Im sick wrote on Nov 4, 2008 7:48 PM:of the pro homosexuals attacks on the traditional family and values. One man and one women will always be the natural order of marital bliss that bears the fruit and the foundation of any society on this planet.

Tonight the American people decided race is irrelevant wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:17 PM:And I hope that those who are trying to minimize this win by claiming that sexual orientation/desires is similar to race, will back off their ridiculous arguments and let the nation enjoy the death of racism in this nation.

mel wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:32 PM:I'm sick of the discrimination and hatred against homosexuals in this country. NO ON 8.

Im sick AND TIRED wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:50 PM:This whole God is Law thing attacks the very foundation of our country and the belief that ALL men were created equal ... not just the straight ones.

im sick 2 wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:28 PM:i hear you...YES on 8!!!!

Times change wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:32 PM:Early bliblical history shows that marriage is between a man and as many women he can get. One man and one woman has not always been the "natural" order of marital bliss and "fruits" of most early societies on this planet were produced by male dominated groups with many wives. Times change. Everyone deserves to pursue happiness and equality.

RR wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:34 PM:Who cares of your sick of it. Those who have to live with your bigotry are actually adversely affected. Your ilk will go down in history as hate filled bigots regardless of today's result.

Happy and Sad wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:38 PM:I really am sorry for the Gay communities that their dream of marriage didn't come true. I mean that, But I am also thankful that we have come together to save a protect traditional marriage.

I have Gay friends and I know that this Prop was just as important to them as it was too me. I still love and care about them, just as they care about me.

I want the Gay community to know that I don't believe that anyone is anti-gay. We that supported Yes on 8 really value the definition of marriage. I am happy for me and am truly sad for you guys. I'm not really sure what to say that would make you feel better, I wish I had the words. But someone had to win and someone had to lose. I know it is difficult to understand.

God bless.

Sincerely,

NC Friend

bryan wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:59 PM:Florida and california are both saying yes to family values and yes to our kids in supporting traditional marriage.

believe wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:02 PM:Prop 8? Is not that discrimination? I thought this country was found and based equal rights, opportunities, hopes, dreams, and visions. We are moving forward not backward. The society needs more love not discrimination. Why can't we allow people to marry who they love and respect. There are many broken marriage within Catholic community, why no one say anything about that? Isn't divorce go against the Catholic teaching? I am Roman Catholic, but I support people rights to be wedded who they love and care about, love is unconditional and there is no obligation. The churches in a way manipulate us by teaching us to love unconditionally but only when you obey curtain rules written by the churches, that is wrong. As far as I believe in God and I have good heart and love everyone for who they are as far as they are no harm to the society or others, then I believe God will bless me. I do not like to be manipulated.

Confused wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:11 PM:If we really want to "protect" marriage - shouldn't this ballot have been to outlaw divorce?

polo wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:22 PM:I'm sick too!

I'm sick of all these traditionalist coming out of the woodwork. Its traditional to stay married. Its traditional to not have a child out of wedlock. Its traditional to not have any sexual relations before you marry.

If prop 8 passes, lets come up with some new ones.....

Prop 68: If you get divorced you must be put to death (you've desecrated this sacred institution)

Prop 69: Only virgins are allowed to get married. EVERYONE ELSE, JUST GET A CIVIL UNION!

Prop 70: Only fertile couples that can produce offspring to continue the human race can get married EVERYONE ELSE, JUST GET A CIVIL UNION!

Alex wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:26 PM:Yes on 8! Yes!

Got a PhD wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:35 PM:It is so sad that the liberals extended voting rights to the uneducated and bigoted. One man and one woman is the foundation of the Darwinian process of procreation. Further, if marriage was so blessed - there would not be so much divorce.

Historically (for thousands of years), marriage has been a civil union for the exchange of chattel and building of familial wealth. Traditional marriage is not legal until the papers are filed with the civil government. The religious concept of marriage bears no fruit and is a usurpation of governmental control. If the legal documents are not properly filed you are NOT married (No matter what your religious organizations indicate), and therefore you are effectively living in sin - like the vast majority of our predecessors who just shacked up.

Im sick wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:38 PM:I'm sick of idiotic closed minded views such as yours above...

Michael wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:41 PM:Even if the yes side wins it is only a matter of time, once Obama starts packing the courts with progressive judges, that all of the constitutional amendments against marriage equality across the entire nation, will fall like dominos. This WILL happen because we will not back down until it does.

im sicker wrote on Nov 4, 2008 10:57 PM:of bigotry and illegal measures finding their way on the ballot illegally. This will surely be once again overturned in the courts if it actually gets a narrow majority in the polls. Constitutional amendments must first go through the state legislature before they can get on the ballot. Prop 8 did not.

Loy wrote on Nov 4, 2008 11:13 PM:All I know that God exterminated the people and the city of Sodom in the old testament due to Man on Man action and as I recall Jesus never said "Hey you guys can be homosexuals now" in the new testament. I'm not being sarcastic or anything just being real. Ethics and Morals according to the ALMIGHTY KING's STANDARDS. That should be the first thing that comes to mind seriously what's next after this? Marrying your 11 year old daughter to a 60 year old man or how about Marrying your own dad or Mother.

response wrote on Nov 4, 2008 11:50 PM:Shut the hell up, you're not God and by no means are you perfect, and you aren't the creator, so quit trying to sound high and mighty like you hold some sort of special power and that you're better than homosexuals. you're a human just like me, with flaws, so don't put yourself on a pedastal.

And Im sick... wrote on Nov 4, 2008 11:51 PM:....of people promoting this mythological "perfect family." What works for one family does not necessarily work for another. People are gay, straight, bisexual. Some people prefer to be single. Some have been married multiple times and have step kids. Many kids have half-brothers and sisters. When are we going to recognize that the best family is the one that loves each other, supports each other and encourages each other to be the best they can possibly be.

Tonight we witnessed one large step forward in our country, and one HUGE step backward. I'm mortified, horrified, ashamed, embarrassed and incredibly sad. And I'm straight. I will never teach my children discrimination and hate. Hopefully my children will teach your children love and acceptance, because you obviously can't.

Honest Again wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:05 AM:A very, very telling statistic is that 74% of African American women voted YES on 8 (according to the exit poll). I think this demographic, more than any other group, understands how devastating it is for children to not be raised by both biological parents. Gay marriage, by design, intentionally removes one biological parent from the picture. We have enough families that don't meet the two-parent ideal; we did not need to create a new family structure that gurantees that one parent will be permantently missing. Thank you brave black women!

robert wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:11 AM:oh well we have spoken no gay marriage once again woo hoo

Mike wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:08 AM:Marriage is between a Man and a Women.
It wasnt broke before, doesnt need fixing now.

khmc wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:25 AM:Marriage is ordained by God, between a man and a woman. Families are the base of our society, and a child deserves to have both a mother and a father. Yes on Prop. 8

charlie wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:29 AM:im sick of people judging homosexuals!!!! i think that every single human is equal and has the right to live their lives how ever they want. also gay marriage should be allowed because every body has feelings and every one want to be happy why not letting gay people find the same happiness as every one else ??? i think gay people has more heart than those that judge and are against them !!!! no gay people will kill babies like other womens dude this day no gay people will we irresponsible for help others .... say no to prop 8.. and let the world be equal and respectful

nb1stsuspect wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:32 AM:Marriage is ordained by God, between a man and a woman. Families are the base of society and a child deserves to have both a mother and a father. Yes on Prop.8

TrueRepublican wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:59 AM:If it does in fact pass, it's a sad night for all in california. This isn't what God, Christ our savior or those who drafted the U.S. Constitution had in mind for us. As a Christian, I remain committed to love, equality and peace for all.

Amanda wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:03 AM:anyone who says yes is disturbed!! who are we to say who you can and cannot marry!! people cannot help who they love!! this is the worst idea ever! that marriage should be between only a man and woman. i'm straight and married. if two men or two women are married it won't make my marriage any less of a marriage. also, as a teacher i know for a fact that marriage is not taught in schools!!!

Vince wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:30 AM:I guess people aren't ready for same sex marriage, just like their ancestors weren't ready for intergration or womens rights.

Annoyed wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:12 AM:How do you place on "marriage"? In a world where we limit everything by laws, which are subsequently broken, why would a society need man's law to define what the church says is "God's Law'....unless it isn't God's Law to define marriage, but rather man's law. It seems to be that the Church is afraid that if we are allowed to think on our own, then we might see that marriage is between two PEOPLE who are willing to share their lives, love, hurts and pains together. Even the Church's vows don't make it an issue of "Do you take this man/woman to be your husband/wife in goods time and bad, but only if you are of opposite sexes". In a world where divorce among the Straight population is ever rising, maybe it is time we look at what is happening in those realms to cause such an issue for the Church?

It is amazing wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:31 AM:that all these bloggers who are "visiting" this site to promote their homosexual life are still here. Yes on 8 is going to pass. This is what CALIFORNIANS want. Just like we wanted it a year ago and it was over turned..... I am sure that the gays will sue, it what they do. To Polo: You sound like a very angry person. I suggest you seek a councelor.

Lady wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:41 AM:YEA!! YEA!!!! THANK YOU PEOPLE!!!
Voted YES on 8. NOW everyone JUST leave IT alone for "gosh" sakes already.. Get on with your life...

Im sick too wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:51 AM:Let's go way back in history and bring back "traditional" marriage. Men will marry as many wives as they can. Isn't that "natural order of marital bliss that bears the fruit and the foundation of any society on this planet." When did this "tradition" become obsolete?
Times change. We need to grow and change and allow everyone to pursue happiness.

Gil wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:55 AM:TO: Tonight the American people decided race is irrelevant

Yes - No more Excuses!!!!We ALL can make it in America!!!

Analyzing the Props wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:10 AM:Prop 68: since the death penalty is rarely carried out for convicted murderers, I think something like forfeiting your right to marry again would be sufficient divorce penalty.

Prop 69: This would have made Prop 8 unnecessary for obvious reasons.

Prop 70: A very reasonable proposal, which would mean couples (this means two people) would be prohibited from the participation of a third individual of the opposite sex to assist in producing offspring.

Relax, polo, I actually agree with your premise that pure traditionalists are few and far between and marriage has become a cliche.

Please wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:24 AM:Don't rejoice yet. How can you be pleased that it's practically divided 50/50? This will be overturned by the Supreme Court and even if it doesn't, gay is here to stay with the word "marraige" or not. You've just pushed more out of the closet:)

To Polo - wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:28 AM:I'm proud to say that I fit your criteria.... My husband and I were virgins up until our wedding night. We (with the help of God) have created 3 wonderful children. We've also been married for 10 years and our marriage just gets stronger and stronger - divorce is not an option for us.

I bet you thought that nobody would meet your criteria. NEWS FLASH-- Not everyone lives an immoral lifestyle!!!

YEAH for Prop 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:34 AM:Now with Florida, Arizona and California all 3 passing there constitutional amendment last night to protect marriage as it should be brings the total number of states to 30 that have such provisions to protect marriage...Only 20 more to go!!!

why not wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:51 AM:To respond Prop 68, 69 & 70.
If Prop did not pass
Prop 78: Polygamy shall be legal! People shall have the right to marry as many people as they want.

Prop 79: People shall have the right to marry their pet! You dog is not just your best friend, but your wife/husband

Prop 99: (in the future) Marriage should be allowed between human and aliens even Robots.

Go 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:57 AM:With our State almost bankrupt why do people continue to pass money spending Props? It doesn't make sense. Yes they are bonds but the state has to back those bonds. People read the measures and quit watching the TV. But then again why worry the Messiah Obama has won!!

If this isnt wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:04 AM:voter fraud, then sorry folks but Obama votes will be recounted.

race is irrelevant wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:05 AM:when did homo-sexuality become a race? Maybe you can explain that to me and the Muslims in Iraq.

No way wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:08 AM:There is NO WAY this will be allowed by our state supreme court. Thank goodness the judicial system is in place to prevent the (hateful, anachronistic) majority from OPPRESSING the minority. That's the way our checks and balances work. Propose as many "amendments" to the constitution as you'd like. Have as many votes on said Props as you'd like. But if the proposition violates an individuals rights, it will not pass into law! Learn it, Live it, Love it! :)

To no way.... wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:20 AM:ahhh yes let's bring up the state supreme court and judges that overturned the majority vote of Californians, showing that we don't matter. Didn't one of those judges have child pornography on his computer? Let me guess that lifstyle isn't a choice either right?


Yes on 8 passed, AGAIN Californians spoke loud and clear.

Wow wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:22 AM:The state Supreme Court has to listen to the people of California too. Not just the gay and lesbians. We the staight and narrow are people too, we pay our taxes, we vote and we have a right to be heard.

Frank wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:22 AM:It's shameful that christians in this country have gone after the basic rights of a group of people they don't agree with. I have been married for 29 years and have yet to see a reasonable explanation from the pro 8 people why same sex marriage will destroy my marriage.
Religious dogma does not belong in our laws and government. Haven't we had enough examples around the world where religions run the gov't and the subsequent loss of human rights? Prop 8 proponents used fear to get votes, sound familiar?

just a mom wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:25 AM:No way: what part of democracy do you not get? The whole proposition came about because the courts derailed the will of the people. It is a strange balance of power for the minority to dictate to the majority - does communism appeal to you more than democracy? CA isn't the only state passing such a proposition.

Yes On 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:27 AM:Prop 8 is winning by over 4 percentage points. A county-by-county map shows that the greatest support for Prop 8 was in the coastal counties by San Francisco. The California Supreme Court is headquartered in San Francisco, and is truly out of touch with the people of California.

esteban wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:29 AM:Hurray for the passage of prop 8. Gays have civil union rights already. Now shut up and go home.

Jeff wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:40 AM:Sad that a slim majority is sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment. Even state constitution should have more stringent standard to protect the rights of all people. I agree that religious dogma has no place in government. I just don't understand how this protects the sanctity of marriage. Let the hypocrites ban divorce if they are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage and the lessons they are teaching their kids about love, honor and commitment!

Oside1969 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:44 AM:I could care less about gay marriage. I personally don't think the government should mettle in people's lives. But I voted "yes on 8" because you whining liberals put Obama in the White House. Be ready for some big change and not the good kind. You can't have it all progressive whiners!!!

Yes on 8 so-cal love wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:44 AM:I AM VERY EXCITED THAT PROP 8 PASSED. ITS NOT THAT I HAVE HATRED FOR GAYS, I DONT MIND GAYS. THEY JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS UN-NATURAL TO BE TOGETHER. YOU CANT FLAUNT SOMETHING THAT DISTURBS SO MANY PEOPLE. PASSING A LAW LIKE THAT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS FOR OR COMMUNITIES. THEY NEED TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCHES THAT HAVE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. YOU CANT EXPECT THEM TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF YOUR SEXUAL PREFRENCE. THINK IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE, CHURCHES WOULD GO AGAINST THIER RELIGION IN GODS HOUSE. CHUCHES WOULD BE SUED OR FORCED TO CHOOSE. THATS WRONG, AND THEY DONT RESPECT THAT. THEY NEED TO RESPECT THE NATURAL FAMLIES THAT ARE TRYING TO RAISE THIER HIGHLY IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN IN SUCH A ALREADY CORRUPTED WORLD. YOU CANNOT GO AGAINST THE MORALS AND VALUES THAT PARENTS ARE TRYING TO TEACH THIER CHILDREN. THAT IS ALSO VERY WRONG, THAT IS NOT THIER RIGHT. BE YOUR SELF BUT PLEASE HAVE RESPECT.

religious nuts wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:57 AM:My wife and i are both atheist, there wasn't any talk of god at our ceremony, we have a marriage licence from the county of San Diego, not from god. we are happily MARRIED and god had nothing to do with it. you bible thumpers need to stop pushing your religious views on to others and stop taking away peoples rights who happen to think differently. then again suppressing rights of minorities is the way this country works.

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:00 AM:Proponents of 8 can now begin their true goal, sponsor taking away individual rights by separation in concentration camps. The largest group advocating support of passage, the “Christians”, win again with their lies and deceptive fear tactics. The sanctimonious are true cowards.

To Yes on 8 so-cal love wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:03 AM:People who think like you are exactly why this prop should have failed. I am straight and incredibly sad to live in a community/state/country where so many think it's acceptable to tell others how to live based on religion. I guess the church has really become state.

That aside ... please ... STOP YELLING! I have a headache.

To Why Not wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:03 AM:You forgot Prop 77: Marriage shall not be prohibited based on age. Any person of any age may marry any other person of any age.

Victory wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:03 AM:Now that we've imposed Biblical standards onto California family law, we can move ahead with our next Biblical goal: outlawing shellfish and cheeseburgers.

Paco wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:05 AM:I accept the fact that Obama was elected President. It was the will of the people. You anti-8 crowd should just accept the will of the people as well. Since polls have shown that African-Americans overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8, I guess it shows it really wasn't a civil rights issue after all.

Tide wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:06 AM:It is unbelievably amazing that Prop 8 could pass when you consider all of the advantages the No on 8 side had - Hollywood celebrities, a lap-dog media, the powerful teacher's union, the vast majority of big-city politicians, major corporations making big donations (thereby letting their employees know that they better fall in line), and a very charismatic presidential candidate telling them to vote no. If you remove any one of those factors, the pass rate goes up 7%. This was the best chance the No folks will ever have at defeating the silent majority. Go ahead and put it on the ballot again. Traditional marriage will always win.

To Loy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:10 AM:God never said it was o.k in the new testament to be gay. He preached compassion for your fellow man. He forgave many sinners. But what does that have anything to do with America. Everybody want God out of Government issues, Now all of a sudden you want to bring God into governmant. I hate when people use God at their convenience, to hit people over the head with things. This is AMERICA, people came here to be free, not be persecuted. Freedom of religion, freedom of no religion is included too.

Married 24 Years wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:12 AM:Of course it would be better if there was some way to regulate heterosexual marriage, but the same loons who cry about their individual rights are the ones who would complain the most about adding restrictions to getting married. Who came up with the idea of "no fault" divorce? I can assure you it wasn't people who understand what a commitment is. I've been married a long time and it is hard work. It takes a true commitment to your spouse and it takes humility and trust. It takes tending, and time. It takes putting your spouse's needs before yours many times. It takes communication and listening. Love will not survive without all of these things.

Many have no clue what it involves. They invest more in the ceremony than they do in the relationship after. As such, we all have to live with those who don't understand the sanctity of marriage and treat it like a simple agreement until they no longer have use for it. That is wrong, and those types should not be marrying either.

The same problem would exist in the gay community.

Two wrongs wouldn't make a right.

jgreer wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:15 AM:If this does pass (and there's still 5% of precincts to report), all it means is that approximately 52% of the population of California are:

* Religious zealots who have written their religious beliefs into the state constitution.

* Total idiots for believing the lies that were told in those advertisements about same-sex marriage being taught in schools.

* Total frickin idiots for allowing the Mormon church in UTAH to rewrite the CALIFORNIA constitution to relfect THEIR religious beliefs.

Either way, it's sad that there are so many IGNORANT and biggoted people in this state.

We'll see what the U.S. Supreme court has to say about this.

And by the way, if you somehow manage to annul MY marriage (which I doubt you'll be able to accomplish), I WILL sue for a refund of the money I paid for my marriage license because I did not receive what I paid for. I think all 18,000+ of us should too!

What a great legacy you leave your children and grandchildren (and I guarantee SOME of them are going to be gay whether you like it or not). California: Equality for SOME.

Pathetic.

Discrimin8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:16 AM:Last night was a great day for the nation but a sad night for the state. I cannot believe that there are so many people out there that believe that people would freely choose to live a life that would cause people to hate them. People do not choose to be persecuted by fearful hateful people whose beliefs are so weak that they could not handle an opposing opinion to even exist. If the vote continues the way it is then a very slim majority managed to lie their way into amending the constitution and promoting Hate and Intolerance, two Family Values that I will not be passing on to my children. Due to the involvement of the Catholic Church in promoting DISCRINATION I will puling my two kids from catechism and looking for new church that doesn’t Discriminate based on how people are born. Call it protecting Marriage but it only comes down to people thriving on hate and if your beliefs and values are so week that two people falling in love and promising to devote their lives to one another and their families threatens you. Then your MORALS VALUES AND MARRAGRES ARE A JOKE. In the end nothing was being forced into churches or into peoples homes by those who believe that all people are equal under the law. Ironically it was the Intolerant, small minded, SMALL GOVERNMENT people that have forced their hate into the discussion.

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:18 AM:Passage of this measure was based soley to win control over individual rights. The irony is that everyone will actually lose. Precluding rights for any group destroys the sanctity of equality and fortifies social dividers.

Norco wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:19 AM:It's discrimination no matter how you twist it. The Supreme Court alone should make the decision on this one...since too many people are caught up in believing everything they read in the Bible. Good common sense gets lost. We all know it hard enough to find love...try to focus on more important issues.

Liberty wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:27 AM:If the church wants to be involved in politics they need to start paying taxes.
If you voted yes on 8, you DO have a problem with gay people. You can justify any action with religion and this isn't any different. Separation of Church and State is important. I guess what they really want is liberty and justice for all Christian people. I hope I live to see the day when all people are treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation.
YES WE CAN.

Voice wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:31 AM:Those who have judged will also be judged.

To Paco wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:33 AM:I accept it because I believe in democracy ... but that does mean it's not absolutely nauseating to know that it's somehow acceptable to allow God to dictate the laws of the state.

The fact that blacks largely supported prop 8 doesn't example that it's not a civil rights issue ... just that it's not their civil rights issue.

Again, I will accept it ... but I will never like it. It has made me lose all faith in humanity, common sense and common decency. Obama won't have to take this country down. It's citizens are doing well enough of that on their own.

I dont believe it wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:35 AM:'Proposition 4, would require doctors to notify parents or guardians when minors seek an abortion, appeared to be headed for defeat.'... WHO could vote NO on this? So now a 13 year old can secretly have abortions, regardless that parents are 'responsible' for their children til age 18? I don't get it. On your daughter's wedding day, she comes to you and says "Mom I had 3 abortions but I never told you about them." And who PAYS? Oh, yeah another government program that taxes the PARENTS who have no choice? I don't believe it. If a 13 year old is mature enough to kill a life, why can't parents decide to emancipate them?

LOL wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:35 AM:Lets put God aside for a second. If gay marriages was so right, wouldn't it have been legal or tolerated thousands of years ago? Just wondering.

Defining Marriage wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:46 AM:In 1977 the California legislature clearly defined marriage as a legal bond between a man and a woman.

In 2003 the passage of the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act in California extended to registered domestic partners virtually all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

In spite of what Prop 8 opponents claim, gay couples will still have the rights and responsibilities of married couples. But people do not want the homosexual agenda forced upon them. Such as:

Christian photographer sued for refusing to take photographs at a lesbian ceremony.

Physician sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman.

Firemen forced to participate in a gay pride parade.

All of the above examples could easily have been avoided. What happened to the live and let live philosophy claimed by those opposing Prop 8?

You can count wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:49 AM:the votes for President across America, but you can't count the votes in California by now? FRAUD!!!

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:50 AM:Don't loose faith in humanity or the pureness that religion ought to hold. Remain faithful that at sometime in your lifetime, equality for all will forge a course to universal understanding. The self-righteous will no longer have the power to undermine rights and freedoms.

Threesome wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:51 AM:Arguements supporting gay marriage could also be used for polygamy. If you can't draw a line at one man & one woman, then you have to allow all social unions the right to marry, including polygamy. Otherwise you would be depriving rights (according to the no on 8 argument). This is why I do not agree with using the arguement that prop 8 takes away rights. A marriage is a marriage. It's not complicated.

Civil rights my foot wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:52 AM:Having frown up in the deep south during the turmoil of the Civil Rights movement, gays do NOT face the same challenges as those whose skin color was different from the citizens of Anglo-Saxon descent. Gays do NOT face the threat of physical harm when they exercise their right to vote. They are not confined to "separate but equal" education by governmental agencies (though some gays have established their own segregated institutions). Gays do not have to walk on a separate side of the street because of their skin color - use separate bathrooms, sit in the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains from "straights". And to those who call the "yes on 8" voters bigots and idiots - who's judging who?

to LOY wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:53 AM:God never said it was o.k in the new testament to be gay. He preached compassion for your fellow man. He forgave many sinners. But what does that have anything to do with America. Everybody wants God out of Government issues, Now all of a sudden you want to bring God into governmant. I hate when people use God at their convenience, to hit people over the head with things. This is America Freedom of religion & freedom not to have religion too!

Disappointed wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:54 AM:How incredibly disappointing it is that on a night when we as a nation vote to elect the first African American president who IN HIS SPEECH states that "we are all Americans" despite race, gender, religous or sexual preference, that we as the state of California SO VEHEMENTLY say to Mr. Obama - no we're not. We're not all Americans, and we do NOT all deserve the same rights, freedoms and liberties. This morning I am proud to say that I am an American, but so very disappointed in the state of California. Hatred, bigotry, and discrimination are still alive in this country, despite how the nation voted last night. All we have to do is look at California's votes.

Maybe for Awhile wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:57 AM:Maybe for a while, we won't have to worry about legalizing all forms of marriage. Some examples include, between homosexuals or brothers and sisters or one man and mutiple woman or one woman and mutiple men or arranged marriages between a 12 year old and a 40year old.

The supporters of this proposition sold this as a civil rights issue. As many have pointed out, being a homosexual is a CHOICE! People are free to make that choice or not. The rest should have been obvious to everyone.

This has never been a civil rights issue, therefore, NO was the proper way to vote on this.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings but that is the way it is!

Question wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:58 AM:Does anybody know why we have so many churches and even more being built? Seems like there's a church for every Starbucks.

interesting wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:00 AM:What I find interesting is the tone of the different groups. The majority of those supporting 8 make their points without an attack mentality. The opposition resorts to name calling, vulgarity and childishness. Perhaps that is why they lost. I have no patience for those who spew ridiculousness, regardless of which side they represent.

TO Defining Marriage wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:10 AM:To: Defining Marriage
Reminds me of race discrimination when blacks weren't allowed to go to the same schools or drink from the same water fountain. Sometimes "forcing" change needs to happen because it's wrong. Personally I would just look for another physician or photographer rather than waste my time because I wouldn't want a "hater" around me. I would be sad about the firemen issue because they're gorgeous, but I would still move on.

U-haul available wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:14 AM:If you want to live immorally why don't you just move to Massachusetts and quit yer belly aching?

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:15 AM:Congratulations to Jim Crow and his victory over Equality.

Now the state (and my taxes) have to pay to defend Segregation in a Federal Court of Appeals.

But....this religion in government thing is a two way street. Time for government to stick its nose in religion. Time to revoke their tax exempt status.

JB wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:15 AM:Well, I'm disappointed that Prop 8 may pass, but not completely surprised. I'm sure the Mormons feel they got their money's worth. My concern now is what proposition might be next to further push the Mormon agenda on those of us that aren't Mormon.

To interesting wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:16 AM:To: interesting
Wow...I actually thought the opposite. It seemed that "Yes on 8" folks were quite aggressive. Even using their kids to promote their cause at dangerous intersections. Seemed desparate at times. Interesting!

YES on 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:20 AM:YES ON 8! YES ON 8! I'm glad this proposition has passed although I am disappointed with the outcome of the presidential election..it's a bittersweet moment. God has heard all prayers for this proposition and I am proud that people showed up to make that vote.

To interesting wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:21 AM:There was plenty of name calling & other childish behavior on both sides.

The no side consider Yes votes a personal attack.

The yes side consider No votes a sign of moral decay based on their God.

I don't believe that all the Yes voters are hateful bigots, but the 'because God said so' argument doesn't fly either.

What we've seen happen with the results of this prop far outreaches gay marriage. We (proverbially of course) have said that it is acceptable for the private beliefs of one to negatively affect the private lives & public rights of another.

To all the Yes voters ... be careful what you wish for. Next time it could be your rights that get trampled.

To all the No voters ... be afraid of the future because God talked about more than homosexuals. If God's law was able to be placed in the constitution for this ... there is still a lot of ground to cover.

wildomar wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:22 AM:I am so surprised that the mormon church would so strongly go after a minorty group such as gays since in the history of their own church they have been ridiculed and made fun of and sucked into other branches of peaple claiming they are part of the church in order to have several wives, so I ask why not show compassion and understanding when you yourself ask the same?

michelle wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:23 AM:The triumph of the Obama win was quickly overshadowed with the reality that Americans don't hate less than they did 50 years ago their has just been redirected. What was shaping up to be an amazing day has turned into a sad sad day. I ashamed of Californians.

FYI- I'm a teacher... what do you think I will be teaching your kids tomorrow when I go back to work. I took the day off to morn...

You Think You Won wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:26 AM:The Yes side has lost. What you have actually done is destroyed marriage for everyone in the civil form. The state will not be able to recognize marriage anymore since it now discriminates. The courts have already ruled that the state cannot discriminate which marriage now does. So now what? The state now must get rid of marriage and offer only civil unions to all. Marriage will now only be a religious ceremony.

Urban Blight wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:27 AM:Both the militant social activists (No on 8) and the religious zealots (Yes on 8) should FOCUS on tearing down all those ugly signs off taxpayer streets and roads than waste their time on this board. Both sides stink.

President Elect Obama wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:39 AM:Even said he does not condone same sex marriages. At least one point that I agree with him on.

To Religious Nuts wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:50 AM:Learn how to spell before you post. Your spelling indicates your belief....ignorance.

YES on 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:51 AM:YES ON 8! YES ON 8! I'm glad this proposition has passed although I am disappointed with the outcome of the presidential election..it's a bittersweet moment. God has heard all prayers for this proposition and I am proud that people showed up to make that vote.

So Cal Native wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:51 AM:The Basics:

Mother Nature (I didn't say God or a Religion) says the Lower Bowel is an Exit. An exit wonderfully designed to complete the digestion process and facilitate fecal evacuation.

The Shrieking Vocal MINORITY insists that this exit orifice is an OMNI Directional Orifice. To be fair, that issue may be pleasurable to some but it is NOT Mother Nature's design.

IT IS NOT NORMAL. Can it be accepted as a practice preferred by some? Sure. But to force the majority of society to say THAT practice is as Normal as Heterosexual copulation is, well, very very wrong There's more argument but that's enough for this post. WE WON!!

Jip wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:59 AM:Maybe we should put an amendment on the next ballot stating that homosexuals only count as 3/5th of a human for the purpose of population counting.

Nobama wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:03 AM:at least conservatives won something
YES on 8

so sad wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:05 AM:How was God created? The answer that He/she has just always been here does not fly. Eventually Gay marriage will pass. My God is mother nature, she made Gays & straights. 70 mil wasted on this prop while children suffer. Shame on you

Ryan wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:06 AM:Fifty years from now, when our kids clean up this mess, the Yes on 8 people will be pretty embarassed as to how they dragged their feet when the issue of equality came up.

Rodney K wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:07 AM:Whay can't we all just get along?

WHO-ME wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:11 AM:Sorry You think you won, but the ruling in which the courts said the state can't discriminate against gay marriage is WHAT PROP 8 OVERTURNED. The passage of Prop 8 only eliminates marrriage between same sex couples, it does not eliminate the civil union of same sex couples nor ANY of the rights they enjoy under that protection.

Unconstitutional wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:14 AM:Those of you who voted "yes" enjoy this while you can. This ban is unconstitutional and will be overturned. Wrong is wrong and you all know it. You have made it perfectly clear to thousands of people that they do not deserve happiness. Shame on you. This has nothing to do with protecting your kids. In fact, you've harmed your own children by spreading hate and showing them that happiness is only allowed for a chosen few. If your child is homosexual you've done two things: 1) You've told them their lifestyle is wrong and 2) You have told them they do not deserve to be happy. Shameful.
Religion has no business in law. What else does the "Invisible Man in the Sky" tell you to do?

Connie wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:15 AM:Yes on 8!

Another SoCal Native wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:16 AM:Hasn't anyone heard of the gay penguins from Central Park. Don't try to tell me Mother Nature doesn't support this when two male penguins were together for six years. Also, if you knew anything about anatomy, the prostate is in the anus which is equal to the woman's G spot. And yes you defeated a bunch of people who only take up ten percent of the entire population, good for you. I am so glad we still preserve the separation of church and state.

To Happy Sad wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:18 AM:"..protect traditional marriage"? Protect it from what? A gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage at all.

to everyone wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:18 AM:What is done behind closed doors is your business. Do not push your agenda on our family values and moral values.
and stating that Yes ON 8 was racist is a joke. We will never legitimize man and man and woman and woman ever in this state. It is a dead issue.
You have the right to disagree. You do not have the right to MARRY. Marriage is between a women and a man PERIOD.
Morally, Biblcally ans socially.

yeah wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:20 AM:WE won!!! WE won.
YES ON 8

NEVER NEVER
Thank God

Pleasemove out of the state if you do not like it.

Thanksin advance.

Michele wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:21 AM:Celebrate hate, but tomorrow this will go to courts. Whether you allow the "word" marriage or not,there will still be gay people, families, and examples in life. Now, more than ever people will be shouting it from the rooftops, so you better believe it WILL BE "shoved down your throats". Now, more than ever we know "yes we can" and that includes EVERYONE. What's next? A ban on divorce? Living together? Atheism? I weep for this state.I struggle with how I will tell my children that half of California preaches hate in the name of God, and how separation of church and state has failed us.

WHO-ME wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:23 AM:"UNCONSTITIONAL"

You are so wrong, I'm sad for you and all in your community, but, I shall pray for all of you and treat you all as equals, "different", but equal.

To Who-Me wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:25 AM:You have overturned all Marriages. The courts have already ruled you can't discriminate, so the only thing the gov't can now do is eliminate marriage all together. This is not the outcome you wanted, but the outcome you will get.

NorthCountyNative wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:33 AM:Michelle,
If that is the case...you shouldn't be a teacher anyway. I wouldn't want you anywhere near my kids.

The NO voters will take the matter up in court. It doesn't matter what the maj. vote is.

CC wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:39 AM:For me the actions of both sides did not sway my judgement to vote yes on 8, nor is it religion - for me it was the fact that the ca courts overturning a decision we already made. If we allow the courts to get away with disregarding the way voters chose in the first place, then we will lose our democracy. Can't you see we would turn into a 3rd world country of we lose our democracy?

Get Real wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:41 AM:Honest Again
[-] wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:05 AM:
A very, very telling statistic is that 74% of African American women voted YES on 8 (according to the exit poll). I think this demographic, more than any other group, understands how devastating it is for children to not be raised by both biological parents. Gay marriage, by design, intentionally removes one biological parent from the picture. We have enough families that don't meet the two-parent ideal; we did not need to create a new family structure that gurantees that one parent will be permantently missing. Thank you brave black women!
-----------------------------
DOES THIS MEAN THAT ADOPTION IS WRONG?

YOU'RE ALL RIDICULOUS.

MGHTY MAN wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:46 AM:God Bless America... Thanks to those who voted YES. Please stay in the closet and out our schools.

John wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:56 AM:re: Prop 8.
It is a sad day for enlightenment. It shows that still way too many people are obsessed with god, guns, and gays. It's not like we straights have the marriage thing wired. And leave religion out of it... my marriage is legal, moral, and non-religious.

nate wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:02 AM:to north county native.

if you dont care what the majority vote is, why should we care what a minority group thinks.

Maybe you should not let your emotions get the best of you

Its over wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:09 AM:All you bible thumpers and closet closers it's over. Pick up your signs and go home. You guys are pathetic.

Parent wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:10 AM:Now the same folks are going back to the California Supreme Court. What, now it's unconstitutional to amend our constitution? What additional havoc can this court raise after having allowed false marriages for several months rather than stay their order pending outcome of Prop. 8?

Its Over wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:21 AM:Can we move on now. It's the law you have to marry someone of the opposite sex. It should never have had to be a law, but now you have it. And please stop comparing the strife and struggle of the gay comunity, to that of the civils rights in the black communities of the 50's and 60's. A gay person can eat an sleep in the same hotel as a straight person, that wasn't allowed during the civil rights. You can eat in the same restaraunts, drink from the same water fountain as straight people, you have the right to choose what school you go to, that wasn't allowed, so PLEASE stop with the comparison to the CIVIL RIGHTS struggle. And to those that want to turn it over in court, remember who put you in office the VOTERS !

Teri wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:30 AM:God institued marriage, not man, so therefore he can make the rules. One man and One woman. That was God's plan from the beginning. God did not condone multiple wives and if you read your Bible, you will see that everytime man decided to change God's laws (with more than one wife) is lead to trouble. So to say that, that is how it was in early civilazations is a flawed arguement. God also calls homosexuality wicked. So if you don't like the rules take it up with God after you die, but since at that time you will be begging for your life, I am sure you will forget to ask about this.

Over wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:34 AM:Oh, it's only just begun. Now we have a reason to fight. Slavery WAS a law...segregation WAS a law...laws change...

What about 4 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:38 AM:What amazes me is the outpouring of support for Proposition 8 from the religious groups. Now think of this you pro-8ers, what if you spent your efforts and money on Prop 4 vs. Prop 8. I didn’t see one Pro-4 sign with your cluster of yellow signs. If you had focused on 4 with your energy, you might have stopped some abortions. Instead, your hatred for gays distracted you and your efforts. Essentially speaking, with your own thought process, you may have inadvertently “killed” some unborn babies…….. Shame on you!!!!!

Cardiffian wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:43 AM:I really hoped that 8 would fail. Californians are now faces with a constitutinal crises. Prop 8 is in violation the the constitutions due process clause. The courts will have to iron this one out by using legal principles, precedent, and thoughtful analysis. Unfortunately, this particular legal nuance will escape the anti-same sex marriage crowd who will rail agaist "liberal judges" who go "against the will of the people". On another note, I am so glad to see that americans have decided to put an end to the dark days of the Bush administration. The next 4 years are going to be tough - we now have to pay for the last 8 - but we will come out of it better and stronger.

unbelieveable wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:43 AM:This is a sad day in our state. Discrimination is hatred. I am disappointed that fear and ignorance allowed a mass of people to impose their "values" and deny rights to people who aren't harming anyone, just living their lives. It's just gross.

To michelle wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:47 AM:It is indeed a sad day when teachers can't even spell. All teachers should be ashamed. I'm "morning" also.

I cant wait... wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:48 AM:My plan is turn the world GAY by Tuesday:)

John wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:49 AM:Hate wins the day.

To interesting wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:49 AM:Ummm, I believe it was the "YES" side that turns to talk of incest and beastiality...sick minds...

michelle wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:52 AM:It is actually mourning... It was a typo, no big deal. I hate the spelling police!

hey hey wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:55 AM:We should make it so only cool people can marry.

Moral values won at least in California wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:55 AM:Marriage is still a man and a woman. It is constitutional now. Divorce is sad I agree and wrong, but that doesnt mean add another wrong (gay marriage). I am thankful the voters saw past the gay activists rhetoric.

Mary wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:02 PM:Please stop the lies! GR8 was about protecting my rights--not taking rights away. Consenting adults have the right to a union--that has not changed.

It is only a matter of time until NAMBLA uses the same circular logic as the no on 8ers.

Mike H wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:09 PM:Thank you voters! At least we won't get laughed at about this topic anymore. Cally, being the laughing stock of the world.

Victory wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:11 PM:Bigotry runs both ways. You can have the rights that married couples have just leave marriage the way it has always been defined "a union between a man and woman, husband and wife". Just because chemistry gives me a headache doesn't mean that I can change its definition. Californians made the right choice.

to john wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:11 PM:Go take your pathetic beliefs back to the South and see what dumpster you end up in.

to MEL wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:13 PM:Deal with it! The people spoke (correctly)!

To Another So Cal Native wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:28 PM:Homosexuality is normal in humans because there is one "homosexual penguin couple" in a zoo? Please. Do you really think we should be using animal behavior to determine the moral and social policies for the kind of human societies in which we want to live? Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To then make the leap saying this is acceptable for humans makes no sense. (Although some people are coming close.) Animals also don't take care of their elderly. Does that mean we should start closing nursing homes? Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

BTW, you may want to take an anatomy class before you start giving lessons on anatomy. The prostate is NOT in the anus nor is it in any part of the digestive tract.

Whats taken away wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:29 PM:Gays still have the right to marry it just has to be someone of the opposite sex.

To Mary wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:34 PM:U R, um, how can I say it without being censored? I probably can’t…….

To michelle wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:39 PM:Is that what you tell your students? No need to proofread? No need to be thorough? Laziness and mediocrity are okay. Yes, I realize this is just a blog. However, if you want to represent yourself as a teacher. . .

Dude wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:45 PM:I so wish there was a way for both sides to lose, All of you have not behaved well. Now go clean up your signs, no back talk, go do it.

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:45 PM:I agree with Cardiffian. We will be paying dearly for Bush's mistakes but it's going to be rougher road to change perceptions that are intent to divide. The passing of 8 is clearly bolstering negative perception that creates division; based on lies to incite fear. Uniting will be difficult to achieve when entire groups are unfairly excluded from recognition.

Tangled Web wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:46 PM:I don't believe that all the Yes voters are hateful bigots, but the 'because God said so' argument doesn't fly either.

What we've seen happen with the results of this prop far outreaches gay marriage. We (proverbially of course) have said that it is acceptable for the private beliefs of one to negatively affect the private lives & public rights of another.

To all the Yes voters ... be careful what you wish for. Next time it could be your rights that get trampled.

To all the No voters ... be afraid of the future because God talked about more than homosexuals. If God's law was able to be placed into the state's constitution for this ... there is still a lot of ground to cover.

To What about 4 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:47 PM:Prop 4 was not about stopping abortions. It was about putting some safeguards in place for girls who are too young to be making potentially life threatening decisions on their own. It was about trying to protect young girls who may be in abusive situations. But you're right that not enough money or effort was put into passing this proposition. Unfortunately the lies won out.

Republicans dont get it wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:47 PM:SF went no on 8 but LA went yes on 8.

LA has a multicultural & immigrant population. But this vote on prop 8 shows that these folks are fundamentally conservative.

Silly republicans do not embrace diversity and immigrants, so this potential block of votes goes for democratic candidates.

Until republicans finally wake up and realize that they need to ally themselves with some brown people, and stop the immigrant-bashing, the GOP will remain the party of the white, the rural, and the old, and there will not be another republican president. The demographics of the country have changed too much, and they are not going to change back. The republicans are in serious danger of being left behind for good at the national level.

books wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:48 PM:Is the vote complete on Prop 8? I believe they - the Registrars office are still counting. Also, did'nt the Mormon Church put BIG money into this campaign? If so, why is a secular enity doing this- to fullfill yet another roll call of "duty"? Why, if "We the People" can vote for a black man as President, cannot we just get along without being pressured into accepting the right or the left? Just let it be and get on with what's left of your lives. P.S - check out the stats on CA divorce rates - 25% stay married - not much to shout about.

To Another So Cal Native wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:56 PM:The gay penguins weren't married and they apparently were quite happy. So what's your point?

To Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:03 PM:With which group would you draw the line and why? How about one person marrying multiple people? How about an adult marrying a child? How about one person marrying their sibling? How about one person marrying their child or parent? Should these groups of people be "excluded from recognition"?

What is traditional marriage wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:12 PM:In most cases this is the traditional marriage in the USA:

Man and a woman get married, have a few kids, then go through a nasty divorce, the kids grow up in a broken home and the parents turn to an invisble Jesus for comfort.

Great tradition!

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:17 PM:Time to work the other direction now that the churches have opened the path to government. I suggest, and will be working for, revoking the tax exempt status of CA churches, particularly those that actively took part in the "Yes on Segregation" campaign. Maybe we can take care of the State's $$$ deficit at the same time.

Remember, it is the CHURCHES that opened that Pandora's box....not the Government.

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:26 PM:Oh, all you "Yes on Discrimination" supporters. Why don't you come to our house and TRY to take our marriage license away. Come and get it.

enviorment suggestion wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:26 PM:Those folks who were against prop 8, it's ok to remove the Yes on 8 signs. Those folks who were for prop 8, it's ok to now remove the NO on 8 signs.

You dont get it wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:46 PM:Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin were ALL against gay marriage. How does that equal Republicans?

Mormons wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:53 PM:Mormons are only about 1% of the california population, so don't blame it on them.

climb back on that horse wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:57 PM:This ban is temporary. Gay marriage will eventually win. It is inevitable

Glad its over For now wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:58 PM:I think it's important to point out that we live in a time where we all have gay friends and family members that we love. This has unfortunately became about their right to marry. But the big picture is the California Constitution, in this instance by giving gay couples the right to marry, the rest of us have to sacrifice our right to know what are kids are taught in school, our right to worship, and so much more. I'm so thankful that gay people DO have all the same rights as straight people, with the only difference being one little piece of paper.

Sad American wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:10 PM:I am sad that prop 8 was put to the people and they voted yes and now the gay rights people are threatening law suits. This is a democracy and how it works. You have every right to be angry but do not have a right to a lawsuit. You as gay rights activists obviously love America but at the same time you are trampling its very existence. I do not like the fact that Obama won but that is how it goes in a democracy and I will have another chance in four years. You need to leave it alone and stop being so ugly and disrespectful to the system.

YEAH for Prop 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:22 PM:Hmmmmmm, let's see...Calififornia will be the laughing stock of America? Let's think about that...Last night Florida passed a similar law and then Arizona passed theirs last night as well, making them the 28th and 29th states to pass Constitutional law to protect marriage. So it will be the 30th state to pass the law that will be the laughing stock...OR will Mass. be the laughing stock. This Proposition will not be overturned by the courts, NOR is this proposition discriminatory. All it does is "DEFINE" what marriage is. I am truley surprised we had to define the word in the first place, but some people made it necessary because they want it different now...I am extremely happy Prop 8 has passed, very very disappointed then prop 4 failed and scared to death that Nobama won the election. America is about to get what it deserves and that is NOT a good thing...

la migra wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:27 PM:It was blacks and hispanics who provided the margin of victory for Prop 8. The guilt-stricken white liberals voted to keep gay marriage. It's very strange to see minorities wander off the liberal plantation, especially in this election.

cid wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:27 PM:What the hell? Let them get married. If I have to suffer with a mother in law they should too.

chris from escondido wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:28 PM:If gay marriages are allowed then we have to allow marriages to animals, multiple people, and family members. Its the same so called rights that the gay people claim they are being stripped of. Since this is about love and rights, if we ever allow gays to marry we will have to allow everyone and everything.

to bodeca wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:31 PM:Dont make us laugh. You are playing with religion. The biggest wars ever have been fought under the flags of religion. If you dont think the churches can hold their own you are mistaken.

OHhh I get it now... wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:33 PM:SInce the gays didn't get their way, now they want all marriages illegal!! Great for my kids who are in a hetrosexual home. We haven't done anything wrong but now since once again the gays didn't get their way they NOW want to destroy my family and my home? Good luck. I have always been a quiet person when it came to 8, but if this is the attack that this coming my way. I will be ready for the fight. Good luck because no one is going to tell me my "marriage" is a civil union.

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:39 PM:To Sad American.

Where to begin?

You said: "I am sad that prop 8 was put to the people and they voted yes and now the gay rights people are threatening law suits. This is a democracy and how it works"

No, this is not a Democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic. The majority does NOT have the right to take rights away from the minority.

You said: " You have every right to be angry but do not have a right to a lawsuit. "

I beg your pardon? You unjustly take away the right to marry and NOW we don't have the right to petition the courts for redress? Are you serious?

You said: "You as gay rights activists obviously love America but at the same time you are trampling its very existence.'


I see...wanting equal rights as American citizens is "trampling on it's very existance? Are you for real?

You said: " I do not like the fact that Obama won but that is how it goes in a democracy and I will have another chance in four years. You need to leave it alone and stop being so ugly and disrespectful to the system.'

You apparently have NO CLUE on what the System is. Perhaps you should school yourself a little bit more on how this country's government is set up and run.

In the meantime, you will just have to put up with us "Uppity" gay people, not knowing our place and all.

hey la migra wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:42 PM:I'm not guilt ridden, I'm not liberal and I'm not gay, but I voted no as did my wife. What does that make me?

Sad American wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:48 PM:To: Bodecea

You said it best "Uppity gay people" That is the reason it did not pass.

Infidel wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:07 PM:God was created by man. The bible is a work of fiction created to put fear into the masses. It was 400 years from the so called birth of christ until the bible was actually put into print. Ever play the game telephone? Think of how manipulated and changed the legend becamne afterpassing the story from one generation to the next. Ever hear of Hercules? He was the son of god too. Open your mind to true freedom and think for yourself.

To bodeca wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:12 PM:There were no rights taken away. The California legislature defined marriage as a legal bond between a man and a woman in 1977. How many gays do you know who were married before 1977? Domestic partnership gives gays the rights of married couples. That was not taken away.

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:12 PM:A reasonable person would not think clarification was needed but drawing the line at two consenting, non-related, adult humans who want to share committed relationship is the appropriate intent regarding comment of exclusionary devices. Drawing the line on untested fear could also avail to the holier-than-thou types from concluding the most ludicrous assumptions. You’ve been duped by conjured fear yet I predict is neither the first time nor the last time.

Ridiculous wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:24 PM:How can you use the argument of allowing a HUMAN and an ANIMAL marrying and compare that to two humans even if they are of the same gender? You're missing some brain cells there.The churches that use their influence towards any politicla involvement should pay taxes now. They have freedom of expression, but they should stay out of politics in the public eye.Let's place a proposition to tax churches next. We do have seperation of church and state, keep it that way.Your god does not dictate how others live. Citizens do not have to believe in god!

next wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:31 PM:The next thing that is needed is to be sure they cant adopt children. Children should not suffer.

Laughing wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:33 PM:Im laughing at all of you that think they can manipulate people away from religion. You guys are asking for a war in which the church wont stop fighting until they win. History has proved that.

THANK YOU wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:34 PM:YOu've inspired the high schools to bring back the GSA club...good job:)That's "GAY STRAIGHT ALLIANCE" for you "YES" people.

Teacher wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:37 PM:I spent my day consoling gay students, some of them Mormon, who had to endure students comparing them to dogs today. I could just feel the Christian love all around. I intervened because at that point it is harassment. I'm sure I'll get pulled into the office tomorrow for "brainwashing" students. Love thy neighbor....

Warning wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:38 PM:ays will never give up until all God fearing people are rounded up and arrested for believing in the Lord. We who believe in the bible know that day is comming. People will go from bad to worse. Haters of God and lovers of themselves. Pretty soon NAMBLA will also demand their so called rights, and they will get their way. Get ready people of God we have a great test comming. As for the Godless, you will all get exactly what you want. An eternity without God.

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:38 PM:But why draw the line there? One person marrying multiple people harms no one if they are all consenting adults?

If asking questions for clarification constitutes fear, then perhaps "fear" is not such a bad thing.

1977 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:39 PM:And the last states banning interracial marraige did not change their laws until 1978! Let's all go back to 1977. I love Star Wars.

to Ridiculous wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:41 PM:Its easy to use that argument and it all fits. By denying the rights for a person to get married wither it be with an animal, multiple people, or with family falls in the same line as rights being stripped away. The right to marry someone they love, that is what you pro gay marriage people are protesting against.

If a brother and sister truly love each other, how would you pro gay marriage people even think about denying them that?

Alf wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:43 PM:Well, "Defining Marriage" at 8:46AM,
allow me to point out the word you gloss over "VIRTUALLY", as in -
"the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act in California extended to registered domestic partners VIRTUALLY all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage" (emphasis MINE),
Would you accept VIRTUALLY all your Constitutional rights?
Would you accept a VIRTUALLY 3 year guarantee?
Would YOU accept having VIRTUALLY the same status as you do now?
I don't think so,
yet you expect others to be satisfied with VIRTUALLY the same legal status.
I suggest that you substitute the word "ALMOST" or the phrase "NOT QUITE" in place of "VIRTUALLY", apply it to yourself and see if you like the idea.
Or is the concept of putting yourself in another's shoes something foreign to "religious" people?
Regards, Alf.

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:52 PM:To To bodeca,

1977...you sure you want to go by the standard of 1977? How about 1877? or better yet, 1777.

You can wear your polyester leisure suit and pretend you are back in 1977 all you want, I have no desire to take away your right to live in the past no matter how tacky. However, marriage IS a right, the CA Constitution says it is, the US Supreme Court says it is and the CA Supreme Court says it is...and you'd better hope that it is a right, or else the government can go after YOU and your marriage at anytime.

How about YOU take on the label "domestic partner" since it doesn't bother you so much, huh?

Come take my marriage license away...we will be waiting for you to stop by.

Cardiffian wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:55 PM:Actually, there was a right taken away. It was the right granted by the interpration of the constitution by the supreme court. I agree that was not the intent of the proposition when it was approved to be voted on, but circumstances changed that. Now the supreme court must reconcile its decision with the law this proposition has begat. Other than "the will of the people", nothing has changed that would allow a reasonable person to believe that the court would reverse itself. Some call it "the will of the people" - others may refer to it as "the tyranny of the majority". This will be a very interesting battle. It's a shame many will not be able to appreciate the nuance of the legal arguement or the beauty of the decision. It truly is wonderful to be a united states citizen!

Alf wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:55 PM:Well, "bodecea" at 2:39PM,
how dare you think that homosexuals or anyone other than God-fearing heterosexuals have equal rights under the law!!
(Enough sarcasm from me) - I voted NO on Prop. 8 because I believe that all adult Citizens of this country should have equal protection under the law,
meaning among other things, that the state has no business discriminating against anyone based on their sexual orientation in anything involving ANY public agency.
Since the state issues marriage licenses, the state has no business keeping two adult Citizens of the same gender from getting a license and getting married.
Good luck!
Keep trying!
Regards, Alf.

To Laughing wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:56 PM:Ah yes, the Spanish Inquisition and the Puritans hanging witches...Fun times for you religious types, I'm sure. The good old days when you could force people to believe what you want them to under fear of persecution.

To to ridiculous wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:57 PM:If a brother and sister were to have biological children with each other, recessive genes would cause problems with the offspring. It’s scientifically proven; if YOU believe in science at all. If a gay couple decides to have children, they could adopt, find a donor or be inseminated. The offspring wouldn’t be too close on the family tree to cause, well, did you see Deliverance? Don’t even try to say,”none of those options for gay couples isn’t natural”. I personally know of Christians who’ve been unable to “get pregnant” naturally and had to use “science” to become pregnant. You are hypocrites and bigots, plain and simple…..

Danj wrote on Nov 5, 2008 3:58 PM:This whole campaign was sickening on both sides. I didn't see equality when people like the FLDS can't "(multi-)Marry" or NAMBLA can't "marry" who they foster or adopt or some teens can't "marry" their divorced or widowed parent and what about us animal lovers... man should be able to "marry" his best friend. If we are to eliminate discrimination, let's go all the way. I mean if we can legally slaughter a baby in abortion, we should be able to "marry" them too. Where's da love here y'all?
Ridiculous?
Welcome to the era of "Change" or better stated "bend ova, we be drivin'"

To Beastiality reference wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:07 PM:The argument of inferring an attachment of reference to bestiality is not appealing for intellectual comment. Crude and limited thoughts, have you? A horse is a horse, of course, of course...

Well All... wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:13 PM:I accept the fact all Americans have VIRTUALLY the same rights. You can change my words any other way you'd like to fit your argument.

To to ridiculous wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:13 PM:sorry for my double negative.

To bodeca wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:22 PM:Sigh! My point was that even though the definition of marriage was specifically spelled out in 1977, it has always referred to a bond between a man and a woman. It was true in 1777, 1877, 1977 and it's true in 2008. Marriage was NOT taken away from homosexuals.

cc wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:28 PM:What the ##? Less than 8 hrs of the final dicision being made public - 3 major CA cities already back in court kicking and screaming and trying to over rule the voters. This is a disgrace.

Morals wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:28 PM:Morals are man-made. As is religion and man's perception of an omnipotent being.
We fool ourselves into thinking we have it "figured out". Using religion as a basis for an argument regarding natural rights is illogical. Then again, "rights" are man-made as well. We're all on a rock hurtling through space. In the grand scheme of things, all of our views and actions are utterly insignificant. How's that for a mood lifter?

who da wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:44 PM:Hey - you missed something:

What is traditional marriage[-] wrote on Nov 5, 2008 1:12 PM:

In most cases this is the traditional marriage in the USA:

Man and a woman get married, have a few kids, then go through a nasty divorce, the kids grow up in a broken home and the parents turn to an invisble Jesus for comfort.

Great tradition!
-end

No they don't turn to your idea of some invisible Jesus.

They turn to each other and announce that they're GAY (or PEDO's or EDHD or stressed out druggies)! It happened in my family and several others that I know because us traditional Americans missed the whole true definition of "Marriage" and mistook it for selfishness, greed, lust and self-indulgence. All under this thing we call "Love".

I am calling on all you whining BOZO's here to really take the time to research marriage and the true commitment involved, who are the required partakers and what that really means - you will see the true reality, and maybe, just maybe, your lives will be changed and America bettered...

Naah - keep whining! It's more fun.

The majority---- wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:04 PM:The majority of people are NOT gay. The majority of the people voted AGAINST gay marriage. Why should the MAJORITY of the population succumb to the beliefs of the MINORITY ???
Gay people choose to live an "ALTERNATIVE lifestyle--- marriage is a TRADITIONAL lifestyle.

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:05 PM:To To Bodeca,

Learn to spell my name...and the definition of marriage has NOT always been the same. If you were to study history...I mean really study it instead of watching lying "Yes on Hate" commercials, you would find that marriage is a moving target, and always has been. Which makes sense since it is a human construct. In this case, a CIVIL construct. But thanks for allowing government to now get involved with your religion. I will be donating and supporting any organization fighting to take tax-exempt status away from churches. Turn about is fair play, I believe.

Joe wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:13 PM:No matter the outcome, why is it that the peoples will is going to be challenged, until the others peoples will wins?

Reminds me of 2 out of 3, then 3 out of 5 and so on.

Just a matter of time wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:19 PM:Don't worry everyone, it will eventually be legalized and we'll join the other progressive democratic countries that don't discriminate. Just a matter of time...

Ken wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:22 PM:Can someone explain why the CA Court won't just overturn this again? A few years ago CA voters passed the same sort of prop by a larger margin.

Its Right wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:26 PM:It's interesting that the gay community has been harassing the Christians during this campaign and even interferring with their business. I hope the D.A. looks into these "hate crimes" and files any possible charges. Hate crimes are committed by those typically crying, "hate crime."

To bodekka wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:55 PM:But we were talking about the California constitution. Prop 8 passed in CALIFORNIA where the definition of marriage has not changed. If you'd like to pretend you live back in history in some time or place where homosexual marriage was allowed, be my guest. "I have no desire to take away your right to live in the past no matter how tacky."

BTW, nice way to assume you know anything about what I watch or what my religion is or isn't. Your time and energy might be better spent going to anger management classes first.

to Ridiculous wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:59 PM:Just as you say, even incestual "sp?" couples could do the same as that of the Gays, but I can see that you frown upon that. For what reasons?

No on 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:07 PM:The biggest threat to marriage is not gay marriage, it's DIVORCE. The US has the largest divorce rates in the world. So to me it seems very hipocritical to argue that gay marriage goes against family values, to launch a huge campaign against gay marriage, when divorce rates keep going up causing families to split, when the wedding vows are broken, when some who claim to uphold the values of church get divorved. What does that tell you about family values and about the sacredness and the value of marriage?

How can we grant rights to a certain group of people and deny rights to others? Prop 8 is evidence of the discrimination many people continue enduring, discrimination that is not necessary. I doubt people are having marriage problems because gays got married or because gays are demanding equal rights. Justice will prevail and we will contine fighting for the civil rights!!!

To No on 8 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:24 PM:DIVORCE isn't the problem with marriage. It's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that we are living in a "Me First" generation. People are now more concerned with their own personal fulfillment than with anything else. When things in a marriage don't go their way, or when the "magic" has worn off, it's time to get a divorce. Adding gay marriage to that mix is a whole different issue.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:36 PM:Biteacocca:

Please stop trying to shove your gay agenda down my throat. I realize that you may like to have that happen to you but I don't and I certainly do not appreciate you trying to force me to embrace and/or celebrate your lifestyle.

You have commented in this blog how those that voted "Yes on 8" are discriminating against you. Well, I see it the other way. I believe you are discriminating against me and my hetero life-style.

Personally, I couldn't care less what your sexual preference is, just stop trying to force it on me and mine by soiling the sanctity of marriage with this drivel.

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:38 PM:To To bodekka,

And you might want to consider English/Spelling classes.

But, I digress. I'm sure you would be all ok if the majority just took your rights away based on out of state money and lying commercials, right? You'd go quietly, right? I'm sure you and your kind would.

Grump wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:07 PM:Californians said yes to more wing room for chickens, and no to Gay marriage for humans:)

Once again wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:19 PM:I will say that the no on 8 crowed really should stop the bullying and threats being made on this site. You are name calling CHristians, and those individuals who just wanted to protect the marriage. I've read on other post on the NC times where people actually said that if you thought we shoved down your throat before just wait. I don't want anyone physically hurt, but that sounds like a statement that leads to that. Come on people, live PEACEFULLY

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:37 PM:I want to add one other thing: I'm not against homosexuals. I'm against the behavior. If homosexuals feel so discriminated against, then maybe they should try heterosexuality. Yes on 8 was one of the best things to happen in this election.

To boddecae wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:00 PM:Let me say this one more time, very slowly now: Homosexual----couples----didn't----have-----any----marriage----rights----to----be----taken----away.

To aDAMANT wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:02 PM:You can personally be against whatever you want. If you don't like the homosexual behavior then don't partake in homosexual behaviors ... problem solved.

The government, however, does not have the luxury of exercising free will in the same way an individual does. The government is for ALL the people ... not just the straight ones. As long as someone is a legal, law abiding and tax paying citizen the law must treat them the same. Period.

WEAR BLACK TOMORROW wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:07 PM:Mourn the death of equality!!!!

Gays are NOT a Minority wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:21 PM:Let it be clear! Gays ARE not a Minority, they are not a special class of citizen. They are not denied to right to marry and never have. If they CHOOSE to be in a same sex relationship then they CHOOSE to not be able to marry that same sex partner.

I am sick of voting and having my voting rights stripped away by people who CHOOSE to be different.

Stop trampling on my rights as a member of DEMOCRACY and making MY vote unimportant!!!!

You lost in 3 states, get over it!!!!!!!!!!

To wear black tomorrow wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:24 PM:So what should I wear tomorrow for the birth of a better state? A birth of a day that people finally spoke out, and demanded that they be heard.

Marriage is not a right wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:32 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. The right, as it is said, is to be able to marry whomever you want.
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. I guess it would be more accurate to say that everyone has a right to the opportunity to get married- that would probably fit the way that marriage works in our country better than just saying that "everyone has a right to get married" or something like that.

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

To adamant wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:37 PM:that is correct....it also applies to hetrosexuals....we voted and it passed move on with it.

To Gavin Newsome wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:38 PM:The door is shut now....There is nothing you can do about it....Your next

AWESOME WIN FOR CA

To Gays are NOT a Minority wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:39 PM:And when did you CHOOSE to be straight? Please be specific.

Seriously wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:52 PM:what's wrong with a little hate, now and then? It's a normal emotion, just as long as you control yourself. No need for any violence, of course, but disliking homosexuals getting married is not a crime!

Lies and namecalling wrote on Nov 5, 2008 8:56 PM:The No on 8 folks have consistently called their opponents names (e.g. bigots, haters, etc.) and told lies about them ("those yes on 8 people are motivated by hate"). This is no way to try to have a dialogue.

I encourage you to stop arrogantly telling people about their own motivations (you have no clue that people are motivated by hate or not when they disagree with same sex marriage- maybe you are projecting hatred you feel yourself? I have no idea) and offer some reasonable arguments. The best argument I have heard from your side is "we should just let anyone marry anyone they love"- is that it? Show me something that has some substance behind it, maybe even some evidence. I will be happy to consider it.

Choice wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:07 PM:One does not have to choose the norm; that's why it's call normal.

Hello. wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:18 PM:I believe that Yes on 8 is not an attack to homosexuals. I understand that freedom for all is a valid point and personally did not know which way to side. Although I am not at a voting age yet, I wanted to say that just because someone votes Yes on 8 does not mean that they are opposed of homosexuality.

I'm sure most of those who voted No on 8 would see that point. However, I would also like to point out that, despite all the reliance on the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, I see that the founding fathers of this nation did not build up such rights and laws thinking of homosexuals. I'm sure that at the time of their discussions and constitutional conventions, and the amendments and bill of rights, they were not aware of the homosexual community, and so I believe that to rely on the 14th amendment and the Constitution is not applicable.

Also, it is already clear that "marriage" was a term coined by the religious community, and morally means a matrimony between a man and a woman, regardless of their religious standpoints.

I have no problem with homosexual people. In fact, I enjoy my time with homosexual friends, because their lives are different from mine, so I am able to get different perspectives from those of mine. However, although the roots of religion seems inevitable, even logically the fundamental rights and rudimentary beliefs the founding fathers depended upon to say of such freedom and equality of people had no association nor reference to homosexuals.

So what I'm trying to say is that, I am sure there are other ways in which relationships between homosexuals can be achieved. Freedom too all, race and gender, is an important concept of the nation. But we cannot bash people and rely on the Constitution believing that they defend them. Honestly, without the reliance on the Constitution and the 14th amendment is only an excuse for the homosexual community.

With common sense and thinking logically, the evidence and legal documents they rely upon are not applicable and do not exactly relate to the topic.

I am unfortunate to say I am Yes on Proposition 8. But that does not mean I have a problem with the homosexual community. I just believe that, like other propositions, the wording of the prop and just the logical sense of the situation did not seem to be in the right position.

I hope this message was not offensive to anyone, because I tried to make myself clear and not too biased. I am sorry if I offended anyone; I didn't come here to argue, just to justify.

Bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:12 PM:To Ignorant Person Sorely in need of Spell check or some sort of education beyond 4th grade.

Marriage is a fundamental right...it is part of the Private Domain and is not the business of government UNLESS the government provides benefits, privileges, etc. If it does, THEN it must apply those privileges, benefits etc. equally to its law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Period. If homosexuals do not have the right to marry, then neither do heterosexuals. Do you want to go down that road? I'm game. But, remember this later on. It is the Yes on Hate crowd that opened the door for government to pick and choose which law abiding citizens it deems worthy of civil marriage. Remember this later on. It was the churches who opened the door between religion and government...don't come crying when government decides to return the favor.

bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:15 PM:I might want to add...if you think Homosexual behavior has been 'in your face' before, just wait. We have no reason to be discreet anymore. If we cannot get legal marriage, that will not stop us from recognising our unions publically. We are done hiding. We are done being low key. You can take that to the bank.

To Bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:50 PM:Please pay attention to the details of this post, as it will help clarify some of your misunderstandings:
1) Civil marriage is not a fundamental right, like the right to free speech. If it was, it wouldn't require a licensing process. If it is a fundamental right that does require a licensing process, then you have a strange understanding of a fundamental right.
2) The state has decided that there are parameters around when marriage can be bestowed on a relationship. Those details are noted above (e.g. the state does not allow heterosexuals or homosexuals to marry family members, more than one person, children, etc.). The state applies those parameters without discrimination- they limit marriage to only those who agree to abide by the parameters. The state's reasons to have those parameters is not arbitrary- the state encourages the only kind of relationship that naturally produces the next generation of Americans (and yes, I know all about divorce and that not all couples have kids and fertility treatments- all of those things are irrelevant to the reason why the state sanctions marriage within certain parameters).
3) Homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals. They just have to marry within the same parameters as everyone else. I know this isn't satisfying to those who want same-sex marriage, but it is important to understand that homosexuals have the same exact rights as everyone else. Of course, this isn't satisfying to homosexuals- I understand that. But let's just walk through this logically so that we can be clear about this issue.
4) What homosexuals want is to change the parameters of marriage to include same-sex marriage. This isn't a rights issue, it isn't about hate or intolerance or bigotry. The core of this issue is that same-sex marriage proponents want to have their sexual orientation/desires accepted by the government so that it appears that their relationships are the same as heterosexual marriages. Unfortunately, no legislation can accomplish that task because men and women are fundamentally different and homosexual and heterosexual relationships are therefore different sorts of things. You can't change that unless you want to live in a fantasy world.
5) I am sorry that this reality is causing so much pain for homosexuals. I know that people I care about are disappointed in prop 8, and that saddens me.

Change is Brewing wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:56 PM:All this talk, all this emotion could only mean one thing!!! CHANGE IS COMING! Oh yeah...this is great. Acceptance is a slow process for some reason, but we're getting there.

To Bodecea wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:59 PM:You, and many others, are obviously hurt by the passage of prop 8. You have taken it personally. I want you to know that I, and I am sure the majority of people who voted for prop 8, did not desire to bring you pain personally. We care for you, as well as all of our brothers and sisters, and affirm that you are as valuable as any other human being on earth.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on you; it is not a personal attack on you at all. The passage on prop 8 was a desire to protect a key building block of civilization. I know we disagree, but as Obama said last night, let's learn how to live with each other even though we disagree.

revoke my voter reg wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:03 PM:It's not so much whether prop 8 passed or not, as it is the fact that it is now being challenged. What the ... good did our citizens' votes do? Why vote? The courts just overturn and set law. How exactly is this democracy??? We vote, it's changed.

Oooooooh... wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:23 PM:...I guess you got us now!!!!! Great debating tactic.

S wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:58 PM:It is time to start a cultural war against religious zealots who still cling to the belief of a fictional god and then use that belief to trod on the private actions of others. It is time to bring people into the enlightened age of science, art, and reason. It is time to demand laws which are not based on faith but on logic. It is time to evolve past magical and mystical modes of mind. Enough of this.

Oside1969 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:49 AM:The voters of this state are confused. We pass "8" with a majority but give our electorates to Obama ? John McCain has done everything for this country but die for it and Obama has just spent alot of money and told you what you wanted to hear. You liberals just love to whine if everything doesn't go your way. Don't whine to me when you don't get the change you expected. Look at me, living so close to you liberals is starting to make me whine! Quick call the CDC! I think it's contagious!

JDub wrote on Nov 6, 2008 5:38 AM:"Got a PHD" got it right and reflects my belief closely that "marriage" is always a civil union as far a government is concerned. Government's interest is served by assuring that property interests are protected. So, how about a proposition where government gets totally out of the marriage business, deals only with the property/partnership interest and leave marriage to the church? A proposition addressing this would be both equitable and a fun electoral exercise.

Supreme Court Jarred Public wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:01 AM:The California Supreme Court, headquartered in San Francisco, jarred the public by using extreme legal reasons to invalidate a law passed 8 years ago. The public has spoken again. Closer attention must be paid to the problem caused by the California Supreme Court.

Bigotry wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:09 AM:As a supporter of proposition 8, I learned that bigotry against religions is alive and well in California, particularly by the opposition to the constitution amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

To S.... wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:17 AM:prove to me that there is no God!!! I can prove to you that your mythical ways, and so-called science way are wrong. If science makes you think like that, you need to go back to school and learn about science..... weird, just too damn weird.

Enough already wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:19 AM:The people voted------twice. To protest now is like protesting the presidential election because you don't like the results. I personally voted no on prop 8 and it lost. I will get over it. No one is taking away your right to be together, you still have all the legal rights of a marriage. As for the people who say children should have two parents, man and woman, I agree. However, there are too many children being raised by a single parent. Also, many couples having children choose not to marry. So the belief that only heterosexual couples should marry to procreate is bogus.

bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:52 AM:To Bigotry,

You are aptly named. Please point out where ANYONE is starting Constitutional amendments to take away your right to marry. I look forward to your evidence. If you can't find any, stop your whining and your bigotry against those different than yourself. It is you and those of your ilk who went after us. And now you've been shown to be the mean spirited Segregationists and Dominionists that you really are. History will classify you with the KKK, the Naziis, and the Spanish Inquisition. Explain that to your grandchildren.

What a country wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:17 AM:Obama had a nuanced position on the issue, saying he opposes gay marriage while also speaking out against Proposition 8.
What a liar... same ole , same ole.
hahaahahahaahah.
Get ready for the Woodroe Wilson II administration.

Mormon Pioneers in California wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:28 AM:Mormon pioneers were among the first American settlers when California became a territory of the United States. Mormons settled in San Francisco (then called Yerba Buena) in 1846, San Diego in 1847, and San Bernardino in 1851. In 1857, many Mormons left California because the short-lived Utah War waged on the Utah Mormons by the United States. The Mormons who remained in California lacked the resources, experience, and organization to continue the church. Significant Mormon congregations formed in the 1920's as members migrated from Utah to California. After WWII, significant numbers of Mormons remained in California at the end of their military service. The anti-Mormon bigotry displayed during the YES ON 8 is not new to the Mormon people. Many Mormons participated, as requested by the church, in the campaign in favor of Proposition 8, as is their individual right as citizens of this state. However, the Mormon Church did not fund Proposition 8. Further, it is virtually impossible for anyone to discern from campaign reports what campaign contributions came from individuals who are members of the Mormon faith.

To bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:44 AM:Bigotry against religions is was embedded in the IRS tax code by Lyndon Johnson in 1954, which bigotry was incorporated by the State of California by the Franchise Tax Board.

Free speech is a constitutional right. Yet, both the State and Federal governments penalizes church members if their pastor asks its members to vote for a particular candidate.

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

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

Thus, a statute was used to punish the constitutional free speech rights of pastors. Church members have been under constant political attack by similar measures. One would have to be blind to not see the calls to revoke the tax exemption of churchs that expressed support for Proposition 8.

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

The free exercise of religion, supposedly protected by the US and California Constitutions, includes the right to discuss the political positions of politicians in the context of religious precepts and doctrines, except for the bigotry of corrupt and deceptive politicians and judges.

Rebel Against King George wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:49 AM:Ronald George of the California Supreme Court 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. A retention election for King George is in 2010. Vote NO on King George in 2010.

Massachusetts wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:57 AM:Time for MA to show how progressive it is on this issue. Offer to exchange a MA marriage license for any CA marriage license invalidated by Prop 8.

Jane wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:28 AM:I hear you so sad.
I have some things to say.
First this contry was founded on equality and prop 8 discriminates.
Second, Why the hell do we care, it is their life and thier dicision.
Third, in the constitution it says that other states have to recognize matrimony in other states. Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Fourth, gays can adopt and that helps with OVERPOPULATION.
Fifth, i have a friend that is gay and my friend does not preach about it or anything.
Sixth, schools do not have time to teach us to accept gays, they are too busy teaching to the tests.
NO ON PROP 8 IT IS SOOOOOO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jensen wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:32 AM:I only have 1 thing to say that proves homosexuality is wrong, if everyone were gay, there'd be no human race, nuff said

To What a country wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:36 AM:If you paid any kind of attention to Obama's comments on the subject you would know that he personally does not agree with same sex marriage, but also doesn't believe it should be a constitutional amendment.

misinformation wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:41 AM:The comments by "To No Way" at 7:20 a.m. on Nov. 5 is a good example of why Prop 8 won: misinformation and outright lies. The judge with child pornography was on a federal circuit court, not the Cal Supreme Court.

i dont think Obama even won wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:48 AM:Due to voter intimidation in Philadelphia and probably other places too.

Jodi wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:57 AM:man what is this world coming to if we can not be with the one we want to be with? shame on California, what gives you the right to say who we can or not fall in love with? keep fighting, we need this prop to pass!!!!

Jip wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:05 AM:Just because the majority feels that discrimination is good in this case doesn't make it constitutional. Sometimes the judges are paid good money to know better than a prejudiced public clinging to the word of God (by the way, God has declined comment for 2,000 years now).

Most States Have wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:06 AM:Traditional marriage amendments also passed on Tuesday in Arizona and Florida, with 57 percent and 62 percent support, respectively, while Arkansas voters approved a measure aimed at homosexuals that bars unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.



Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only states to allow same-sex marriage.

ACLU and Homosexuals filed suit wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:08 AM:Homosexuals and their supporters in California are vowing to fight the passage of a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.









Even as the last votes were being counted, the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of Proposition 8 filed a challenge with the state Supreme Court. They contended that it cannot be used to undermine one group's access to rights enjoyed by other citizens. (Read earlier story: "Major pro-family victory in California")



The city attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco also filed a request with the Supreme Court to invalidate the amendment's approval, arguing that it deprives homosexuals of constitutional rights.

Keep your spirits up wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:31 AM:Keep your heads held high. If 6 out of 10 of voters under 30 voted against Prop 8, it wont be than much longer before the closed minded older generations are out and the new open minded younger ones have the majority. Its discrimination to forbid a certain group of people from something everyone else is able to do. Didnt we learn something during the civil rights movement?

Joesph wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:58 AM:I have a comment....we need to stop this silliness! Marriage is between a man and women, period! To sit there and redfine the defintion is ludicrous. I don't think the sky is blue anymore...i think i'm going to call it green because that is how I feel. I want it therefore I have to have it....I don't care if it detrimental to values and morals in society because it is all about me all of the time. And I am so proud of African Americans supporting 8. How dare the homosexuals compare this to the civil rights movement and other racial injustices. That is totally blasphomous. Were the homosexuals not allowed in schools, did they have to eat in a seperate section? Did they have to drink in different water fountains? I don't think so!

Lastly it is not a fundamental right if you violate the law of nature. Period. What stops people from marrying your dog or cat if this passes? It's love right? The homosexuals will argue it doesnt't have human emotions. Fine for arguments sake. Then what stop someone from marrying their brother? He has human emotion, he loves me, I love him...i have the right to marry someone I love (according to the homosexuals). This is how backwards their logic is. If you tolerant this (and the word tolerance is becoming a negative word in my humble opinion), it opens the door to other stupidity and silliness which corrupts are moral fabric in society! Any society that has fully accepted homosexuality has failed and failed miserably.

Its A Piece of Paper wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:07 AM:I would not have voted YES on Prop. 8 if not for the fact that when I got married in August, I was called Party A on the License. I am not a Party A, I am the Groom. I don't want marriage to be just like some basic business contract that is seen everyday. The woman at the counter said that if I wanted to get a different license, then I had to vote YES and that is what I did. Let the state spend a little more for two different licenses and I would have voted NO.

Steverino wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:29 AM:Its a piece of paper (translated). I would have voted against Prop. 8, except I thought it was better to act like a petulant child because the application for marriage license didn't call me "Groom."

As the older, less educated, population declines in numbers, ages of indoctrination go with them. The election results clearly indicate that, generally speaking, the older you are, the less likely you were to vote for Obama. You were carefully taught, but you failed to pass along all your prejudices. Good.

I'm pretty sure that eventually you'll be able to marry the person (A or B) that you love, especially since so many older folks' heads are exploding over Obama's overwhelming victory. Take a tip from John McCain and work with the man to fix the mess we're in. Learn to get along with people to look and act different but still love like you do.

bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:44 AM:Hooray for the ACLU and the City Attorneys of LA and SF!


And as for religious persecution, don't make me laugh. There are churches everywhere...here in San Diego Co. almost every hilltop sports a lighted cross. Poor you for the government not wanting churches to get involved in government tax free. I get involved in government and I pay my taxes....churches should too. They certainly seem to have enough extra funds, having spent over 40 million on Prop Hate. Just think, we might be able to help the state budget with the new influx of way overdue taxes from those "Stick our nose in politics' churches.

anotherview wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:46 AM:Let us agree that many homosexuals bond in lasting human relationships, and that these true relationships deserve our respect if not tolerance. Yet, the institution of marriage reserves itself for another relationship, that of a bonding between two adults, man and woman, both fertile, to procreate and further the human race via this natural family. Same-gender homosexuals, no matter their relationship, can never truly enter this realm. Nevertheless, modern society must provide rights and protections for homosexual relationships. California does so by civil means short of marriage. Homosexuals must recognize the limitations of their homosexual relations. After all, neither the furtherance of civilization nor the existence of the human race have ever depended on homosexuality, but instead always on heterosexuality and the fundamental social unit of a family which only heterosexual relations may generate. The state has an interest in this role in order to preserve the population as one procreating for the continuation of humanity. In addition, defining marriage outside its traditional and practical purpose to satisfy homosexual desires adds nothing useful to the fabric of society. As a compromise, however, the alternative of a civil union for homosexuals gives this class an adequate legal basis for securing their homosexual relations. Reserving marriage to heterosexuals does not discriminate against the homosexual class because the normative purpose of marriage for a natural family requires a heterosexual relationship. Homosexuals cannot fulfill this purpose. Only heterosexuals may do so. Hence, looking first at the authentic value of marriage removes this institution from the false assumption that it grows from a civil right. In fact, as always, the act of marriage cements the view of family as consisting of a man and a woman procreating. Homosexuals want marriage not for this purpose but for the validation of homosexual relations as a normative behavior. The New York Times reports that “More than 40 states now have constitutional bans or laws against same-sex marriage.“ (6 Nov. 2008) Marriage still means the union of a man and a woman.

bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:46 AM:To Its a Piece of Paper,

Seems to me that you just demonstrated the mental capacity of the typical "Yes on Hate" voter. Be proud in your ignorance, sir, be proud! Just don't reproduce....please.

Artsyrat wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:55 AM:Right, left, liberal, conservative, party choice, man, woman, people. As I write this there are 252 emotional and most times harsh comments written in response to this article. Wow. Why not just vote your choice and then let it go. All this hostile back and forth jabber in and out of the blog arena is tearing our nation apart. Freedom of speech, yes....freedom of speech with self control...yes. United States of America NOT Divided States of America!

I know folks who voted yes on 8 and these people are not bigots nor do they hate gays and lesbians. One thing that is for sure, we who voted are all Americans. Let's be thankful.

To Its A Piece of Paper wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:01 PM:You voted YES so that your marriage wouldn't be some basic business contract? Are you serious? That's what a marriage license issued by the government is! It's a legally enforced contract. If it wasn't you wouldn't need court permission to dissolve it.

The only entities that view marriage as more than a contract are the individuals who join in it and the churches that facilitate it.

If that was truly your only reason for voting yes then it is truly sad. This country doesn't need people who act so thoughtlessly voting. It needs people who can think for themselves and honestly consider all aspects of an issue before taking a stand. All those knee-jerk voters, such as yourself, is what is going to bring this country down.

Alf wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:09 PM:Well, "Joesph" at 10:58AM,
just a few examples of those things that will corrupt our moral fabric in society -
Freeing the slaves,
allowing women to vote,
legalizing marriage between races,
giving blacks equal rights.
That same fear-inspired, bigoted argument is brought up time and time again and it is still the same worthless garbage today with homosexual marriage as it was back in the 1800s with freeing the slaves.
What is really meant is that they, religious zealots and bigots, do not like or approve of something, not that any harm will come of it, not that any harm will come to society, only that they lose one more element of control over others.
The Constitution was not written to establish and maintain a two-class society, those who have control and those controlled, yet it is the fundamental objective of the "religious right" to impose their twisted and perverted set of standards on others, to be the ones in control of others.
Why do you think that GWB has shown such disdain for the Constitution?
Hmmmm?
In the words of the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal", yet equality is the furthest thing from the minds of those who set out to make inequality.
Regards, Alf.

Todays Paper wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:14 PM:Nation steps forward, state steps back

Today is a day of mixed emotion: joy that we have entered an era of change as a country and yet, as a state, we've been launched back into the pre-civil rights era. Many have struggled with how to explain homosexuality to their children when ironically in these last few months, it has been thrust upon us by those who oppose it. Now, I struggle with how to explain to my children how a government can discriminate against those with differences and how our biblical teachings to be compassionate to all and leave judgment to God have been replaced by self-righteous hate.

If a gay couple marries, it does nothing to my marriage at home. The legal and moral objection to homosexuality now will tear 17,000 homes apart and prevent new families from coming together. Many have said they do not want other lifestyles thrust upon them. Only those families directly affected truly know this pain. What is next on the agenda, I wonder? Can we legally ban divorce? Co-habitation? Age differences? I pray that our Supreme Court will do the job intended by our Constitution and my children will live in a country where all people are truly created equal.

To anotherview wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:17 PM:I feel sorry for all those heterosexual couples that can't conceive. We should have people tested for fertility before allowing a marriage license. Because, you know there is no other way to become parents in this day and age...no adoption, fertility specialists, surrogates....

DEAL WITH IT wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:30 PM:If California has voted twice for homosexuals not to get married....maybe you people should GET A CLUE!!!

YOUR LIFESYTLE ISN'T ACCEPTED IN CALIFORNIA!

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT...MOVE!

to I am SICK AND TIRED wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:32 PM:Wow, I think you might need a history lesson. You might want to go back and see what our country WAS founded on. George Washington's and Abe Lincoln's thoughts on this subject would not be to your liking.

whatsright wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:33 PM:mel
[-] wrote on Nov 4, 2008 8:32 PM:
I'm sick of the discrimination and hatred against homosexuals in this country. NO ON 8.

there are other countries that allow go there

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:38 PM:The one equality I see in these arguments is the equal balance of barbs being tossed. It's not the defeat or the defining or re-defining marriage that makes this an unfair issue as much as the deliberate rearranging verbiage installed in a Constitutional Amendment specifically targeting exclusion. The more divided a people, the more apart they become; exclusion toward any group that insists on maintaining succinct disconnection and access to fundamental human-felt liberties will never result in unity for all.

To Deal with it wrote on Nov 6, 2008 1:19 PM:Will you move when the supreme court overturns it?????? Pretty please?

bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 1:42 PM:To "Deal With It"

Pretty funny stuff. Haven't been to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego much...have you?


I'm thinking Mississippi or Arkansas are more to YOUR liking. Or maybe Wyoming. They crucify gays there. Yippee.

Tired wrote on Nov 6, 2008 2:26 PM:"Pretty funny stuff. Haven't been to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, or San Diego much...have you?


I'm thinking Mississippi or Arkansas are more to YOUR liking. Or maybe Wyoming. They crucify gays there. Yippee."


I dont think they are one of the stats that said NO!! to gay marriage. Now be gone. Move to the east coast if you dont like how the MAJORITY of the people want their state to become.

Happyness wrote on Nov 6, 2008 2:29 PM:Hey bodecea Im getting married in a few months, I will make sure I tell you how it feels to be a REAL married person in California.

X wrote on Nov 6, 2008 2:30 PM:To: Bodecea

Keep up the nasty comments because you are doing a great job to turn people away from your cause. I did not have anything against homosexuals before but after reading your blogs and seeing the masses of homosexuals making a seen over something that has been voted on I am starting to change. One other thing to think about in the statement made about older people with conservative views moving on and the younger generation coming up with views of equality, I am listing to the younger generation and your antics are not sitting well with them.

Noon8 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 2:43 PM:One poster here stated that someone had to lose and someone had to win. When in effect, everybody lost... Those that wish to eliminate rights from one class of people managed to scare enough people into voting so that everyone LOST. When a No vote would have been a WIN.

RE: Activist judges. Don't worry about President-elect Obama 'stacking' the Supreme Court. Even with it's current makeup, my guess is the Supreme Court will deny the Pro-8 crowd (and their 'ilk') this change. It is inherently wrong to deny any class of citizens the right to equality.

But I guess, some of you (like my dear mom) simply cannot evolve beyond the last century...

Good luck!

But Tired wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:10 PM:Your attitude and bigotry are what is tired, tired and old and soon to be overturned either in a court or by the will of the people in a few years. Many of us who are "straight" and support the notion of equality for "gays" are waiting for attrition to take its toll. In 2000 it was 61 percent, in 2008 it was 52.5 percent. Eight years lowered the winning margin by 8.5 percent. Give it another several years and those who are bigots and discriminators will get what they deserve, defeat by the will of the people.

To Jip wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:13 PM:"Just because the majority feels that discrimination is good in this case doesn't make it constitutional. Sometimes the judges are paid good money to know better than a prejudiced public clinging to the word of God (by the way, God has declined comment for 2,000 years now)"

Sir,
Indeed it is asinine and counterintuitive reasoning for any government or majority to bicker over an "imaginary" God that hasn't shown it's face in 2000 years; in the same way that every atheist believed the world was flat and was the center of the universe.
My point is that there are better arguments to debate your discourse objectively, rather than trying to ruse others and yourself through self defeating semantics on religion that defies logic in and of itself...

About The Majority wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:15 PM:Let's clear something up about what the MAJORITY of Californians said.

The Majority of Californians didn't say anything.

This decision was made by the Majority of California's registered voters who actually got off their butts and voted.

Until you have 100% voter registration and turnout ... the majority of Californians will remain a falsehood used by the winning side of anything.

4 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:16 PM:Is NOT a majority...when it goes to the supreme court, and it will you will need 2/3. Plus I wonder how many people were skewed by the lies of school curriculum and will change their vote when the petition passes. Plus, once they are done with the absentee ballots it could be even less, maybe tied?

if the courts overturn this again wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:34 PM:I will push for a U.S. Constitutional amendment.

bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:40 PM:BTW....South Carolina is the perfect home for all you Segregationists and Dominionists. Please take your hate and bigotry over there. TIA

To Mormons wrote on Nov 6, 2008 4:06 PM:Don't blame it on the Mormons because they are only 1% of the popultion????

They gave more than half of the money. They had people from out of state calling into California.

Each Mormon LDS church Ward worked a targeted neighborhood with a specific campaign and demonstration corner.

The Bishop of the ward led the demonstrations personally.

The next two highest male members of the ward that are in charge of the teen males led the children into the protests.

Did you notice how many of the Yes on 8 protesters were teen males?

Don't tell me not to blame the Mormons. They were behind prop 8.

If anyone can be specifically blamed, it is the LDS'ers aka Mormons.

BILL wrote on Nov 6, 2008 4:09 PM:I just love how all of you talk about God and what God did, and God wouldn't do this to us or the bible say's this or no the bible says that, or they hate homo's or they love homo's. Proposition 8 was based on what this state wants Marriage between one man and one women the majority won. I would say let every homosexual live in one state and in 90yrs when your all dead from no reproduction then maybe you'll know why God made it a certain way, or wait do you need the help of a man and women to create a child so you can have children, hmm I wonder if that's the way it was designed for::))

Last Laugh wrote on Nov 6, 2008 5:17 PM:I find it hilarious that people are still talking about this...California may have made its "choice" but how long will it stand??? You really think that that your little state prop will hold up once President Elect Obama takes office? Think again...I smell federal statute coming down...

Tlbyrman wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:30 PM:It ain't constitutional if any part of the document mandates exclusionary principles; no matter the voter outcome. Don't expect a Constitutional amendment to go forward. Constitution is a uniting tool, not a divider. Lies and deceit cannot force an amendment that is not right for everyone. Otherwise, it isn't a Constitution.

to to jip wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:33 PM:I have a thesaurus, too!

I am sorry that you haven't heard from God; I suspect you haven't been listening. Actually, you probably have had your fingers in your ears, going "la, la, la..." I don't mean to sound platitudinous, I truly am sorry.

bodecea wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:08 PM:To Bill,

Yes, of course. Homosexuals will all die out from lack of procreation in about 90 years. Thank you for proving how "intelligent" the Yes on Hate side is. Bravo.

Tlbryman wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:42 PM:God does speak and he has shouted with disappointment that the KJV interpretive following desecrates the plan of his intent as naturally intended human creation. The Mormons are in for a real shock with their monetary support of hate to convince the gullible weak. Are the Mormons the more powerful brand of Christian? Are they suggesting the flock follow their path and give up other Christian Doctrine? If you think deep, you'll discover that is their plan to lead you into their tenet philosophy.

Janet wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:34 PM:I support your right to your religious beliefs; it is what our country is built on. I don't support your belief that you should be able to write your religious beliefs into our laws. I think you have lost touch with the fact that you are able to practice your religion (regardless of how offensive it is to me) because of the acceptance of all views in our great country.

janet wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:41 PM:All you bigots should substitute "black" for homosexual. How does it read then? Whites are not legally allowed to marry other races. Please make an argument for that. Oh, right, your kind did until courts ruled otherwise. Dial it back. Mixed race marriages were illegal in most states. Would you bigots be down for that if you had a choice? Of course!!

I love Jesus, and he loved all of us. Why have so many forgotten his love?

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:48 PM:The vote is final live with it or better yet don't....Move out of here. Other states passed that gays could not married or even adopt. Keep rioting and then things might get worse for you.

Just like a wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:02 PM:Gay liberal. Whine and cry and play the blame game.

FYI: Mormons, Christian, Muslims, Catholics, Straight, Non-Religious people we all voted in support of the marriage amendment.

Your Gay communities are acting hostile, intolerant and childish, just as we said you would push your Gay agenda on the churches next and sue if we didn't marry you.

You are behaving exactly as we feared you would.

The sleeping lion has awakened, your hatred and deceit has come out in the open.

We that oppose you will fight against this issue harder than ever before, you can raise all the money that you can, burn our Churches and spit at us but we will not back down.

You lost against the strongest Army ever. The Christian soldiers. We have God as our mighty General and he will provide for us in every way.

Call us Bigots, Haters and intolerant, but it is you that are all those things.

You lost in 3 states get a clue, No to Gay marriage.

Repent, change your life and turn to God, cause time is running out. Jesus died for all sinners even you. Seek the lord as your savior and be saved .

Registration Papers wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:05 PM:are for vehicles, not for ascribing exclusive access to the reproductive organs of other people.

S wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:13 PM:It might be interesting for us all to reflect upon the United States Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virgina (1967). It overturned the illegality of marriages between people of color and whites. Surely no one can fail to see the parallel between the bigoted thinking that originally prevented marriage between two different skin colors and the bigoted thinking that now seeks to prevent marriage between two of the same gender. I have hope therefore that it is just a matter of time before our country returns to a more enlightened age...and those in the future will look back with terrible awe at how close-minded voters still could be in 2008.

tired wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:37 PM:I am tired of the disingenuous argument that defining marriage between a man and woman is somehow racist. I am also tired of the childish attitude of those who lost on 8. You had your brief 15 minutes...now go away.

close minded how about moral minded wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:37 PM:We stood for morality and it won. the country lived fine without gay marriage for 200 years. Most people weren't gay 100 years ago. Itsthe new "trend"

This is so funny wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:42 PM:Christians are being badgered, the hate for religion is coming out full force and all because people don't want to accept Gay marriages. However all the negative, bashing name calling being done on this blog are being done by the gay community. Just goes to show you why 8 past. You all want to blame everyone but the subject at hand. Christians were burned for believing in God. Stop bashing those who believe in God.

hahaha wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:33 PM:after reading all the comments from the no no people, I have only one thing to say that I think they may understand...na na na na boo boo

its ok wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:06 PM:Wipe away your tears lil buckos, I'm sure there's a parade somewhere that will let you dress up and feel better. Be happy!

chuck wrote on Nov 7, 2008 2:22 AM:First off, Gay and lesbians are a way of life, therefore you dont have the same rights as everyone else. Your sexual preference does not give you the right to same rights as everyone else. What about the Transexuals, Animal Lovers, Should the Animal lovers be given the same rights as you? So they can marry animals, then get same benefits as others? You are sick, this is why we joined and Prop 8 came out, nothing to do with religion.

Stephen wrote on Nov 7, 2008 2:30 AM:First and for most Homosexuals are not a minority based on their sexual orientation. Last time I checked it was based on race. Second their rights were not taken away. Homosexuals still have all the rights of a married couple in California.
They just were unable to redefine what marriage is to further desensitize the world. Their goal is to re define what marriage is so they can teach our children from preschool upward that being a homosexual is the same as being normal. Notice how many teachers are Homosexuals they have an agenda and it is time for all people to realize it! Stephen

SJ wrote on Nov 7, 2008 2:41 AM:Liberal Justices changed the rule of law in California. They changed the law to allow gay marriage against the majority consent of the people.
THE PEOPLE HAVE NOW SPOKEN!
NO SAME SEX MARRIAGE!

SJ wrote on Nov 7, 2008 2:49 AM:For those who say you love God and still voted for gay marriage. I can tell you dont love God by the fact you dont even know Him. He who loves God must keep Gods word! In Him verily is love perfected.
Gods word says that creation knows the difference and that Homosexuals have no excuse. They reject God and changed the natural use for their bodies.The scripture states that they have a reprobate mind and have given themselves over to the enemy.
SJ

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:20 AM:"Stop bashing those who believe in god"? You might as well say, "stop bashing those Segregationists". Who is trying to take away who's rights? Hmmmm? (Of course, I will have to assume that you would not have a problem with YOUR rights being taken away as long as it was Christians doing it...you would NEVER bash your oppressor as long as they did it in the name of their religion)

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:21 AM:To tired,

Sorry, we have no intention of going away. Sad to see that you seem to think that passing "Yes on Hate" would accomplish that....and kind of amusing.

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:25 AM:To "Just like a",

Your agenda has been exposed. You want this to be a Theocracy with laws based on YOUR interpretation of religion. Sorry, this is a secular nation with secular laws. Your Prop Hate barely won and that was only after your religion-based hate groups poured in MILLIONS of dollars to produce lying commercials. The tide is turning and the courts are not some stupid person fooled by your lies....I'm sure that's why you don't like the courts....they can't be bamboozled by your fear tactics.

To Yes on 8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:04 AM:You are about to lose again in court. Get over yourselves.

Without Obama on the ticket in future elections you will not have such a high black turnout and you WILL lose. Give Up.

X wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:27 AM:It sure is funny to me that the No on 8 people are hiding behind the civil rights curtain and it is being said that the African American community is what helped the Yes on 8 program to pass. How Ironic

ALL 3 STATES wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:48 AM:ONCE AGAIN the "VOICE OF THE PEOPLE" has spoken. Move on.

It's funny how they're saying that their rights have been taken away. Your rights were never legal - the judges ILLEGALLY overruled the voice of the people back in May! And once again, the people are speaking loud and clear - not only in California, but AZ and FL as well. You can still love each other so go do that.

Not hate wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:27 AM:Not accepting gay marriage is not Hate. Its called loyalty to God and our savior. We don't bend because of name calling. He has Risen!

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:40 AM:To "ALL 3 States"

Aha, another citizen who failed U.S. Government in Middle School.

It is the JOB of the courts to review and eliminate unconstitutional laws....it is their JOB.

May I suggest a remedial class at your local Adult Ed Center?

SM Minister wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:45 AM:To everyone who voted Yes on 8, please consider this: Some of you will have to look at your gay children, now or in the future, and explain to them why they mean less to you than your straight kids, and why YOU denied them a basic civil right. Bravo.

I hate 8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:50 AM:Hey Mormon church. You want to play politics? Can you spell P-A-Y Y-O-U-R T-A-X-E-S ? Keep your religion out of our government!!!!!!!!!

Sue wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:51 AM:Its about love. I have been married for 31 years and have certainly never felt that my marriage was threatened if any of our gay friends wished to be married.

I find the extreme patriarchal domination exhibited by most religious zealots the most harmful thing to marriage. Why any woman in their right mind would want to marry someone who wants to make their every decision for them is beyond me.

Get beyond the hate. All we need is love and understanding.

John wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:53 AM:I never knew traditional family values included so much hate. I hope my marriage and my children will be OK since we have failed to include this cornerstone of values in our family.

Separ-8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:04 AM:Get GOD OUT of politics. This is America - not Iran. Stop tossing God in our face to justify your hate and restrictive laws against love between two human beings. I don't even believe in God - so it makes no difference what words you put in his mouth.

God loves civil rights wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:08 AM:All the religious whackos on this blog are wrong - except me of course. God LOVES civil rights. The devil is against them. It's just that simple, just that black and white. If you are against civil rights for gay, you are against the will of God.

To all the 8 lovers wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:12 AM:Karma pays back. Your marriages are not safe.

ku wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:22 AM:I am frustrated at what I have been seeing in the news since Prop 8 passed. For a group whose platform was to stop HATE...well, take a good look at who is promoting the hate. It is NOT from the supporters of Prop 8 who peacefully expressed their right to protect traditional marriage. However, it appears that anyone or any group who supported Prop 8 is now under ATTACK. Do you see what is happening? This group is the one full of hate and will continue to spread the hate until the rest of the world sees it 'their way'. I am not going to apologize for the voice of the people-the voters. That is what we call freedom of speech and democracy. How dare this group try to intimidate the voters by pledging retaliation. Do they think their group has more of a right to express than any other group? The voice of the people has spoken on this subject. It is time to move on. Let's find a way to help the gay & lesbians feel that their unions or domestic partnerships are equal in their own eyes. But as the people have said with their votes...DON'T MESS WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. Thank you.

Voters Dont Count wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:30 AM:which means Mr. Obama is not our President.

Religion is a choice wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:31 AM:Religion is a choice and lifestyle. No one is born Christian. You choose to interpret your bible to discriminate. That is the truth.

You lied in your campaigns to imply that Obama supported Prop 8 in a last minute mail/robocall campaign to the black community.

Obama opposed Prop 8.

The Governor Opposed Prop 8.

Christians will lie when it serves them even if they are claiming the moral high ground.

come on wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:41 AM:I am frustrated at all the comments that are calling me judgemental, bigoted, hateful, etc. because I want to preserve the oldest institution called marriage. Yes, marriages fail. I also know that marriages succeed. I do not appreciate the No on 8 people telling the world what they think is in my heart and what they think I am teaching my children. You don't have a clue what goes on in my family. In fact, this group uses traditional values to promote THEIR platform of HATE. Every day my family has had the discussion of why we supported prop 8. My children understand that we as a family are protecting something that is important to us and NOT because we oppose a lifestyle of others. It is our right and our obligation to stand for what we believe even if we are persecuted for it. Believe me, my children have seen for themselves the HATE that has been directed towards us in supporting prop 8. We have been spit at, yelled at, gestered at, called all sorts of names. Our cars have been vandalized because of our Yes on 8 bumper stickers. All this while we peacefully exercise our 1st amendment right of Freedom of Speech. There seems to be confusion on where the HATE is coming from and who is teaching it!

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:14 AM:To Come On,

We will know you by your acts. Here are your acts:

1. Creating a proposition designed and ONLY designed to take away the rights of a group of your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...NOT to advance your own rights or protect your own rights in any way....in other words, creating a proposition sticking your nose into the business of people who have not harmed you and your business in any way.

2. Poured money into the state from outside religious sources to create LYING ads that have nothing to do with what your Prop Hate says will happen.

3. Told LIES about how kids will be taught about gay marriage...as....you...take your kids out of school to teach them how to tell lies and protest gay marriage.

4. Inject your intepretation of religion into a secular system of laws...expressly against the 1st amendment, dictating your RELIGIOUS beliefs into secular government.

Yes, we know you by your acts.

AGREE wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:15 AM:RE: Ku
You hit it "spot on!" THAT is one of the MANY reasons Prop 8 passed. The behavior from the opposition was so clearly offensive and vial, that people who saw this going on most likely voted yes because they didn't want to be part of such a group of hateful people! They call themselves tolerant?? Ha! The tolerant ones were those who (and still are) were tolerant of the opposition with everything going on.
The people have spoken...get over it and MOVE ON!

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:17 AM:To Come On,

Obviously you missed the lesson in Civics about how YOUR rights end at my nose....in other words, your 1st amendment rights (and show me a list of the Yes on Hate people who got arrested for exercising their free speech) do NOT give you permission to take away MY rights. You are the aggressors. You are the Segregationists. You are in the wrong. We WILL prevail. We WILL overcome.

to sm minister wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:27 AM:Please tell us what church you minister in.

oh come on wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:30 AM:It's not hate. It's a reaction to the oppression of religious and social intolerance. It's a backlash to a judgmental, bigoted, divisive piece of legislation. If you voted for 8 count yourself as one of the oppressors.

Correct wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:30 AM:Come on and agree are correct. I was a fence sitter until I started reading vile comments from the opposition. I voted yes because I realized exactly which side was actually intolerant. Their comments and behavior did them no favors.I believe this is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I would be angry too... wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:33 AM:If I felt I was being treated unfairly. You can't expect a group of people who feel they are being oppressed to not express their anger and frustration. They are fighting against a group of people who are mostly using an illogical and irrelevant basis for their argument (religion). It's extremely difficult to have a peaceful debate with someone who doesn't think logically, or also in this case, pragmatically. It's comparable to a debate with a 3 year-old. Frustrating indeed.

But Stephen wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:01 AM:I don't know where you get this line of "Homosexuals still have all the rights of a married couple in California." but you have been fed a bunch of bull.
Neither a domestic partnership nor a civil union have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as a marriage.
Domestic Partnership comes closer than civil union, but it is not legally equal.
I have a great idea, if you think that a domestic partnership is exactly the same, get divorced, sign up as domestic partners and see.
Report back to us on how equal they are in a year.

bodecea wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:07 AM:To Agree:

Congratulations! You have just clearly stated that you believe legal rights should be based on what YOU interpret to be offensive and vial[sic]. I find "Girls Gone Wild" type behavior to be offensive and vile...and yet I am not clamoring to take away their right to marry. I find the thought of Obese people doing the naughty to be offensive and vile and yet I am not clamoring to take away their right to marry. I find the thought of people too stupid to know how our government works and what it stands for being allowed to marry and procreate, but I'm not clamoring to take away their right to marry.

But....I'm guessing that truth might go over your head.

DARWIN THEORY wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:21 AM:If same-sex relationships were meant to be - we'd all be walking this earth as women at first and then become extinct!

Sick of wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:28 AM:The discrimintation of whites and heterosexuals in this country... Whats wrong with people, have you all forgot your family values of the 50's?

ACCEPT IT wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:34 AM:To: bodecea

Not only did the voice of the people speak LOUD AND CLEAR in CA - but AZ and FL as well. If you want to marry your partner, move to MA - it's legal there!

Accept it and move on - or out.

Sad American wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:43 AM:To Bodecea

I just wanted to let you know that you are still doing a great job converting people to the yes side because of your nasty attitude. You and your protesting friends are making it easy to form new attitudes against your cause.

to To all the 8 lovers wrote on Nov 7, 2008 11:07 AM:Speaking about karma means you don't have a clue! lol

Exactly wrote on Nov 7, 2008 11:19 AM:To Bodecea,

What "Sad American" wrote is right on. All of the protesting that is going on, is not in your favor - it's actually making people more angry who weren't in the first place. Tell your friends that they are digging themsevles even deeper. Show some dignity while you still can and move on - peacefully and quietly. It would be like me protesting that Obama is now president when I voted for McCain. I accepted the fact and have to deal with it and move on in my life. But you don't see me "after-the-fact" running out in the streets in front of cars waving my McCain sign around!

Oceanside wrote on Nov 7, 2008 11:22 AM:If you want gay marriage, move to Mass. Break on retirement taxes, Florida. Want a communist Government, lot's of choices. Socialist rule, take your pick. Don't be so angry and entitled. Things may change, they may not. You have choices which is better than most countries. You can live where you can be happy.

Janet wrote on Nov 7, 2008 11:38 AM:I am confounded by the comments by several people that the bad behavior of a few people reflects on all who support the right of consenting adults to marry. I have seen some Christians do vile things, but I am not going to generalize that to all Christians. When the majority oppresses the minority, the minority has recourse to the courts, which will decide the matter. Consenting adults don't have the right to a religious marriage but I believe they should have a right to a civil marriage.

The Point wrote on Nov 7, 2008 11:58 AM:Take a step back & see how both sides behaved. The opposer's to Prop 8 were violent, offensive, rude and hateful during the campaign. I guarantee, that if it had gone the other way - there would NOT be Yes people standing in front of the Gay/Lesbians organizations "AFTER-THE-FACT" waving around their Yes signs. Anyone and Everyone could see how each side was behaving - especially the last day when all the cops had to maintain crowd control on the No people, while the Yes people had no cops at all.
Hmmmmm. What side would anyone want to be on?

John wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:07 PM:With so many problems, wars, medical care, finacial crisis, etc. I just can't believe so many people have invested so much time and money shoving their socio-religious agenda down our throats. Go solve a real problem and stop trying to solve made up problems like gay getting hitched. Rome is buring and the Yes on 8 people are fiddling around.

Religion 101 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:11 PM:The bible is a book of fairy tales. It is layers of myth and tribal history. It is not a document that should be used to justify your vote for Prop 8. It's makes a decent door stop.

Civil Rights wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:16 PM:Earlier today, I was talking to a friend about how sad it made me to hear that CA, FL, and AZ had all voted "YES" to proposition 8. She said to me, "Why should you care? You don't live in those states and you're not gay."

Why should I care??

This is an issue of basic civil rights. As a nation, we were all witness to one of the greatest moments in history, and steps forward, this past Tuesday night. In the midst of all that seemingly forward movement, we learn that Proposition 8 (which, for those that are living under a rock, bans gay marriage at the State constitutional level) has passed in three states. One step forward, three huge steps back.

Marriage, before anything else, is a CIVIL UNION. Before all the religious zealots jump all over me for that statement, think about it for a moment. I mean really think about it.

Did Neanderthal man have any formal religion or church? No, they didn't. What they did have though was a very basic ritual for claiming their mate. The idea of marriage has existed long before any formal religion was ever thought up.

The idea of marriage existing only between a man and a woman is not a CIVIL issue, but a RELIGIOUS one. Whatever happened to the idea of a separation between Church and State? It is supposed to exist, but it doesn't.

In order for a person of any faith to be married, the couple in question must first obtain a CIVILLY issued marriage license. CIVIL. Funny how it keeps coming back to the issue of civil rights, huh? Atheists can marry, can't they? There's no religion involved in their unions yet they're allowed to marry. Keep the issue of religion out of this and there really isn't an issue at all.

If the government really wants to keep the idea of marriage between a man and woman only because of the ideas perpetuated by religion, then they would have to put a stop to all civil marriage unions. No more going to City Hall, no more Vegas quickies, and no more internet ordained Ministers performing a union for friends or family. If marriage is to only exist between a man and a woman as defined by religions beliefs, than the only people who should be allowed to join the couple would be those of a religious order.

Won't all the judges and mayors be pleased to hear that they'll lose revenue.

I don't feel that there should be a Federal ruling on gay marriage, although, based on a conversation with my cousin today, it seems as though Proposition 8 may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is going to be this generation's Roe v. Wade. I personally feel that there should be a Federal decision put in place to protect the CIVIL RIGHTS of same sex couples with regard to wills, health care, property, etc. Let each state decide what to do about the issue of marriage. Issues of Civil Rights, as is the case with Proposition 8, should NEVER be put into the hands of voters.

Imagine what our world would be like if voters had been the ones to decide whether or not blacks or women could vote or if blacks should be allowed in the same schools as whites.

Think about it.

No, I mean really think about it.
Thank you EM.

sandieganvoter wrote on Nov 7, 2008 12:28 PM:bodecea
[-] wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:15 PM:I might want to add...if you think Homosexual behavior has been 'in your face' before, just wait. We have no reason to be discreet anymore. If we cannot get legal marriage, that will not stop us from recognising our unions publically. We are done hiding. We are done being low key. You can take that to the bank.

Oh...so you mean nothing has changed.

sandieganvoter wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:28 PM:To Bodecea:

Oh yeah, you were so quick to jump on people who you felt needed to further their education...may I suggest a remedial spelling class at YOUR local adult ed center...the correct spelling is recognizing...see it, learn it, love it.

If my kid was gay wrote on Nov 7, 2008 1:48 PM:I would get him/her counseling, not ptromote thebehavior. its Not normal.

But If my kid was gay wrote on Nov 7, 2008 3:19 PM:If your kid was gay and you took him or her to counseling, you would not like it. No accredited counselor would do what you want because you think that you can "deprogram" him or her.
The issue is "hardwiring", not "software", but I bet that you're one of those "gay" is a choice folks.
If you are, please tell us when you made a choice to be heterosexual.
You didn't, you say?
Then why do you think that your child would have made a "choice" knowing that it would incur your wrath as well as social ostracism?
It's one thing to want to get your parents PO'd, it's quite another to risk the reaction of your peers.
Regards, Alf.

To Alf wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:04 PM:Someone on this blog said you were leaving.....Thanks for the big disappointment.

Gay lifestyle is a choice. Nature made a man and woman not a man and man or woman and a woman.. what makes heterosexual choices.....being in with nature. Never gave it another thought. This is the way it was intended to be. Next people will say it's ok to have sex with animals, children and whatever can be used.

to Ku wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:13 PM:I don't know where you were, but the Yes on 8 supporters here were hostile and scarry-mean. The Yes supporters were rude and anti-peace in Escondido. Scares me to think they'd be raising children. I'm just glad I don't have to marry any of them! I have no interest in either side, since I'm the one who thinks registration papers are for vehicles. I do notice who is compassionate and who is hostile, though. There are rude people on both sides. The Yes people are attacking, and the no people are defensive.

Leather Chaps wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:28 PM:Haha you lost guess you can still wear your leather chaps.

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:35 PM:YES ON 8 !

To whoever wrote "to ku" I saw the anti 8 thugs...Stop your crying the majority voted. You brave gays fight an old retired family in Escondido.

Let's bring it and rainbow . Funny my dog is registered but your not.

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 5:36 PM:All gay marriage is illegal.

esterban wrote on Nov 7, 2008 6:10 PM:Does this mean I cant marry the oceanside police force?

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:48 PM:IT WAS ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!

To Yes on 8 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 8:33 PM:Actually, 18,000 gay marriages are still valid and legal and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Your proposition has always been about hatred and bigotry and you only fooled the feeble minded to vote for you with your whole fake protect the children propoganda.

We all know that next you will want to ban single parents (gay or straight) from adoption. Your own propoganda announced how you thought only a married man and woman should raise children.

There will be a political price to pay for this. Let's see if Mormons and the Knights of Columbus are ready.

so sad too bad wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:34 PM:to yes on 8...guess what, I can promise you that if the will of the people want to dissolve all previous gay marriages, IT WILL HAPPEN. However, you will be surprised to learn, that this was about protecting the heart and soul of marriage as it was intended, not an attack on you personally. The marriages will more than likely stand. If you keep whining however, you may further awaken the sleeping giant.

Big mama wrote on Nov 7, 2008 9:41 PM:Crybabies!!

Roberto1 wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:33 PM:I'm a racist, I believe Obama has no experience (much less than palin) and would not have won without all those liberal campaign dollars....

Ron wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:55 AM:My partner and I were married in CA after being together for 30 years. And now I regret it. I always knew I was surround by ingnorance and hate and now it has been proved. Shortly after our marriage we picked up and moved back east to MA where we are from. Sad after 16 years of thinking we could have a life in CA we could not. Thank you CA but I will now leave my home with my head held high back home in MA where I am accepted for who I am not for what I do in my bedroom. Go ahead anull or void our marriage, we'll just get married again here. Good riddance to all of you.

To Ron wrote on Nov 10, 2008 7:13 PM:Keep crying and you are not missed