals from engaging in homosexual relationships, from what I can gather from your post. Understand that I am not advocating any sort of position where I would stop homosexuals from acting out on their impulses. A vote for prop 8 does nothing to stop homosexuals from getting married (according to the same parameters as everyone else), from getting a domestic partnership with a homosexual partner, from engaging in homosexual sexual activities, etc. I am all for giving homosexuals the freedom to have sexual relations with other same-sex consenting adults. So, I am not forcing "my" morality on anyone, in terms of their behavior.
What I am doing is trying to keep the definition of marriage the same as it has been for thousands of years (and I have very good ethical and philosophical reasons for doing so). It is a defensive move against the homosexual activists who are trying to force their morality on me. Let's be very clear about that. Prop 8 wouldn't be necessary if homosexual activists weren't already forcing their views on everyone else.

Protect Steak wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:22 PM:The prayers at the stadium will keep the gay commandos from raiding my home with gay lasers and forcing my wife to divorce me! Thanks for protecting marriage!

I just hope they still have enough energy left over to protect traditional beef Steak from the assault by the radical tofu agenda. Steak is a sacred institution that has been around for thousands of years, and now all of a sudden a group of FOUR liberal activist judges think they can make it normal to grill a piece of tofu and call it "Steak." That is an attack on my family's rights and values!

Steak comes from cows. Can two pieces of tofu make a little piece of baby tofu like a bull and a heifer can make a calf? No! Did a male tofu and a female tofu get on Noah's ark together? I didn't think so! God made Toro and Bessie, not Silken and Extra Firm!

And 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 there's no such thing but the teacher told him it's NORMAL! If we don't pass Prop S, this will happen to your child, too!

And before you know it, people are going to cut a slice out of a watermelon and call it "watermelon steak." We might even have "cardboard steak."

If people want to eat tofu, that's fine with me, but don't do it in front of me and don't try to call it "steak." I'm sick of tofu eaters flaunting their menu and forcing it on me. VOTE YES ON PROP S to protect Steak!

To To To But Behavior is a choice wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:24 PM:An observation:

You are complaining that the initial poster is using his/her morality to judge whether homosexual behavior is right/wrong. Yet, you have no problem saying that it is WRONG of him/her to use his/her own morality, etc. Do you notice the rub here? Whose morality do you use? Or does your morality trump everyone else's? It seems that if your view of morality is that each person has their "own" morality, it is just going to be a contest of preferences. I prefer to focus on discovering objective morality and then seeing how one ought to live based on that.

Christianists wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:40 PM:Several people up above tried to argue that Prop 8 opponents scorn Christianity. I think they know that's not true, and shame on them for suggesting it is. The vast majority of us, even those of us who are atheists, respect Christianity and your right to make it the guiding principle of your lives.

The problem is that Proposition 8 doesn't have much to do with the Bible, let alone for the spirit of Christianity. Sure, the Old Testament warns against homosexuality several times and the New Testament two or three times, but no passage in the Bible demands that marriage laws apply to non-Jews or non-Christians. Demanding that non-Christians obey Judeo-Christian rules before accepting Christ is putting the cart before the horse, and it has no place in a pluralist democracy.

I did also see one or two comments above mocking the Bible, and that makes me mad, first because it's disrespectful to a lot of people, and second because it distracts from our message against Prop 8.

To To What Prop 8 IS About wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:50 PM:My responses at the end of each point in [brackets], after your initial responses. Thanks for the discourse!

Point 1: Thousands of years of governments (including ours) have recognized that families are essential to providing stable environments for children to grow and develop. ... Just because it has been doesn't mean it always should be. Not all traditions are good ones. [True- good point. However, the fact that people have recognized the value of one man/ one woman marriage for thousands of years should make us take pause before we throw it out without good reason]

Point 2: The type of family that is most conducive to growing children in the most healthy way is one in which the two people who came together to make the child remain together and create a supportive environment for the child to develop and grow. ... Good luck finding that today. Two people do not need to join to bear/raise children. My son is the product of a single parent household because my choice of mates at the time completely sucked. He never cared enough to participate and my son is better off for it. (still hetero by the way) [I am not arguing that a child cannot be raised by a single mother- I am just arguing that the best case scenario is one in which mom and dad remain together, are healthy adults and create a good environment for the child. I know there aren't enough of these families around, so let's try to incentivize this sort of family and create more of them- it is in all of our best interest.]

Point 3: Therefore, marriage is about children. And because the relationship of one woman and one man is the type of relationship that naturally produces children, it is in the state's interest to promote that sort of relationship. ... If you're so concerned with the kids you should promote some type of licensing process in order for someone to reproduce. We have far too many stupid people breeding today and it's only going to get worse if we keep letting just anyone do it. [I understand your point completely, however I think the state cannot go that far. It is a sad thing that many people put their own rights/interests, etc. in front of the needs of their children. Again, we need to do whatever we can to create stable environments for children.]

Point 4: Nature, experience and research shows that children need a father, a mother, a stable and supportive environment in which to develop. ... Refer back to point 2 [Let's do everything we can to create supportive environments for children because children who grow into healthy adults make for a stronger, better civilization.]

Its about FEAR wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:57 PM:No proof two gays can't raise perfectly healthy kids. No evidence a man and a woman will. Plenty of evidence that it is not one's gender that makes one a good parent, rather, capacity to love and consistency and guidance.

You can try to make this about children, but it's really about your fear.

Stop trying to force your fear into the State Constitution.

To Its about Fear wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:17 PM:It is interesting that you offer nothing more than assertions and claiming that you know that I am fearful. You are wrong on my emotional state as well as the facts. Let me help get you on the right track- how about you offer an argument for your point of view?

Let's start with all of that evidence that "it is not one's gender that makes on a good parent, rather, capacity to love and consistency and guidance." Because if you are right that gender is irrelevant to parenting, you are making one of the boldest claims I have heard in my life.

If you are right, let's throw everything we know about parenting and family out and start over. If you can't make your case, let's be very hesitant about making decisions that effect the traditional understanding of marriage and family.

To To To To But Behavior 917pm wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:31 PM:YOU are the one trying to argue with analogy. Don't blame me if I reveal how they are faulty. Intoxicated drivers risk killing innocent people. Gays getting married don't risk anyone's life.

2) Nice try at using convoluted logic, but no cigar. Gays are "forcing" their morality on you? Not at all! You aren't forced to believe any less in the sanctity of your own marriage. You can believe whatever you want AND you are still married in he eyes of the law and your church. Just as letting gays worship in your church doesn't change your relationship with God, letting them marry doesn't change your marriage.

Actually, marriage has changed greatly over the years. It wasn't even based on love at one point, it has evolved in very interesting ways. So your "thousands of years definition" is arbitrary.

Homosexual activists aren't forcing their views on anyone. They just want to be left alone and marry their loved ones. You can stay out of it, ignore it and they won't mind.

To To To To But Behavior 924 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:32 PM:No rub. There is a real moral dilemma for many of us when a group is denied the same rights given to everyone else but them in the name of religious beliefs. You can call your morality "objective" but there is nothing objective about the writings in the Bible. It is all open to interpretation. THAT'S the rub.

Bella wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:59 PM:I am just amazed at how many people keep saying, "keep religion out of this". Obviously you have no idea what marriage is, it's a union between a man and a woman before God. It is a religious ceremony, kinda hard to keep religion out of it. I guess thats why I'm so confused why gays want this? You already have the rights you are asking for.
They dont teach about marriage now, why would the schools need to teach about gay marriage? Just like everyone wants to keep religion out of the schools, keep your gay agenda out of the schools too.
Funny how all the no on 8'ers are all fighting for equal rights for everyone, and then turning around and trespassing on peoples private property and stealing signs that dont belong to them, remember we have the RIGHT to our opinions too, but then you just want equal rights for anyone who thinks like you do.
I am voting
YES ON 8

Tyler wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:05 PM:To "aDAMANT:"

While I under stand your point, the problem with your argument is that you are now supposing that the Bible should dictate law in a secular, society. The Bible only dictates what goes on in a church or in the private lives of followers of His word.

Please understand that I do not wish my wife, myself, nor any other Califronian to be subjected to a morality that may not be shared by everyone.

Prop 8 is not demanding that you, nor other supporters of Prop 8 to like, agree, or even condone same-sex marriage, just for the state to recognize the marriages under law as legitimate.

Thank you for respecting the rights of the minority and for not subjugating them to a subjective morality not shared by all.

JP wrote on Nov 2, 2008 11:09 PM:Maybe God condemns gay people to burn in hell, but what does that have to do with people's personal right to freedom and liberty in California? Isn't Prop 8 really just Big Brother socialism?

D57 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:00 AM:The number of children I have seen on street corners this past week with Yes on Prop 8 banners disturbs me greatly. 50 yrs ago when I went to Sunday school I was taught to "Love they neighbor" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Jesus loves me" Love and respect for everyone was what I was taught.

Today our children are taught "Hate" and "Distrust" and "Fear" for anyone who is gay or Muslim or is not a member of "Their" church or democrat or just does not agree with the way their parents believe.

I don't believe that is what God or his son Jesus taught us. I find nothing in the Bible that says you should "Hate" or "Distrust" or "Fear" those who are not like us. Why so many parents teach their children these beliefs is a sin far greater then homosexuality. Judgment day will come and it is on that day all who have cast stones will know how really wrong they are.

Prop 8 is discrimination wrote on Nov 3, 2008 5:45 AM:Marriage has nothing to do with children.

You can have kids whether you are married or not.

Seniors can get married and they are not likely to start a family. To say that marriage and children are linked is absolutely ridiculous. Get over it. You are wrong to use children to promote adding discrimination to the constitution.

Vote no on 8.

Patrick wrote on Nov 3, 2008 5:50 AM:Just a few points;

Google Gay Day, Hayward CA. This happened just a week or so ago. It's true, the prop says nothing about education of this in schools, but it will happen in some way, in some districts is will be talked about.

Gay is a choice.

I have worked with two gay guys in the past; they were always so angry, negative, defensive and mean spirited. Why? Because I think deep down they knew they were sinning, they were probably embarrassed to be gay, their families probably shunned them and they knew they would never be accepted in any “real” church because of their life style. My wife and I are voting YES on 8.

JSten wrote on Nov 3, 2008 5:58 AM:Well children, wasn't that fun?

Now what do you say we all go out there and vote, and move on already.

To regarding Nephy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 6:48 AM:HOW DARE YOU!!! Tell me that my child may be afraid to tell me their gay and that I would't love them!! What in the hell is your problem? Is that what you parents did? ALl I said is that this is affecting young kids. period!! You are obvious a no on 8 supporter. I can tell by your hatred. It is people like you that are tearing up families and family values!!

Nov 2 911 post wrote on Nov 3, 2008 6:55 AM:yes that it child hood socializing. Something that is heard on the playground. It can still confuse children. I guess the homosexuals want life their way....flaunt it, show it, go against what people voted on, and completely disregard what the majority of voters already wanted. It is their way or no way. Let's see what happens tomorrow.

YES ON 8

To Bella wrote on Nov 3, 2008 6:58 AM:It was a religious only ceremony until the government started issuing licenses for it. Now it's a civil contract ... and that must be open to every legal, law abiding & tax paying citizen.

If I were son of commenter at 648 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:07 AM:If your mother believed that you were not fully fit to be married, would you feel comfortable talking about marriage and sexuality with her? Probably not. What would be the point?

If I were the son of the commenter at 6:48 I would certainly not be in a hurry to tell her that I'm gay. She's equating "no on 8" with an attack on family values.

To To regarding Nephy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:10 AM:I read regarding Nephy's post and could find no hatred. But YOUR post was full of shouting, anger, sarcasm and profanity.

I'd pick regarding Nephy's "family values" over yours, for me and for my children.

Re To regarding Nephy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:11 AM:Gee ... sounds like somebody touched a nerve. My parents taught me to take everyone at face value and treat them equally until they gave me a reason not to. I, in turn, have raised my children the same way. Life is just way too short for hate.

You seem to think that voting for prop 8 will keep kids from talking to each other about what's going on in their lives (even in school). That's just stupid. Homosexuality will be in our schools as long as people occupy the walls ... and Prop 8 will do nothing to change that. The idea behind that argument has, by experience, been indicative of people who espouse negativity towards gay people simply because they're gay. Anyone who does that gives their children cause for concern should the subject ever come up on a personal level.

If this is not your motivation, then I apologize. I hope all parent would show their children the unconditional love they deserve ... I just know that's not always reality.

Again, if I'm right ... my comment stands. If I'm wrong ... I apologize.

made a decision wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:12 AM:Well I was torn up about what to vote for but after going to the Temecula mall yesterday and seeing how nasty the "No on 8 people" were, I've decided to vote Yes. I never thought a bunch of people would be so rude especially in front of my kids. Thanks for making my decision.

Why gays flaunt it wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:15 AM:Most of the arguments for Prop 8 are nutty, but one of the nuttiest is "Gays grope each other in public and shove it in my face." This is just homophobia. Some 17-year-old girls dress like prostitutes. Some high school kids make out in public. You can see lingerie ads on billboards with a male and female model practically having sex. But nobody's using any of that to argue that we shouldn't allow straight marriage. That would be absurd, just as it's absurd to argue against gay marriage because Pride parades are too overtly gay.

To Nov 2 911 post wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:19 AM:"yes that it child hood socializing. Something that is heard on the playground. It can still confuse children." ... Which is why you need to talk to your children ... DUH!

" I guess the homosexuals want life their way....flaunt it, show it, go against what people voted on, and completely disregard what the majority of voters already wanted." ... I can only speak for myself and, as a heterosexual, I wouldn't know how it feels to be gay. That aside, the majority of voters can vote for whatever they want. If it conflicts with the constitution it will be overturned. That's just the way our government works.

"Let's see what happens tomorrow." ... I agree. It's going to be interesting. Both sides should be ready to be surprised.

Already voted NO on 8! I'm not pro-gay marriage ... I'm just anti-discrimination.

to nephy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:43 AM:Apology accepted, make sure you know what your talking about before you attack people who are just trying to raise their children the best they can in a world that is so screwed up. You almost sound like you get a high for attacking people. That is wrong. It is wrong to attack people who just asked a question. You should be more than ashamed of youself. People say to vote no onh8? Well you comment was full of hate.

To Family Man wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:45 AM:You need not worry about churches being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. I was baptised Catholic and could not marry in the Greek Orthodox Church unless I convert. Remember My Big Fat Greek Wedding? Nor could I marry in a Jewish Temple or any other faith in which I was not a member. Prop 8 will NOT change that in any shape or form. And yes, should Prop 8 pass, the issue will once again be taken either in front of our State Supreme Court or directly to the 9th Circuit. Same-sex marriage is legal in at least Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Norway, Spain, and in regions of other countries, as well. So, go ahead and pass Prop 8 in California. The issue will not magically disappear as I suspect some of you may believe.

Hussein wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:52 AM:Yes on Proposition 8 is all about religeous intolerance, judgement passed on presumably by the lord, by priests and pastors with a propensity for molestation. Perhaps separation of church and state should be expanded.

no no wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:54 AM:To "made a decision",

I am a straight woman and was with the no on 8 people at the mall yesterday during the entire rally. We had a lot of support, people honking, giving thumbs up, etc. The people who did not support us were hateful. They would scream horrible language out the window, pound their fist in their hands, flip us off, perverted gestures. My teenage daughter chose to go to the rally with me yesterday and when we left she commented on how mean people can be. This was a great learning experience for her. If you saw the no on 8 people be nasty, perhaps they were angry and fed up. Talk with them, seriously...a REAL conversation. They are real people who deserve to be treated fairly. They are desperate. Go to the duck pond tonight, park and talk with them, then make your decision. Vote no on 8!

Response to To regarding Nephy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:02 AM:I read regarding Nephy's post and could find no hatred. But YOUR post was full of shouting, anger, sarcasm and profanity.

I'd pick regarding Nephy's "family values" for my children over what you displayed in a heartbeat.

I voted NO on 8 out of compassion for gays. You need to own your hate, not accuse others of your own sins.

The Model Prayer wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:25 AM:Matthew 6 says; 5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.[b] 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
8 “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. Why all the drama? This display of righteous is sickening and not even God likes it. So sad to see my brothers and sisters in the Lord using prayer as a weapon. God is not pleased. I am praying in the secret place that this hateful Proposition does not pass and I know my Father in Heaven hears me.

Re to nephy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:25 AM:at 7:43 ... you are making less and less sense to me. I have not attacked you, nor have I expressed any hate towards you. I have simply suggested that your thought pattern of why you support 8 is flawed and that those flaws will display to and affect your children ... which could ultimately lead to discourse in your home should this issue become personal to your family. If you consider that to be a hateful attack, then there really is something to fear. Life is too short to hold onto that much aggression. I wish you well in your endeavors and hope that you find the peace that you sound like you may be lacking ... for your sake as well as those around you.

Already voted NO on 8. Live and let love!

Craig wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:32 AM:to No on 8 haters- I really hope your post isn't authentic. That is not what is being taught in the church I attend. We love everyone, but hate the sin.

Patrick wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:34 AM:To No, No,

I drove past the mall yesterday, since you were on the opposite corner of the Yes group the honks you heard were probably for the Yes corner, I honked for the Yes supporters. When I was sitting at the light waiting to turn I carefully looked at both corners; the YES group was civil, holding preprinted signs and smiling. The NO group was not civil, they were screaming, there signs were hand made and they were they ones shaking their fists in the air in anger. Don't try to deny it I saw it myself, and you say "they are desperate", yes they are, desperate to push their immoral lifestyle onto me. YES on 8!

Steverino wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:17 AM:My wife and I have been married for more than 35 years now. At no time have homosexuals threatened that union. The very idea is absurd. When I saw all those gay and lesbian couples getting married all I saw was pure joy. Who are you to want take that joy away from them? More importantly, since there are actual legal consequences to being married, who are you to deny them the same protection under the law that you enjoy?

Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:27 AM:Do NOT discriminate!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

To Patrick wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:39 AM:While I agree most no on 8 signs are handmade, I disagree the protesters are disobedient from my personal observation. Think about the reason for the handmade signs. It’s because the Mormon Church and other religious organizations have taken a portion of their tidings to purchase masses of the yellow signs we all are aware of. I wish the majority of you pro-8’ers would really see what is at stake here. It’s our constitutional freedoms, not some hidden left-wing agenda. Don’t worry though, even if the pro-8’ters manage to squeak out a win after spending millions of dollars, it would be quickly overturned as it is obviously unconstitutional. If you can’t see that, then you are too isolated from modern times and would be better off spending your dollars on a fortified compound…..

bunny wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:42 AM:I am voting yes on 8. Not because of a religeous reason. I think that the word Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. It has nothing to do with I hate gays either. Somethings should just be left old fashioned.

Concerned-1 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:54 AM:Prop 8 is straight forward: it requires that "marriage" be between a man and a woman. Simple. The No on 8 lobby would have you think it's about a bunch of other issues, but it's not. And BTW Alf, while I agree with you on a number of issues over the years, this one I do not. Gay unions are just fine. No problem. Gay marriages are a slippery slope. Mark my words, and watch your step. Regards, C-1.

PeerOne wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:04 AM:About 15 "No on 8" supporters gathered at a busy intersection in Vista during the rainy noon hour on Sunday.

We received many thumbs up and supportive honks and we also received thumbs down, and a *lovely* remark, "What is wrong with you people?". There were some drivers and passengers who ignored us and some who didn't. Totally their prerogative.

It's a personal choice on how you choose to vote on Tuesday. Please be respectful of each other no matter how you vote or what you believe.

There is always going to be two sides to every argument. Let's be empathetic with one another, please.

How did Yes on 8 guys. . . wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:19 AM:. . . "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex? Did you say to yourself, "God wants me to find Suzy attractive, so I will because it is moral." Or did you find Suzy attractive as a natural, biological response? Suppose, to test your theory that gay is a choice, we all just got word from God that He wants us all to be gay for one year, He has His divine reasons, we know it is truly His Word. Imagine that, to respect God's will, you must marry Dave and have sex with him, and be happy and content with your life for one year. It is God's will that you choose to be gay, so you must overcome your impulses. Not so easy? How about if you were told this when you were very young, do you think you could have chosen to go gay at 10? Or 14? At what age are we all capable of "choosing" homosexuality, but for our superior morality?

So Cal Native YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:32 AM:The people of California have already spoken on this issue and will be victorious once again. YES ON 8, KEEPING IT STRAIGHT!

To the model prayer wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:33 AM:I guess none of the people laying on the ground praying are commenting on this blog. I agree with you prayer is a private moment between you and your God. The pious and arrogant people praying in the picture included with this story is disturbing. I love the scripture and I would hope other "Christians" would catch on!!! What happened to separation of Church and State?

To To Patrick wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:36 AM:It wouldn't be overturned as unconstitutional because it would be a part of the constitution.

Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:38 AM:Well, "Concerned-1" at 9:54AM,
I would agree with you on this one
IF
"Domestic Partnerships" and "civil unions" had exactly the same rights and responsibilities as "marriage", but they are both legally inferior.
Especially since DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), such that interstate recognition is not mandatory for same-sex couples as it is with opposite-sex couples.
For so long as the state issues marriage licenses and the state does not have an exactly equal legal status for homosexual unions (should Prop. 8 pass), the state will be in violation of its own Constitution.
My stake in all of this is two-fold -
1) The Constitution, the violation of the Constitution and the "slippery slope" toward theocratic rule, prop 8 is a toe-hold toward that end. Follow the money!
2) My friend from high school who must live a legally second-class life with her female partner because of her gender and the gender the love of her life, her partner.
BTW, your civil remark, although in disagreement, is quite welcome!!
Regards, Alf.

Born with not learned. wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:40 AM:Having an aversion to gays and the gay lifestyle is a genetic trait, not something that is learned. We were born that way. Why can't you people be tolerant to our anti-gay lifestyle. We didn't choose to be this way.

Denying children mothers and fathers wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:41 AM:Please read this entire post; do not give a knee-jerk reaction to the word "discrimination" that has been hijacked to mean "hate."

Not all discrimination is bad. In fact, we (both you and I) do it every day.

Discriminating is simply making a
distinction. The question becomes, is the distinction legitimate or not? Can we discriminate against the blind by restricting their access to driver’s licenses? Of course we can. That’s because we make the distinction between
people who are qualified to drive a car and those who aren’t. The blind are different than those who can see in away that disqualifies them from driving. They’re not the same as sighted people – they’re different. That’s not unreasonable and no one is complaining this is unfair discrimination.

Is it fair, then, to discriminate against same-sex couples? Yes, because there’s a legitimate distinction
between homosexual and heterosexual couples. No amount of judicial power can make them the same.

The difference is significant. Same-sex marriage, by design, will always deny a child their mother or father. It also makes mothers and fathers interchangeable. So a mother offers no
unique contribution to her children. She is just a warm body. A man could accomplish all her parenting functions just as well.

This is not only counterintuitive, it flies in the face of decades of research that demonstrates children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father. For example, studies show that fatherless children suffer from higher incidents of mental illness, educational failure,
substance abuse, criminal behavior, sexual abuse, and other problems.
The fact that not every opposite-sex couple will have children doesn’t change anything.

Marriage creates, by design, the environment in which children will grow up. We shouldn’t intentionally create a parenting model that is inadequate to raise healthy children. But that’s what happens when we endorse same-sex marriage.

No on 8 is hate wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:44 AM:If you vote against prop 8, you are hateful, intolerant and judgmental of those who are voting yes on 8.

At least, according to the logic of many people posting on this forum.

Can't you see that name-calling gets us nowhere?

Let's see some good arguments and respectful give and take and work together as a community to arrive at truth. And if we disagree, let's do so with respect and love for each other.

Shut-up and vote wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:49 AM:You know what I hate more than the "YES" or "NO" side? Both sides constant crying and arguing.
I can't wait until this USELESS election season is over. We can have a bunch of Props the state won't enforce, worthless elected officials at EVERY level.
I can't get out of CA fast enough...

Hey people God hates divorce wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:53 AM:Let's outlaw Divorce too. Once you enter the blissful state of Holy Matrimony you have to stay married even "if it is just not working". Since it appears the religious zealots are so vocal about this issue why not take it one step further and outlaw divorce!!!

To Denying children mothers and fathers wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:56 AM:You want to provide the ideal environment for raising a child then you need to require marriage before procreation and then you need to ban divorce.

To Denying wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:15 AM:Your statement has no logic. What skin is it of yours if two men or two women marry? I can say letting the blind drive with current technology will result in an accident that will most likely involve someone innocent. Obviously there is a differenc, can't you see that?

To Patrick 1036 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:17 AM:Do you understand the place of the federal government? One state cannot break the constitutional rights of the nation. This will wind up in the US Supreme Court if it passes......

OceansidesNoOn8 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:22 AM:One will never advance a rational discussion using logic and reason when the other side's ultimate argument is the statement "because it's God's will."

I have nary a problem with religious people believing what they believe. However, when THEIR notions of salvation depends upon my believing the same thing they do, I gotta draw the line.

Please vote for equality under the law. Vote NO on 8.

S wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:26 AM:Please vote NO on 8. Once we start allowing religious believers to define marriage, would it not stand to reason that such a definition could be expanded to exclude the following groups: anyone not believing in god (perhaps a specific "God"), anyone wanting a civil union, any two people unable or disinclined to procreate, etc? The only arguments I have heard or read in favor of 8 rest largely on traditions and beliefs put forth by religion, specifically branches of Christianity. Not all people view the Bible as axiomatic; as voters we should not allow state policy to rest upon belief instead of logic. Marriage is a contract and a commitment and can take on different complexions depending upon what you choose to believe. My marriage with my husband is not a convenant with god/God, but that doesn't mean yours can't be if you choose to think of it that way. Let's stay out of people's personal business. Have enough trust in your own marriage and your definition of it to remain unthreatened by others who marry. Let's not expand government and use the government to intrude into people's lives.

Arlo wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:31 AM:I already voted 'YES' on 8.

To Steverino and Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:38 AM:Sending smiles and cyber hugs out to you both. Alf, you're a great friend to your friend and I know she appreciates your support. I have been discriminated against on several occasions in my lifetime--both for being female and for being Hispanic. It's not pleasant being the recipient of discrimination or being judged solely based on my gender or race. And that's why I will vote NO on 8 tomorrow. I would never intentionally have a part in discriminating against or denying rights to anyone based on his/her race, gender religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.

DAV wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:40 AM:i don't understand why gay people would even want to marry. they're lucky. marraige has no benefit to anyone. you just get screwed when the inevitable divorce comes.

to Arlo wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:42 AM:Well, I'm voting no NO tomorrow, so I guess we're even......

Hate and anger wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:44 AM:I've seen five demonstrations for Prop 8 and two against Prop 8. All have been respectful and positive, not negative. But if opponents of Prop 8 get loud and visibly angry, it's understandable: Most of us experience Proposition 8 as an attack on our personal lives and the lives our brothers or sisters or cousins or mothers or fathers who are gay.

Stacey wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:48 AM:I already voted 'NO' on 8.

To Denying children ... wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:52 AM:Comparing not allowing blind people to drive with same-sex marriage?

Thank you ... I think I might now be able to say I truly have heard it all.

NO ON 8!!!

Honest wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:20 PM:If Prop 8 does not pass, within the next 10 years the NAMBLA crowd is going to be demanding equality, tolerance and justice for their right to have sex with boys. I hope all of you No on 8 people are OK with that, because you will be labled intolerant, bigoted, and hateful if you don't fall in line. Guys, this really is a slippery slope, and it leads nowhere good!

All Violators wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:40 PM:Both Yes on Prop. 8 and No on Prop.8 are violators! Marriage is a religous function not a government sanctioned right. It violates the seperation of church and state. Go home you demonstrators and read the constitution. Take down all those ugly blue No on 8 signs and putrid yellow Yes on 8 signs that litters taxpayer streets and roadways, what a disgrace.

To To Denying wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:42 PM:Please re-read the post; and then read it again carefully. But let me also spell it out for you to make it more clear: The illustration about blind drivers is only an illustration to make the point that we (you and me) discriminate on a daily basis. That is it. There is no link or comparison/contrast between blind drivers and homosexuals. It is just an illustration to help you see that you and I discriminate all the time when there is good reason to do so. Does that help you understand the point better?

And then the next step in the argument is that there is actually good reason to discriminate against same-sex couples marrying because of the effects that has on children.

So, to recap:

Point A tries to help you see that not all discrimination is bad.
Point B tries to help you see that there are good reasons to not expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex or polygomous unions.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. If you can't see the train of thought there, our society is in a sad place. You may disagree with the argument, but for the sake of all that is good please let me know that you understand the progression of thought. ;)

The Purple Dot wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:46 PM:Back in college in the swinging 70s, I took an elective class on human sexuality. When we got to the topic of homosexuality, the professor made an assertion that has stayed with me to this day: "If every gay person had a purple dot right in the middle of his or her forehead, anti-gay discrimination would end much sooner. Why? Because then everyone would realize that they know someone, possibly many someones, possibly even married to someone, who is gay. And they will realize that being gay isn't a moral issue at all."

Ah, the benefits of a liberal arts education in the midst of an increasingly hateful society. Vote No on 8.

To Denying Children wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:48 PM:Can't you see that the poster was not comparing not allowing blind ppl to drive w/ same-sex marriage- he or she was just making the point that there are some forms of discrimination that are fine?

And then he or she goes on to make an argument why discriminating against same-sex marriage is for good reason?

This is a simple argument folks. We may disagree with it, but at least let's keep the discourse civil and not attribute things to posters that they didn't write.

To To Denying Children Fathers and Mothers wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:55 PM:I agree with you that having kids out of marriage and divorce are both harmful things to children. I think that we should discourage those things as much as possible, but that it isn't a good idea to "outlaw" them. Re divorce, sometimes a marital relationship is so bad that a divorce is a better thing for a child. Re premarital sex, you can't pragmatically stop it from happening nor is it the role of government to do so.

However, re same-sex marriage, this is a different case. This involves changing an institution that has been this way since long before the inception of our country. Prop 8 is about keeping marriage the way it has been, resulting in keeping in place an institution that has been a stabilizing factor for children.

Proud to Support 8 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:01 PM:Apparently I'm a bigot and a hater and I'm intolerant of the gay lifestyle since I'm voting YES on 8. Seriously, what good is voting on YES on 8 going to do? All those who are voting "NO" are gonna cry foul if it passes and the prop is going to get hung up in the courts (big surprise) as some liberal judge(s) is going to claim it unconstitutional.

To TDC 1248 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:08 PM:It is not a simple argument, it's a ridiculous one. You need a license to drive a car, and you have to meet minimum standards, including 20/40 or better corrected eyesight. So you’re saying you need a license to get married, and you need one male and one female part? Two gay people having “relations” in the privacy of their own home is hardly the same as a blind person driving a car. The latter has nothing to do with discrimination. Hey, I’m sure there are people who want a license to fly a plane, but have a heart condition, are diabetic or some other disqualifying issue that could cause them to crash and kill someone. Try to justify all you want. It’s really about being prejudice against homosexuals. You can wrap it up as “God’s will” or any other way that gives you comfort for your position on this issue. History proves that mainstream religions are behind the “acceptance” curve on a variety of issues. Get over something that has nothing to do with teaching your children, protecting family or the institution of marriage. Go ahead and take your fertility drugs, condemn homosexuals from having a family and bury your head in your self-righteous ideology……..

Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:15 PM:Well, "All Violators" at 12:40PM,
your argument has one huge flaw -
a long time ago the state of California started requiring licenses for marriage.
Once it did that and once the state Constitution proscribed discrimination based on sexual orientation, the state is bound by its Constitution not to discriminate based on sexual orientation in ANYTHING, including marriage.
Do not discriminate!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

Re To Denying Children wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:51 PM:Oh I get it the argument ... it's just a stupid argument because you're comparing apples to oranges.

All people, regardless of circumstances, can apply for a drivers license. However, in order to determine ones eligibility, one must take and pass a variety of tests. The inability to pass any one portion of the test renders you ineligible. Using the example at hand, a blind person would not be able to pass the vision portion of the test. So, while the person can apply and be considered on their own merit, they would ultimately be unable to obtain a license under state laws and regulations.

Conversely, there is no such testing process for the issuing of a marriage license. All who apply are awarded (under the currently existing laws). To change that to say that only straight people can obtain one you are making a distinction about a group rather than an individual ... which is the definition of discrimination as it pertains to people/societies.

Finally, I have yet to hear a good reason for denying gay marriage. I hear the 'kids need a mom & a dad' argument, but my own personal life experience says that's not true. I hear the 'God said so' argument and that's one I won't even touch. I hear all kinds of 'reasons' to discriminate and have yet to hear one that makes sense.

To Honest wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:53 PM:NAMBLA would never gain such a distinction because the situation isn't even close to the same.

A person must be able to consent to a sexual relationship, which a minor is not legally able to do.

Re To To Denying Children Fathers and Mothers wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:01 PM:"I agree with you that having kids out of marriage and divorce are both harmful things to children. I think that we should discourage those things as much as possible, but that it isn't a good idea to "outlaw" them. Re divorce, sometimes a marital relationship is so bad that a divorce is a better thing for a child. Re premarital sex, you can't pragmatically stop it from happening nor is it the role of government to do so. "

-----

So the idea is to allow all of the heterosexual couple behaviors that damage children to continue without opposition while denying a child the opportunity to grow up in a house full of love, tolerance and understanding simply because it might be run by two men or two women? What about single parent homes?

Your arguments are yours and you are more than entitled to them. I just happen to think they are short-sighted and flawed. I suggest we agree to disagree.

You vote Yes. I voted No. We'll cancel each other out and wake up tomorrow to witness the nightmare as it unfolds.

Faith wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:09 PM:Im sorry to hear so many people say religion is forced upon them. Truly knowing the Lord is a personal choice, a relationship with him. Not which church group you belong to. All i hear on the media, internet, and by seeing people on the side of the road is how discriminating prop 8 is. Well so is discriminating people for choosing to know our Lord in heaven, and believing the bible to be true , and wanting marriage to be between a man and woman. Its makes you just as much as a hypocrite to trash talk our believe .Truth is we all are a little hypocritical at times. Stop the hate and know the Lord we have does love all his people.

To Honest 1220 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:11 PM:I agree with one thing you said. Yes it is a slippery slope. That is, if we regress by discriminating based on sexual orientation, what’s next. Will it eventually lead to something you hold dear? Let it go, vote no based on constitutional freedom, don’t vote yes based on fear or worse……

To Faith wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:26 PM:In your case this is a simple case of I already have mine. People came to this land to pursue religious freedom. They go that and with it, intended freedom for all. Unfortunately, some of these freedoms were recently won, such as the women’s movement, equality of the races etc. There are others that are still second class citizens, homosexuals being one of them. “Honest” is warning about a slippery slope, but “To Honest” understands the slope we should be concerned with. Start taking away freedom from a group you disagree with, and it might be your freedom that is taken away next.

To Liz wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:26 PM:I would like to ask you how you concluded the prayer time at Qualcomm was a cult activity? Were you there and how do you know the difference? You say you want peace then why do you have negative comments?????????

Craig wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:27 PM:to Alf & Concerned-1: Thank you for agreeing to disagree and making civil statements. The name calling that is allowed on many of the NCT blogs serves no real purpose that I can think of, other than to get more hits on their web site. This issue is very polarizing and I hope the healing can begin on Wednesday.

To Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:28 PM:I once thpught you were very inteligent and made very educated arguments. But now I see the way you categorize all Christians. I am very offended by your comments and those of Pluto. Most true Christians do apply all of the Bible, and we follow Christ and his teachings. I am voting yes on 8 not because I hate homosexuals, but because i believe in the sactity of marriage, and that it should be between a man and a woman. I do agree with one thing youmay have meant to say. Woe to those who add or take away from God's Word.
Blessings

Re Re To Denying Children... wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:32 PM:Ok, please forget the restricting blind drivers illustration. Please forget I ever brought it up. I wasn't making any comparisons between same-sex marriage and a blind person getting a driver's license. Don't waste your keystrokes trying to tell me I am comparing apples to oranges, etc.

I was just making the point that sometimes the act of making a judgment is a good thing. That is all. Just trying to shake up the idea that "all discrimination is immoral discrimination."

We all discriminate. You all have discriminated against my illustration by making the judgment that you don't like it. I understand and ask you to strike the thought from the discussion taking place here. It doesn't take away from my argument, nor does it advance it.

Please deal with the argument I offer above: I offer that we ought not create forms of marriage that are, by design, setting kids up for a more challenging upbringing than is necessary. When we deny children either a father or a mother by endorsing same-sex marriage, we are taking away an essential component of a stable home for kids.

Thanks. Please, please no more comments on blind drivers. ;)

Liz wrote on Nov 3, 2008 2:56 PM:You know the only reason that I have negative comments is because... after reading all of the comments (which I know better, I should stay away from) on so many web sites it saddens me to think of all this hate?? I was up late thinking of my comment that I posted and wanted to change some things. I was raised Catholic, and I was raised by two wonderful parents who thought me not to hate and not to judge… so I apologize for all of the negativity. I do wish that we could all agree to disagree rather than writing these terrible things.

Honest wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:01 PM:To those of you who think that NAMBLA is not going to demand its place on the "tolerance" bandwagon, please post your contact information so that I can get in touch with you in a few years when it happens. Yes, it seems absurd now, but 20 years ago the idea of gay marriage also seemed absurd. Even the gay rights movement was not advocating for gay marriage 20 years ago. The No on 8 people are opening a door that even they are going to regret in a few years. How can you deny the pedophile the right to love the boy he chooses if that boy consents and has the maturity of an adult? Every argument for gay marriage also supports eliminating age of consent laws. You are very naive if you think otherwise.

To Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:11 PM:You explained it all......
Remove California's law requirement for marriage licensing while removing the benefits of the married over being single in the tax code, let the religions decide marriage. The ultimate discrimination is using government to force ideals of one onto another, either religous or sexual orientation, like BOTH sides of Prop. 8.
Don't discriminate!!!!!!!
Take down those signs and quit harrassing my family at street corners..

All violators and (discriminators)

To Purple Dot wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:29 PM:After reading your post, I realized my I.Q. dropped at least 50 points- I can't get those 10 seconds of my life back.

I'm not sure what on-line diploma-mill you attended, but thanks for spouting some of the most useless, non-sensical garbage I've accidentally read in years.

I wish YOU would wear a dunce cap so I can walk the other way instead of ever hearing words come out of your mouth. I think I'll vote YES on 8 after reading your numb-skullery.

Vote Yes on No wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:34 PM:Or No on Yes, or was it yes on Z, or No on 6e?...I can't remember.

Dang these propositions with all the letters and numbers. I say we vote on a proposition to outlaw this ridiculous legislation-by-proposition system. It ends up being very counterproductive. Let's have our legislators legislate and if we don't like the results, let's vote em out!

Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:54 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 2:28PM,
You have the choice to believe anything about me that you want.
You have the right to exercise your religion ONLY UNTIL
YOU inflict YOUR religious values on someone else, that's where YOUR right STOPS
AND the other person's right begin.
That's the Law,
That's the California Constitution,
That's the United States Constitution.
I do not villify your religion,
I stand on the Constitutional right to be free FROM your religion codifying itself into OUR law or OUR state Constitution.
Do NOT discriminate!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 3, 2008 4:08 PM:Well, "Re Re To Denying Children..." at 2:32PM,
yes, we all discriminate on a PERSONAL level in many ways and that's OK, it is religious-backed governmental discrimination that I will do all I can legally do to stop.
As far as your "When we deny children either a father or a mother by endorsing same-sex marriage..." argument,
a child with a mother and a father or two mothers or two fathers who love each other and their child is far better off than having a mother and a father who are "staying together for the children" and bickering all the time.
Getting a divorce is what robs the child of a mother or a father.
Stop the hate!
Do NOT discriminate against homosexuals!
Vote NO on Prop. 8!
Regards, Alf.

But Vote Yes on No wrote on Nov 3, 2008 4:10 PM:You've got my vote.

Re Vote Yes or No wrote on Nov 3, 2008 4:47 PM:How else can alternative social activists and religious zealots force their views on a free society?

To Honest wrote on Nov 3, 2008 5:01 PM:I was thinking the exact same thing dude. Lets put the breaks on now to this slipery slope.

Question wrote on Nov 3, 2008 5:16 PM:what do you no on 8 people think about the NAMBLA agenda? Can I get some feedback?

To Question wrote on Nov 3, 2008 6:29 PM:That's already been addressed ... please read previously posted comments.

Mike wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:34 PM:If the “No” votes wins, it is official, the communist revolution has begun. Please welcome Chairmen Obama. Head of the KGB Ayers and head of thought Rev. Wright.

To Re Re To Denying Children... wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:35 PM:" I offer that we ought not create forms of marriage that are, by design, setting kids up for a more challenging upbringing than is necessary. When we deny children either a father or a mother by endorsing same-sex marriage, we are taking away an essential component of a stable home for kids. "

-----

We are so far beyond creating new obstacles for today's children. I personally don't understand who would want to bring a child into the world today at all. Given all the problems of the world as a whole, it almost seems like reckless endangerment to intentionally subject another person to it. With that in mind, while I appreciate your whole 'mom and dad' thing, I really fail to see what detriment a loving same-sex couple could bring. After all, WE don't deny a child a mother or a father .. their mothers and/or fathers have cornered that market. You want to help the kids ... do something about that!

Reggie wrote on Nov 3, 2008 7:55 PM:Too many intolerant religious people for me. I was brought up to keep my nose out of other peolple's business. However... I'd kinda like to know what all you church people do in your bedrooms...

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:41 PM:Prop 8 is a total yes. I think most people know this. YES ON PROP 8!!!!!!! It's a wise decision.

Voice wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:43 PM:Judge not less the be judged!!!!!!

Numbers wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:02 PM:20,000 YES on Prop 8 vs. 400 No's attending this weekend???!!!!

The numbers speak it all.

Frida wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:17 PM:It's sad to see that even today people think they are superior to others. When will people realize that denying rights to other human beings is shameful? No disrespect to the "religious" folks out there, but why do others have to be denied marriage because your literal translation of the bible or faith says so? I thought I lived in a secular country.

no on eight wrote on Nov 3, 2008 11:53 PM:so after the protest kendall and i start walking back to our car all nice and happy not saying anything with my dad and we walk past a family ... that were walking back too to their cars and they start talking ... like saying" are you people going to pick up all the trash you left where you were?" and getting in my face

i told em we werent even on that corner all the yes people were there

so then the guy busts out a video camera and starts filming me talking and saying im on camera and ...

so i say stop filming im not giving you permisson at all

and he says "i dont care i have the right to"

my dad starts saying "hey this is my daughter stop it"

the guy doesnt even give a ... and all the ladies get in my face and s*** about how messy we are

helloooo im the most preppy person ever im not grungy!!!

grrr i didnt even say anything mean about them yes people but now i will

im not happy with them at all i mean what if they acted like this towords gay people


o and another one hit my sign and tried to put his yes sign in front of my sign and laughed about it


these people are so immautre!!!!!!!!

before i didnt want to be angry with them but after this wow! "f" them this is why us no people are going to get angry and mean

Re To Faith wrote on Nov 4, 2008 7:06 AM:In response to the comment I already have mine your right i have mine it dwells in my heart! I dont need the goverment or this blog or any trash talkers to make me believe otherwise!!!!!!! We all will have freedom in CHRIST one day! Im voting yes on 8 but im saying no to hate, keep the peace people!

To True Christian wrote on Nov 4, 2008 7:14 AM:You say real christians vote no on prop 8. Well real followers of Jesus read his word and know it as truth. Do have scripture to back up your conclusion ??

No No wrote on Nov 4, 2008 7:39 AM:Listen "Patrick"

How can you judge by driving in a car that the no on 8 people were not civil. You saw us for what 2 minutes maybe??? I was there for 2 1/2 hours! And yes people were blatantly looking at US the NO on 8 people, honking and smiling and encouraging us. You are ignorant. And no one is pushing their lifestyle on you. I am straight. Does gay marriage affect me? No one is trying to make me gay. Like I said have a real conversation and just listen to what they have to say. DON'T JUDGE!!! Prop 8 is SELFISH.

Sigmund wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:23 AM:Freud would say that No on 8 folks who try to change the dialog from substance (outlawing gay marriage) to anecdotal (and/or untrue) stories of character flaws on just the opponent's behavior are actually projecting their own hate and rudeness onto the object of their scorn.

In other words, it is their OWN hatred and disrespect for gays that they can't face, so they try to make the opposition look worse.

Exit Pole wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:38 AM:Me No, My wife, No, Her mother No, Her sister No. That makes 4 NO's.

Hey Sigmund wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:13 AM:I don't think so. I am strait and I have gay freinds. I respect them and they respect me. I am open minded unlike most of the yes on 8'ers......

Couple in their 70s beat Up over Yes on 8 Sign wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:19 AM:Yup! It happened in Carlsbad yesterday.

A 76 year old man and a 77 year old woman who put up "YES on 8" signs in Their Own Yard, were beat up causing great bodily harm, by their neighbor, who apparently did not agree with their views.

Yeah we got tolerance!

I voted YES / Skip

Source: SDUT

Skip wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:24 AM:Me Yes, My wife, Yes, My brother YES, His wife YES. That makes 4 YES's.

It is going to be close!

JJ wrote on Nov 4, 2008 11:13 AM:I don't know why we argue so. When 'YES' votes prevail, the liberal courts will deem it unconstitutional and tie the issue up in litigation for the next 20-odd years. Remember Proposition 187? Or the death penalty in 1972?

Alf wrote on Nov 4, 2008 12:31 PM:Well, "JJ" at 11:13AM,
you probably know I am against Prop. 8 if you have read all the comments on this article.
But I think that it will be close to the opposite as Prop. 22 -
55 to 60 percent against Prop. 8.
Someone told me that they were voting against gay marriage by voting No on 8, I did not correct them.
Regards, Alf.

Skip wrote on Nov 4, 2008 12:45 PM:That clinches it.

Vote Yes on No !

Stupid people should not be allowed to vote anyway.

LOL

grj wrote on Nov 4, 2008 3:48 PM:The times they are a changin. Ipersonally think all this mass gayness is a from all the media like hip hop culture and baggy pants and tattoos and piercings. Saw some high school kids out with no on 8 signs yesterday. When I was in highschool(i am male) we looked at girls with their short skirts and really their were no gay kids and no weirness. yes on 8 save the planet

Alf wrote on Nov 4, 2008 4:11 PM:Well, "grj" at 3:48PM,
what school, when and where was this?
Clairemont High in the late 60s and 70 and 71 had them and we treated them like dirt. My bet is that for every person we called "queer" there was another 1 or 2 who kept their orientation totally secret. At that time there were over 2500 kids there.
Regards, Alf.

Skip wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:17 PM:First California Report in at 8:11 PM and it is
...

57.5% Yes

42.5% No

San Diego County Carried YES

More updates to follow ..........

Marriage is not a right wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:34 PM:In such an emotional topic as this one, it is very important to be clear on the meaning of the concepts we are using.

The word "right" is a key one. It seems that the "no on 8" folks are arguing that marriage is a right that everyone should have and that if you deny that right to anyone, it is equal to immoral discrimination and hateful intolerance (this would be a summary of many of the posts above- please correct me if I am wrong).

So, this argument assumes that marriage is a right, a right that all adult citizens should have, I assume. It turns out that assumption is false- marriage is not a right, at least according to our government. If it was a right, no one could be denied the right to marry without being immorally/illegally discriminated against. However, the laws dictate that only people who fit certain criteria qualify to get married (e.g. adults, marrying one person, marrying someone of the opposite sex, not marrying a family member, not marrying if already married to someone else, marrying someone who agrees to the marriage, etc.). If someone fits those criteria, then the government issues them a marriage license. If marriage was a right, you wouldn't need to get a license, obviously.

So, now that I have shown that marriage is not a right, at least as it is currently viewed by our government, what is your response? How about you Alf?

Craig wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:25 PM:Is is right for gays to share locker rooms with the same sex that they are attracted too? I am not trying to be facetious, I am curious as to what people think about this. Please post rational comments, I am not looking for hate-filled, smart a** comments.