Gee Wizz wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:55 AM:Don't these people have anything else to do? Why do they want to shove this down our throats?

After all the ruthless action against supporters of Prop. 8 and the demonstrations against churches. I am sure they have lost more voters than they gained.

VOTERS do have the right to decide..........

Bill wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:29 AM:They are just a bunch of sore losers. We have voted on this issue in California twice. Why don't they take a hint?

Lady wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:41 AM:OMG!!! WE the people HAVE voted. This state CAN NOT afford this crap again. Find something ELSE to do PLEASE!!!
WE have voted twice on this. WE ALL can't have laws CHANGED to our "own ways" I really think some of these people need to seek therapy!!!

RR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:27 AM:Looks like the posters above are scared. It would pass in a few more years. And to gee wiz the voters do NOT have the right to decide on who does/does not get civil rights. Sorry, that is not majority rule. Learn some civics and the role of the courts.

To RR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:05 AM:"And to gee wiz the voters do NOT have the right to decide on who does/does not get civil rights. Sorry, that is not majority rule."
Well evidently we do, cause, Um, we DID!

Bo wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:38 AM:I'm not gay but I did vote against Prop. 8 because marriage is a commitment made by the couple to God; the government shouldn't be involved at all. If God doesn't like gay marriage God can handle it. However, if gay activist continue to trample on my rights, such as the right to move freely within my town or to peacefully patronize businesses that donated money to the Yes on 8 group, I will vote in favor of the gay mariage ban if it comes up again!

taxpayer wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:28 AM:MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.

That label was placed on this issue by highly paid campaign managers for the no on 8 side. They spent 70 million dollars of your money trricking you into believing that lie.

Marriage is not a civil right the same as being homosexual is not a civil right...it is a choice. Each and everyone of you have made the choice to be homosexual. African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities did not choose there race, they were born that way and they can't change it. Therefore they are entitled to "civil rights".

So stop spreading this disception and get back to what is real.

RR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:30 AM:Sorry taxpayer you need to think. Choice or not, which according to science it is not, it is a choice that affects no one. Your choice of bigotry does and infringes upon the rights and dignity of others. Call it what you will, keep avoiding the issue at heart with semantics. Either learn to accept others or accept yourself as a hate filled bigot. And to - to RR- what is your point. Voters continously vote laws that infringe on others and must be overturned by the courts.

11 in Favor wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:33 PM:...That's the combined total of judges it took to get same-sex marriage passed in MA, CT, CA.

Isn't it frightening what a few non-elected activists can mandate in spite of the people having spoken in over 40 states which have banned same-sex marriage?

Not a Homophobe wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:53 PM:I voted in favor of Prop 8. Why? Because I really find it kind of creepy (and ironic) when any minister presides over a 'marriage' when most (if not all) religions prohibit homosexuality.

How about this; maybe homosexuals can circumvent the law and just have a 'civil union' of some type instead of a marriage? I mean, there has to be a way for lawyers to draft up some sort of legal document that allows homosexual couple to share in just about every facet of life that heterosexuals do.

And when you really boil it down, why can't homosexual couples just go out and 'marry' each other without 'legalizing' it?

They can just go to the beach or mountaintop, viewpoint, or some special place with their partner and their friends and have someone (or a minister, if they can find one) read the vows and preside over a 'wedding.' Why make a big deal out of it? It's not worth the headache.

Taxpayer to RR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 6:48 PM:You have labeled me, which is standard procedure for people like you when someone does not agree with their point of view and you do not have a better argument. Calling names and trying to make people feel guilty is a hollow argument that has not worked and never will.

As far as science and homosexuality goes the evidence is very, very questionable at best and it certainly does not say that 100% of homosexuals were born that way. At best it talks to a very small percentage of births that may have be sexually different then the other 99.999%, period, end of story.

The bottom line is, this is not and never will be a civil rights issue! That is the lie the campaign managers sold to everyone like you during the campaign. If you don't believe me go ask an African American what he thinks.

Even Elton John believes that civil unions are the appropriate means in this case.

Sorry you and yours are wrong on this one.

RR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:30 PM:Taxpayer said nothing again, but to show ignorance and bigotry. Not to make you feel hollow just to point out a fact. What argument did you make. It is not a civil right. Semantics again. Selectively choosing how to phrase your discrimination.

Boy, let me ask an African American what he thinks. I think judging others on who they are is unnacceptable. Do you want to choose another race for me to ask? Nice assumption you made.

But since Elton John says it is ok that we have discriminate in this manner then I must be wrong. The notion of civil unions being an equal right is ludacris. It is inherently wrong and provides a societal message that marriage/heterosexuality is better.
Which I know your ilk believes but wrong again.

Taxpayer to RR wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:12 PM:Yeap, you are definitely showing your intelligence here.

You should be proud to support homosexuality with these great arguments. And just think a few short months ago poeople like you called me a homophobe now all of a sudden I am a bigot.

This is still not a civil rights issue and never will be. So get over it!

Inevitable wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:10 AM:It is inevitable that it will become legal and people won't think twice about gays marrying as happens in other progressive countries.
Let's move on and worry about more important issues that affect humans on this planet.

JSten wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:06 AM:Two years??

Thats just enough time to pick out the clothes, find a venue, order the announcements, arrange for the caterers, plan the menu, choose the wine, hire the ushers, the limo...

Two years is simply not enough time.

JSten wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:13 AM:I got married once.

Yeah, to a real woman too. And guess what?

It was not in a church, it was in the park. And there wasn't a minister, there was a magistrate.

And there wasn't any mention of God, but there were promises to take care of each other and ensure the well fare of our children.

I am pretty sure my marriage was legal. At least that's what the magistrate said

If the religulous want to assume the role of sole brokers of marriage, maybe they should take over Family court as well.

Juneboarder to Taxpayer wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:20 AM:I agree with RR to a certain extent. I try not to point fingers or blame, but the point stands. The issue on whether or not to call it a marriage or a civil union shows that there is still inequality out the for homosexual people.

I, myself, am not gay nor did RR state that they were homosexual. Try not to throw stones as your glass walls may break.

Rather, try spreading love, acceptance and peace and we all might be able to live together in harmony.

Inequality breeds hate.

Anti-Religion Bigotry wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:21 AM:Bigotry against religions is exploding in California under the banner of gay rights. Blame for this explosion of bigotry lies at the feet of the California Supreme Court!

Brad wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:23 AM:These people want to keep having a vote until they win.

How do we get something on the ballot? If these folks can get laws changed, we need to change the law on being able to ask people for their ID...even though that's already legal to do, as long as you're asking a person who is a legal resident!!

I guess wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:50 AM:when it comes to the gay communities the voice of Californian's just don't matter to them!! We have spoken, WE don't want it. If you want marriage so bad move to Mass. or Conn where the people of their state voted it in. God people leave us alone. IT will get voted down probably even more in 2010 because of the way the gay communities have handled themselves.

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:57 AM:To Gee Wizz,

Classic Reflection on your part. You are the ones shoving things down our throats, forcing us to conform to YOUR religious interpretation of what marriage is.

Simple Majority wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:58 AM:Ammend the state constitution to guarantee all abortion, to tax churches, to allow bonds/taxes to pass by 50% - hey this would pass in a heartbeat.

Then what would you do?

When you steal rights from people, your rights are next.

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:01 AM:Let us remember some of the things that majorities have led us to:

Slavery
Women as Chattel
Trail of Tears
Chivington Massacre
War of 1812
Mexican War
Secession of the Southern States
Jim Crow laws
Massacre at Wounded Knee
Persecution of the Mormons in the Eastern States (how ironic)


Just a few.

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:23 AM:How about we go ahead and vote on the issue of "gay" marriage again in either 2010 or 2012 -
WITH TWO CONDITIONS -
1) NO OUT OF STATE MONEY FOR EITHER SIDE!
THIS INCLUDES CHURCH DIRECTIVES!
AND
2) TRUTH IN ADVERTISING LAWS BE APPLIED TO ALL POLITICAL ADS!
Imagine, if you can, how few political ads, especially the smear ads, could have been aired if they were required to be 100% truthful!
Let Californians pay for the pro and con advertising because it is Californians who vote on California propositions, not people who live in New York or Nevada or Utah or Arizona or any other state.
Regards, Alf.

Fair Enough wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:31 AM:I voted "YES" on Prop 8, however, I'm all for voting again. We can also vote whether to let kids have guns, lower the drinking age to 5, and maybe see if people want to ban handicapped people from the state; I'm guessing the majority will make the right decision on everything... again.

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:31 AM:Let us remember that one of the points continuously brought up by the "Yes on H8" posters here is that "Marriage is NOT a right"....that means the government can take their marriage away at any time for any reason....after all, it isn't a right, is it?



Moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for.

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:33 AM:Anti-Religious Bigotry = Not doing what the religions order us to do....and actually wanting to think for ourselves and have equal rights.

Arlo wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:34 AM:Does this mean we get to vote for McCain again in 2010? Maybe folks weren't thinking right on that issue either?

Thank you for protecting my family fellow 'Yes on 8' voters!

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:35 AM:To Alf,

You can't have truth in advertising. It simply won't do...then the "Yes on H8" people couldn't possibly win....lying (the heck with the 9th Commandment) is all they had.

ChurchState wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:52 AM:Loving v. Virginia

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:01 AM:Well, "bodecea" at 7:35AM,
I disagree.
They had and have fear, they use and abuse and exploit fear.
Whether it is fear of homosexuals, homosexuality or some other fear, that's what they play as their trump card.
"What will happen to the children if .....?", FEAR.
I saw a news conference in which the person was saying that the danger level from Al Qaeda was quite high.
He inspired fear to keep the bucks rolling into the defense and war machine, fear.
The people who are against "gay" marriage understand that fear is one of their best weapons,
it is up to rational people not to buy into the fearmongering and see through the lies.
Regards, Alf

Obamanation wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:09 AM:As a Republican who has sat through club meetings and heard my leadership blast Gay marraige on moral grounds and also ignorantly portray being gay as a choice and not a genetic predisposition I say shame on you! I am straight. I like women. I actually like women alot. I don't know why but I just do. I remember liking nude pictures of women when I was a boy. I can't say it was a choice that I liked them, but I know that for some reason I just did. I can't say that it was a choice to like females; I just did. I also was exposed to some male nudity. I found it kinda repulsive. It didn't have the same effect that seeing females did. But still it was not a choice but was instead just a natural feeling I felt. Now based on my personal experiences I can easily understand Gay men or women looking at others and simply having the same reactions I had only they are having them with the same sex. And they probably don't know why either. They just know that they are attracted. So for all you ignorant haters out there that want to deny fellow adults the civil right to marry and share love with other under the eyes of the law I say you are the equivalent of the master enslaving another "race." I am not Gay but I am not "sheltered" as many are. I know Gay people and consider them as good of friends as anyone else. And I am sick to hear how one group wants to sactrimoniously deny another group the right to love and be legally recognized under the law. All you Republicans need to grow up and live your lives the way you want to and let others do the same.

Jay wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:46 AM:"These things shouldn't be decided by voters?" I can't believe I read that. Who should decide? A couple of Judges?

AIDS wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:48 AM:CASES WILL INCREASE IF GAY MARRIAGE PASSES FEAR,FEAR,FEAR

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:50 AM:To Alf,

Fear indeed, but that fear was invoked thru lies.

Two examples:
Lie: Prop H8 would protect against Gay Marriage being taught in school...
Truth: Prop H8 has nothing to do with Education and what is taught in school
Lie: Children were forced by a school to go to a gay marriage
Truth: Parents asked to take their children on a field trip to their teacher's wedding as a surprise (so much for parents' rights if the religious right disagrees, eh?)

To Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:51 AM:Why do you classify the concern or beliefs of those for Prop 8 as fear? Then you must also classify those against the church, as being afraid of God!

Prop 8 will pass again, and the anti-prop 8 folks will help it to pass by the hate they are spreading by their ranting and protesting, and even the attack on the grandmother in palm Springs, those sure were some real men there. Why aren't the anti-prop 8 folks protesting in the black communities? It has been proven that it was the black and hispanic voters that came out in favor of obama and at the same time voted YES on 8. I would love to see the crowd that was at Saddleback Church take their protest to downtown Compton or Watts, screaming civil rights. Let's see how long that protest would last!

Charlie wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:54 AM:I don't think that the people that voted for Prop 8 truly understand what it meant. I think most of you are under the impression that being Gay is a choice. Look, why the heck would anybody CHOOSE to be awkward, an outcast, sexually confused when they are young? For the most part being gay is not a choice, it's how you are born. Look at the frickin biology, jackasses. Just because a man and woman raise a kid sure as heck doesn't mean that they are the right parents. And if you want to protect children, gay couples who adopt stay together as a couple TWICE as long as heterosexual married couples. Why do you all have to be so hateful. Let gay individuals marry, so what? Seriously! you think that they are going to "contaminate" your children or something. Come on, grow up. you only fear what you do not understand. Prop 8 is as discrimination! I marched in the "No on 8 Parade" in Hillcrest a few days ago. I wish that you "Yes on 8" people would look into the true facts before you let "Jesus" just tell you what to do. I'm heterosexual. It sickens me that they are people so hateful in the world. Would "Jesus" want you to act in hatred. Isn't that what "Jesus" would have wanted. To love thy neighbor? to treat everyone equal? Hmmm. who's the close minded hypocrites here. My God.

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:25 AM:Well, "To Alf" at 8:51AM,
WHY?
MANIPULATION!
How do I count the ways?
Lies and fear -
What will your children be taught?
Polygamy,
bestiality,
they'll force churches to perform gay marriages or sue them.
Those are just a few of the lies specifically designed to invoke fear.

Those who don't like churches have not passed or tried to pass propositions or legislation banning churches, have they?

As I said before, separation of church and state is a two-way street and some churches seem to have forgotten that, Catholic and LDS are two of them.

Anyway, the California Supreme Court will weigh in on the merits of the suits and render their decision(s).

Imposed discrimination, such as Prop. 8, will not be tolerated and will end.
The only questions are when and how.
Regards, Alf.

to alf and bodeca wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:27 AM:They are being denied a civil right.

Truth??

or Lie???

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:24 AM:Truth, we are being denied a civil right.

(Of course, if anyone wants to say that marriage is not a civil right, then the government can take marriage away from you just as easily...are you sure you want that?)

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:27 AM:Tell you what...people can hold all gays responsible for what happened to that poor lady in Palm Springs if we can hold all straights responsible for what happened to Matthew Shepard....and hold all Christians responsible for Rev. Phelps.


Deal?

Pants On Fire wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:41 AM:It's too bad this issue has to come down to a referendum on the homosexual community. For the most part most gays and lesbians I know are kind, hard-working individuals.

The reason I voted for Prop 8 is that marraige is a time-honored ceremony that has traditional ties to the religious sacrament. At some point in time the State decided that it would be a great incentive to recognize the act and reward those men and women to perform the ceremony by tying tax breaks and property rights laws to that ceremony.

I am disturbed that a handful of judges believe that since the State provides incentive to a religious act that it has a right to redefine the meaning of the rite for most churches. That is a violation of the separation of church and state statute, which ironically has been cited by opponents of Prop 8 as a reason to support changing the scope of the marraige rite.

If you really want to get it right then the State should not recognize any kind of union.

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:09 AM:Well, "to alf and bodeca" at 9:27AM,
First, it is "bodecea".
Second, if you are talking about homosexuals, the answer is
yes.
That right is -
equal protection under the law.
Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation or age, etc. violates the Constitution.
If the state had never gotten into the marriage business, this would be moot, but the state is in the marriage business and, as such, cannot discriminate as Prop. 8 would do.
Regards, Alf.

To Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:52 PM:So based on your argument then every form of discrimnination concerning marriage is a civiln rights violation?

Polygamy, marriage between a brother and sister or uncle and neice or whatever should be allowed to prevent that civil rights violation based on all of the things you mention in your 11:09 posting.

Is that really what you are saying? I almost always enjoy reading your blogs because they are well thought out and based on fact. In this case, I would really like to believe that you don't want to open up this particular can of worms. Do you???

Keep smiling!!!

bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:57 PM:If marriage is a religious act....and....religious organizations were in the forefront of passing Prop H8....how long do you think it will be before they try to pass an Amendment disallowing all non-religious marriages.

Be careful what you wish for, California.

to bodecea wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:29 PM:What we wish for is to hold onto to our moral fiber in this state and this country. Not be pushed into changing this country for the most politically popular cause at the time. And lets face it... the homosexual movement is just that. A very small group of people that have screamed louder then anyone else to get all of this attention. Just because they have become the favored group is not justification to bow down to them and change the beliefs that have made this country great.

The homosexual movement is attempting to change other beliefs as well as evidenced by the lesbian woman who is sueing the Vista doctor because4 he would not artifically inseminate her. Whatever happened to the right to refuse service to anyone? Yeah, I know that does not apply to homosexuals, after all they are special!

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 2:36 PM:Well, "To Alf" at 12:52PM,
you are clouding the issue.
Discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, gender and sexual orientation plus whatever others ARE the basis for non-discrimination/equal protection under the law arguments.
Familial relationships are not in question, discrimination is. (But, if you want to know, as long as it is 2 consenting adults, I don't care.)
Stay on topic, please.
It is discrimination based on gender and/or sexual orientation to deny 2 homosexual consenting adults the EXACT same right to marry and the EXACT SAME legal status that 2 heterosexual consenting adults have and that violates the equal protection clause.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:13 PM:Well, "to bodecea" at 2:29PM,
codifying YOUR morals into law is as wrong as codifying MY morals into law or anyone else's into law.
The moral fiber of which you speak is a religious one, not a legal one.
"Favored group" my eye,
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST GROUP IS MORE ACCURATE.
You can not make discrimination be the law when the LAW and the COnstitution both proscribe discrimination.
It will not be tolerated.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:18 PM:One more thing, "to bodecea" at 2:29PM,
homosexuals are no more "special" than heterosexuals in the eyes of the LAW.
There is no claim by homosexuals to being "special", there is, however, a claim to being EQUAL!
Is being EQUAL something that is reserved for some who fit YOUR standards and not those who don't?
Regards, Alf.

To Alf wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:18 PM:On topic is all of what I stated at 12:52 and more. You and I both know that this entire "civil rights" issue was a made up argument by the campainers of no on 8. The fact of the matter is the only thing prop 8 says is that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, the definition of marriage. That is consistent with existing laws against polygamy and other restrictions concerning marriage.

The same as most people who voted for the prop, I wish homosexuals health and happiest in their livee. My objection has nothing to do with religion, hate, bigotry, homophobia or any other label they want to place on me. It has to do with stopping the errosion of the moral fiber that holds this country together, period. I have no desire to have a society like the one that is currently in France and other counrties like that.

Clueless wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:10 PM:To Alf does not even realize how bigotted his statemnts are. His very argument of why he supported prop h8 assumes that him and his moral beliefs supersede those of homosexuals. He believes he is inherantly better. It is great to read all the yes on h8 comments to see the true ignorance. It is like listening to a racist, it makes he no on h8 argument stronger. The law will change soon.

to clueless wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:11 PM:You can spin it anyway you desire. You can try to place blame upon me forever and it still won't be true. You can assume that the majority are wrong for ever and it still won't be true.

Just think a short time ago you folks were calling people who supported 8 homophobes, now after the very imaginative campaign all of a sudden we are racist and bigots.

If that is the best you can do since you cannot come up with a good reason why we are wrong then that is your problem.

Like I said, health and happiness to all.

Alf wrote on Nov 15, 2008 3:30 AM:Well, "To Alf" at 3:18PM on the 14th,
sfgate, the San Francisco Chronicle has an article (Minority groups ask to annul gay marriage ban) that should interest you from a legal standpoint.
These minority groups (read the article) claim that Prop. 8 "sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities".
Imagine that!
Regards, Alf.

RR wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:58 AM:To clueless said that there is not a good reason presented why they are wrong. Are you kidding me? Bigotry is a good reason to me. Hatred is a good reason to me. Your promotion and acceptance of bigotry and hatred are argument enough against prop h8. The very argument for prop h8 assumes one group of people to be better than another. This is fundamentaly wrong. The fact is this issue would impact you in NO way. You could go on living with your blinders on and never be affected.
Keep your insulting health and happiness comment to yourself because that is who you care about.