heard enough wrote on Nov 15, 2008 7:36 PM:It went up for the vote, they got their answer, from the people, they don't like the answer, so BOO HOO, BOO HOO. GET OVER IT

Oh well wrote on Nov 15, 2008 7:39 PM:You lost...give it up...should've been campaigning and demonstrating prior to the vote, NOT AFTER!!!

Frank wrote on Nov 15, 2008 7:41 PM:Who cares? Just a bunch of people who hate democracy.

Yup wrote on Nov 15, 2008 7:42 PM:Californians have spoken once again...and the prop 8haters do not care to listen. It passed. Noe they are suing again.. Same sex marriage is not the way marriage was intended to be. I am sick and tired of hearing the hate coming from these people. They are attacking religions, churches, business and the marriage of the average Joe and Joanne. They have been violent towards people as well. It is time to move one. They have the same rights as married people. There is no civil rights violation here. To compare this to Rosa Parks is just sickening. Quit making an idiot of yourselves and maybe you would have a better chance of overturning this.

Milo wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:08 PM:The citizens, overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage and those who disagreed with the vote results found a judge to overturn the vote.
Then the citizens voted, again, to keep marriage between one man and one woman and, again, those who lost the vote are trying to find a judge or judges to overturn the will of the people.
Americans ARE watching California. They're watching to see if democracy gets the finger again.

Get over it wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:17 PM:and move on!!! That's the problem with you "Gay" people- you already get health insurance, you already get your "gay parades" what else do you want? all this for a piece of paper?
Get over it- This is lasting longer then our marriage!

A little late wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:19 PM:Where were all these people BEFORE the election when their voice could have made a difference?

Adrienne wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:23 PM:Why Bother Voting in California?

That is the question I am asking myself and everyone should. We all live in a democracy, vote, and the majority of votes win. But, the No on 8 people do not understand this. It is so sad to see the hate they have and what they are doing to the people who only did one thing, voted their way their right as an American voting in a democracy. Doing the hateful things to the people who voted yes and mostly to the Mormon Church is wrong. There are many of us that are not part of this church who also voted yes.
In California we already voted for our choice of marriage only being between a man and a woman. Then with only 4 judges they changed the vote of 61% of Californians. Now we have voted the same as before along with Arizona and Florida. Now, the No on 8 people want this changed again. If this is overturned once again then I ask why we should bother voting in California it will only get changed for the losers that whine and cry the loudest. If this is changed for them then what is to stop each proposition that loses say, you changed it for them so change it for us. Again why bother voting in California if this is allowed to happen again!

Adrienne

Bill wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:30 PM:If things like the Civil Rights Act or Brown vs. Board of Education were put up for a vote, BIGOTS like you would have voted FOR segregation. THIS is why Prop 8 will be repealed and why it shouldn't have been put up for a vote in the first place.

voters have spoken wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:43 PM:enough is enough...I am so sick of hearing about this

kef wrote on Nov 15, 2008 8:48 PM:All I see you guys doing is throwing hissy fits and getting skin cancer out there parading in the sun because you didn't get your way. Go home, you're causing traffic.

GEEZZ wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:06 PM:before you know it they will start huge riots too. It passed get over it. It is time to move on, enjoy life it is short enough.

Local Yokal wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:10 PM:The "No on Prop 8" crowd lost the battle but will win the war. Older people are against same-sex marriage, younger people support it. Take a look at MySpace - young people are very open about their sexuality and are much more comfortable with gays/lesbians. It is only a matter of time.

Marisol wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:18 PM:Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? Whatever happened to equal rights for all citizens of the United States? How exactly does allowing same sex marriages affect you? If you feel your marriage threatened by allowing same sex marriage, then perhaps you should place your focus on that and not on denying another couple their marriage. Regardless of how you feel about same sex marriage, the issue with prop 8 is that it excludes a specific group of people from their civil rights as outlined in the constitution. To allow an amendment is discriminatory. How long before another amendment is made to deny the rights of another group. Discrimination against an individual based on race, sex, age, gender, and marital status is against the law! Their sexual preferance is no more your business than it is my business who you go home to at night. Every individual will have to answer to their GOD personaly when the time comes. It is not our job to judge. Teach your family what you feel is right. Homosexuals are not spreading HATE they are simply fighting for their rights! Just like at one point in time, women marched for equal rights, and colored people fought for equal rights.

Skip wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:20 PM:I voted Yes. No regrets.

But I must admit that my vote was to be against the California Teachers Association.

Everyone said that this vote would not effect the children or the schools, so how do you think I felt when the Teachers Union endorsed Same sex marriage.

Did I say I voted YES!

To Libs wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:23 PM:Keep blaming the religous right if that makes you feel better, but 7 out 10 blacks who voted for Obama, votes YES on 8.

Sally wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:25 PM:What everybody seems to be missing is that the voters corrected an error by the court which attempted to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. The voters changed it back to the original meaning twice. Marriage should not be cheapened by widening the definition to include sodomy.

Christine wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:27 PM:The people have spoken, end of story! You don't see straight people out there marching because they are straight, why do gays think everyone wants to know their private lives? It is the stupidest thing I've ever had anyone shove down my throat! No sympathy here!

MP wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:43 PM:Voting on a constitutional amendment that had been properly brought before the State Legislature, who had then decided to put it to a vote by the people of the State of CA would require a super-majority (that's 66%) to pass. The Prop 8 people knew that, and they knew they didn't have those numbers so the proper procedure was not followed. The initiative process does not require Propositions to be submitted to any kind of judicial review. Obviously.

Constitutions in this country are written in part to protect the minority from the majority. Without this idea women would not have the right to vote, black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus, and the people running this State and Country would all be old, rich, white men. Most of the people who post on this issue seem to need a history lesson. Where were you during High School civics class?

bodecea wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:45 PM:Pretty funny to see the whining of the Pro-Prop H8 people. Got news for you...your vote did NOT make us go away, in fact, it energized us. It made more people realize how petty you are. And your letters and comments here are just more evidence of your infantile "nana, nana, boo boo" level of concern for the rights of your fellow Americans. I grew up in the 50s and 60s and you sound...Just...Like...the Segregationists of the South when people like MLK Jr. fought for the civil rights of black Americans. History will judge YOU the same way.

To Yes on 8 wrote on Nov 15, 2008 9:59 PM:When the Supreme court favors to allow gays to marry in California it will make no difference in our heterosexual lives.

I suggest that you energy should be spent focusing on how to keep your marriages and houses in order. Let "god" judge the gay couples whom decide to marry.

When people posted the Yes on 8 sign in their yards, put the bumper stickers on their cars or had their kids at busy street corner intersections with a sign that says "honk" it's made my Christian heart feel heavy. I perceive the masses are blinded by their "hating" and sadly they don't see it that way.

I don't believe that Jesus would be cruel to people because they are born gay and desire equal rights.

Yes On 8 wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:09 PM:About 500 'Yes on 8' supporters rallied in Escondido at the corner of Ash and Valley Parkway the Saturday BEFORE the election. No media report whatsoever. Instead, the NCTimes reported on the 20,000 people gathered at Qualcomm Stadium. Now AFTER the election, the NCTimes covers this like it is some big important event. Every news report claimed that Prop 8 would fail. Now they want to a free 'do over'.

Anti-Religion Bigotry wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:11 PM: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!

Health Issues wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:32 PM:Some forms of sx just are not healthy. The state has a compelling interest in not promoting unhealthy activities.

Angry Gay people wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:35 PM:"He said he's waiting to find out what it will mean for his marriage and approximately 18,000 other California couples who tied the knot after a Supreme Court ruling overturned the ban on same-sex marriages earlier in the year."

What about the 6 million votes that where completely overturned and ripped away from the people.

What kind of Democracy is that!

Those who destroy property and beat old ladies and throw hissy fits, make racial slur about Blacks, Hispanic and people of faith, win? No way!!!

How about we boycott HOLLYWOOD ( Big Contributors of no on 8 ) Don't go to movies or by DVD's for 1 month. How bout that!

Maybe theyre trying to tell us something wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:38 PM:The vote earlier this month wasn't "tastes great" versus "less filling." It was "you can't get married and have stable families like we can." And you expect them to just get on with their lives? What's wrong with you?

KOside wrote on Nov 15, 2008 10:45 PM:Just MOVE!!!

Conway wrote on Nov 15, 2008 11:37 PM:How many politicians in CA have commit political suicide over this issue? Our Governor for one. What a dunce - for doing a thing so politically in correct- or could it be that he knows he will never be president, so his support of this issue, that has been voted down by an overwhelming majority, is striking back at the American people. Perhaps when he was flexing his muscles in public he was trolling. Wonder what he had to do for uncle Teddy to be accepted into the family - and him a republican. What a dunce - the guy can't even balance a budget.

Sally wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:02 AM:No, Jesus wouldn't be cruel to those who engage in homosexual behavior. He would give them a chance to repent. Those who didn't would be destroyed. You can see this in Bible account of "Sodom and Gomorrah".

Dennis wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:47 AM:I'm glad this story is finaly in print so I can comment. 1- People of the other type of Sex- Don't try to change school studys as they are 2- only man & wife can comsomate a marriage, with a church 3- they (Others) can only be married by the Law (Justic of the peace if you will) no type of law to make a church as far as paper work goes to legalies your union will be legal.For any court, DNA required.

Stan wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:02 AM:The protester are trying to influence the California Supreme Court. If they reject it again after the people have voted for Prop something is amiss.
If the California Supreme Court rejects Prop 8 for the second time they will be committing a criminal act and undermining the rule of law. If it is rejected a second time the case should be taken to the US Supreme Court by the State of California and let them rule on it.

To bodecea wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:50 AM:***are just more evidence of your infantile "nana, nana, boo boo" level of concern for the rights of your fellow Americans.***

Is this what they call a juvenile hissy fit? :::MereaRrRrr Pffffft fitttttt! Hiss hisss:::: Grow up already!

To the Gays, Lesbians, BiSexual, Cross Dressers, Transgenders and, Gender Confuzzled (confused)......

The People of California have spoken. What you do behind closed doors is your business. You all scream about equal rights! I'll tell you what discrimination and lack of equal rights is for crying out loud! I don't see the Government storming your bedrooms ripping you apart from your bedmate, do you? I don't see the Government (even though sodomy is illegal in many states) throwing you in jail because you love a member of the same sex, or you choose to cohabitate with them. Most Californian's as well as people in general could care less who/what another person does in their personal life and behind closed doors. Just because the "People" have spoken and agree that marriage is between one man and one woman, doesn't mean they're prejudice against you, or what you decide to do in your bedroom! Get over it already. This has now become absurd.

Brad wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:53 AM:It seems civil rights are costing the tax payers of this country a lot of money. Maybe the white folks need to start marching to get some equality for themselves. I go to the doctor, I have to pay and for a lot of white people in this country, that means you either don't go, or you pay with a credit card. Credit is not the way to pay for such things. Look around you and you can see what this and other types of risky credit has done for us. For someone who is breaking the law, you have to pay again, whether you have the money or not...it's just in taxes this time!

Equality for all! Doesn't this mean that we need to start letting people out of prison, since we are allowing hundreds of thousands of people to break the laws of this country each and every day?

Another goose and gander thing!

Bill wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:15 AM:""This is a lifestyle that no one chooses," said event spokeswoman Jill Richard. "We want people to know we're your neighbors, mothers, daughters and friends."

Jill seems to have left out fathers and brothers. Is she discriminating against men here?

bodecea wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:21 AM:To Maybe...

I think we know what's wrong with them...the same thing that was wrong with the Segregationists from the Old South. They seem to think that equal rights are not for every law-abiding citizen. They seem to think that there is a finite amount of rights and they don't want to share...as if sharing will somehow diminish their own rights.

Alf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:39 AM:When will everyone come to the realization that the United States is a democratic Republic.
When the "will of the people", in this case slightly less than 53%, contradicts the California Constitution or the United States Constitution,
the Constitution should, if the Supreme Court does their job, win every time.
Part of the purpose of the Constitutions is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, in other words, from mob rule.
This entire problem exists because some people refuse to allow equal protection under the law, yet equal protection under the law is provided AND MANDATED by both the California AND United States Constitutions.
Instead they throw the fraction of a bone of unequal "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" to homosexuals which they themselves would never accept.
The 14th Amendment reads, in part -
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.".
I call attention to the operative words -
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
This does NOT mean NOR DOES IT ALLOW that heterosexuals operate under a different set of laws or a different set of standards or have different rules or have different rights than homosexuals.
Regards, Alf.

To Milo wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:41 AM:I would hardly call a 4% margin overwhelming.

Scoreboard wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:47 AM:I'm el-8-ted that our gr-8 st-8 voted for 8.

tastes great wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:49 AM:Get the stupid comment of the year award!

To Sally wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:50 AM:What you seem to be missing is that the court corrected an error of the voters. It is the job of the legislative branch to ensure the laws of the land are not in conflict with the ultimate law as outlined in the constitution. Just because the majority votes for something doesn't make it legal, just or right.

To Christine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:51 AM:I actually happen to know of several straight people who voted against this ridiculous prop and who are participating in the protests. It's not just gay people who know this passage was wrong.

Wheres the rest of our stuff wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:11 AM:We've got "marriage" back. How about a few other things you borrowed:
- rainbows
- the word "gay" meaning happy
- parades

CIVIL RIGHTS wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:15 AM:Lets give AMERICA back to the INDIANS. Wasn't it illegally taken. Get over it homosexuality is a choice!

Curtis wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:21 AM:All of you yes on 8 people can grumble all you want but I assure you prop 8 will be overturned in the next 10 years if not sooner. This country is a democracy not a theocracy.

Enlightened wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:56 AM:It's a shame that all of you who supported Prop 8 are afraid to admit that you are bigots and hide behind your religion to defend that bigotry. Democracy is much more than majority rule -- a court system that protects the rights of minorities from the bigotry of the majority was wisely written into our Constitution. Shame on the so-called Christians who support discrimination.

To Wheres the rest of our stuff wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:01 AM:I'm pretty sure if you check the rest of the junk is in your trunk.

Lets ban divorce too while we are at it... wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:06 AM:If being married is so holy... why then, are there so many divorces? I am so tired of church groups saying they are protecting marriage when divorce is such a huge problem and effecting children far more than "gay marriage" ever will!

To Curtis. wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:24 AM:I agree with you. This Country is a democracy and guess what....the people have spoken and they will over and over again. I just wonder..when are you guys going to listen. If this gets over turned in the courts..again...illegaly, you bet the MAJORITY VOTERS will start their protest. Just because we are not gay or even those who are gay who voted yes. WE STILL COUNT!! WE ARE NOT A BUNCH OF NOBODIES BECAUESE WE ARE NOT GAY!!!

Fredo wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:32 AM:You LOST, get over it... you wanna get married so badly you can move else where

To Christine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:36 AM:Aren't you the same person the other day that commented how you want Linen n' Things to open a store here in Escondido? Yah that was you. We are going need you to start actually reading the articles before commenting from now on. No more reading just the headlines and then commenting. Thank you in advance for your help.

We Played Nice wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:04 AM:too many California voters were naive enough to believe the lies of Yes on 8....

We tried it the nice way, it didn't work. Now we do it the hard way.
If you were fed up with us before JUST WAIT.

You're going to see us EVERYWHERE and this whole election has inspired us to speak up even more about who we are.

REPLY to Christine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:07 AM:"The people have spoken, end of story! You don't see straight people out there marching because they are straight, why do gays think everyone wants to know their private lives? It is the stupidest thing I've ever had anyone shove down my throat! No sympathy here!"

Haha, awww you poor thing. It's funny how you straight people IMPOSE your thoughts and beliefs into the way we want to live our PRIVATE lives and then try to say that we are the ones out their shoving it down your throats. Well you Voted Yes so now we're going to work harder to shove it down your throat! Enjoy!

Discrimination wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:17 AM:There are laws, following above logic, that discriminate against those that drink alcohol or smoke. Why don't they protest as well? Lifestyle is a choice.
You can not "logically" compare it to gender or race. Laws that protect safety and health of citizens are right and just. Lifestyles that threaten the publics safety and health should be opposed. Proposition 8 is right and just. There is no discrimination. If these people want to pursue a self-destructive lifestyle that is their right in a free society. But such freedoms stop when it jeopardizes public safety and health.

Christine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:21 AM:This is disgusting!! The people voted and agreed that marriage is to be between a woman and a man. If they can get the decision over-ruled...I want to file a petition to over-rule Obama getting elected...makes no sense does it?!?

Christine Q wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:24 AM:This is disgusting!! The people voted and agreed that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. If they can get this decision over-ruled...I want to file a petition to over-rule Obama getting elected...makes no sense does it?!?

observer wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:44 AM:I was under the impression that prop 8 was to vote a change or an ammendment to the state constitution to clearly define marriage as between one man and one women. Since this prop passed, this ammendment should go through without question as was voted. There should be no outrage or protest or why was this voted on in the first place. If this were trully deemed unconstitutional, my question is why was it even put up for vote in the first place. Both sides of this issue could have saved over 150 million dollars arguing over this.

Sally wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:45 AM:Recognizing marriage occurs between a man and a woman doesn't violate any law or civil right. Neither does recognizing that sodomy occurs between two men or two women. The two are not identical.

Tuck wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:53 AM:TO: We Played Nice

So you are saying that if you don't get your way, you are going to throw a fit? That sounds mature. I sure hope you never raise kids. They will be monsters.

Frida wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:55 AM:This is such a discriminatory proposition, I would be surprised if it's not declared unconstitutional. For those you who voted for Prop 8, I hope you feel shamed for how you are oppressing other people. No excuses!!

Court Will Overrule wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:58 AM:Ask the late Chief Justice Rose Bird!

Virginia wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:25 AM:Proposition 8 passed with a very slim majority of around 500,000. Only a few years ago some 62% of voters chose to ban gay marriage. At this rate it's only a few years, at most, until the current No side is the majority. It won't be long, and it's happening all around the world.

Meanwhile, I hope those who posted the many discriminatory comments above com to realize for themselves that gay marriage is no threat.

It's weird to me that bullying conservatives and religious types feel afraid after they themselves initiated gathering more than a million signatures, campaigning, speaking bitterness from the pulpit, donating millions and generally going far, far out of their way to attack a minority and rewrite laws to exclude them.

Who should feel concerned? Obviously the minority who was attacked and those in solidarity with them. But folks in general need to realize that ballot measures against minorities are dangerous for the legal protection of every person in the country.

Proposition 8 was a nasty precedent for attacking and re-writing a constitution to exclude a segment of the population. It undoes much of the good that's happened in past decades in an effort to create a more equal society.

I think a growing portion of the population is tired of political bullying from the churches. And it's time to dispel the neoconservatives' smoke and mirrors.

NO to same sex marriage wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:40 AM:YES on prop 8.... First of all nice try thinking you can trick us Hetrosexuals on the switch ('YES' means no and 'NO' means yes) If God meant to recognize the union between same sex couples then both men and women would have the biological make up to bare offspring without the help of the other. Gays already have domestic partner rights so why go further? It's not supposed to be Mr & Mr or Mrs. & Mrs. It's just not natural and quite frankly I am starting to believe that with all the hate and strong ill feelings gays & lesbians have toward others not in their group or in support of them, that they are harboring the anti-Christ. They could be the beginning of the end... Really think about it... They are ever challenging the church and all that is Christian or God fearing. They are constantly tearing down the fragments of the fundementals of a natural and NORMAL family structure...They are often in the forefront of great protests calling us "haters" when in fact it is they who have such hatered! YES on 8 NO on hate!

Jim wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:44 AM:Okay, everybody, this is a republic, not a democracy, and this sort of mess is exactly what happens when you let "the people" legislate.

Losers wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:49 AM:Prop 22, passed. Prop 8, passed. Get over it. I say for those who voted for McCain we march and protest. Oh wait, I forgot that this country was a democracy and unlike the No on 8ers we take our defeat with grace. I beg to ask the question: where were these people before the election? The voters have spoken twice on this issue, if you want to get married go somewhere else!

Michelle wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:52 AM:Just because the majority voted for Prop 8 does not mean they were right in doing so. It is never too late to fight for equality! Hasn't history proven that? It was so encouraging to see such a large and diverse group of people come out to march for this common cause...and in Escondido out of all places! This fight is not over!

Peace wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:00 PM:As I read all of the bigotry posted on this page, I am embarrassed for Escondido. Many of these comments are plain cruel and ignorant. I thought Californians were more civilized than this.

Not A Democracy wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:18 PM:Where did you people go to school? The United States is NOT a democracy. It IS a constitutional republic.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.

They are designed to diminish the threat of mobocracy (mob rule) thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

Actually wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:40 PM:California is a republic, which allows direct participation. That is in the constitution. This has nothing to do with the US Constitution.

Magda wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:51 PM:Listen up, you Yes on 8's.
Yes, we DID vote already.
Yes, sadly, it DID pass.
BUT, it should not have been on the ballot in the first place. That's why myself and over 400 others marched for equality and civil rights.
I thought we ended all segregation in the 1960s. Apparentally I was wrong.
Now, I know all the counterarguments of the Yes on (H)8 people, and they are all lies. Every little thing that you have heard about gay and lesbianism being taught in schools is WRONG. We gave gays the right to marry months ago, and my children didn't learn ANYTHING even related to sex education or that being gay and lesbian is 'okay'.
And really? It's a sin? Well, sure, but so is eating shrimp and shaving your beard. 1 Corinthians 13 clearing states :"Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy.
Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude;
It is not self-seeking, nor easily angered.
It keeps no record of wrongdoing.
It does not delight in evil,
But rejoices in the truth.
It always protects, trusts, hopes, and preserves.
There is nothing love cannot face;
There is no limit to its faith, hope, and endurance.
In a word, there are three things that last forever:
Faith, hope, and love;
But the greatest of them all is love."

So really? You're still going to discriminate against your fellow humans? Let me ask you, Did we vote on your marriage?

Do you want them to sit in the back of the bus too?
Do you want them to have seperate drinking fountains and bathrooms?

Being gay is not a choice. Gays are born gay and lesbians are born lesbian. It is not a choice, just like you cannot choose the color of your skin or the features of your face. But you learn to accept them, which is exactly what we need to do.

To Magda wrote on Nov 16, 2008 1:48 PM:Believe what you want to believe- your reading it all wrong. I will pray for you & all the others pEACE

To Actually wrote on Nov 16, 2008 2:16 PM:You're right ... California is run as a Republic that allows direct participation. It's still not a democracy as so many of these people want to think it is.

A bigger problem than prop 8 is the idea of allowing a constitution change with a simple majority.

A change of constitutional changing significance should require no less than a 2/3 vote.

Anything less leads to exactly what's happening now.

Choices wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:08 PM:Quite frankly, I don't know when or if the argument over nature vs. nurture will ever end on sexual orientation. (I don't don't think it's a choice. I KNOW I didn't choose to be straight, so how does one CHOOSE to be gay?) Homosexuality: maybe a choice, maybe not a choice? Who knows? One thing that is certain, religion is a choice, hatred is a choice and discrimination is a choice. I for one, CHOOSE to be Buddhist and not a Christian so I as a STRAIGHT Buddhist don't appreciate Christian theocracy being thumped on a government that rules me as well. I CHOOSE not to hate other fellow human beings regardless of race, age or sexual orientation, and I CHOOSE to work hard for equality for all. So please, I am straight. Don't speak on my behalf. I was out there in the rain with other NO on 8 protesters before Nov. 8 and I continue to march with them until they receive the same treatment from the government as I do. Thank you.

In response to To Magda wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:10 PM:And how am I reading it wrong?

Linda W. wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:10 PM:I am straight!

Vote no on 8!

Vote no on prejudice!

Vote no on inequality, no on discrimination, no on intolerance and meanness.

Too those who want too interfere in others lives I would say: Mind your own marriage and your own life. Stop those married couples from getting a divorce thus making their children live in single family homes.

Chris wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:13 PM:this is unbelievable. This was put to a vote, a democratic process and was voted through. What was the point of voting if it is going to be continually challenged? There are winners and there are losers in virtually everything; this is no different. It looks like every proposition needs to be evaluated throughly before it gets put on a ballot.

Rusty wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:14 PM:"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Voting to take away fundamental rights is un-American.

Alf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:20 PM:Well, "observer" at 10:44AM,
You ask "If this were trully deemed unconstitutional, my question is why was it even put up for vote in the first place.".
You have a question that I asked about Prop. 83 before it was passer and parts struck down as un-Constitutional. (With Prop. 83 it was parts that were obviously and blatantly punitive ex post facto and, as such, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.)
Prop. 8 seeks to bypass equal protection by making an amendment, if that is allowed it is a damned dangerous precedent (the basis of a newer suit).
Regards, Alf.

Obama... wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:49 PM:...won. Hard to believe but he did. So if I were to follow the No on 8 crowd, I should get myself out there and protest for a "change" because my candidate didn't win? How ridiculous does that sound? GET OVER IT!!

get it straight wrote on Nov 16, 2008 3:58 PM:All the protesters are doing is riling up those of us who voted no but didn't really feel comfortable about it. I personally do not like the irresponsible way the no supporters are protesting. Our city has a huge deficit, yet we are wasting valuable resources paying for additional police to oversee these protests. If this ever goes to a vote again, I will not only vote yes but will personally campaign.

To Discriminate... wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:10 PM:...based on behavioral choices is a reality some have to face. A pedophile does not choose the type of person he is attracted to, so why not allow him to live his life the way he wants? An eleven year old girl is apparently old enough to give her own consent for abortion. So why can't an eleven year old girl give consent to marry an adult male? It would be discrimination to not allow them to marry if that is their choice. It is also discrimination to not allow siblings to marry, a mother to marry her adult son, or a father to marry his adult daughter. Does it really matter whether or not they chose to be attracted to each other?

Alf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:16 PM:Well, "Chris" at 3:13PM,
that's why it is important to be informed!!
The first part of being informed is knowing the Constitutions, state and federal.
The second part of being informed is to turn off that button that engages emotions when reading and understanding the ballot measures before you.
I noted, in my 3:20PM post, that I saw un-Constitutional (punitive ex post facto) parts in Prop. 83 and so I voted against it.
I voted AGAINST an un-Constitutional proposition, NOT FOR sex offenders, because I was able to turn off my disgust of the criminals and make an informed decision.
Prop. 8 was and is, in my dispassionate opinion, discriminatory and in violation of the California and U.S. Constitutions, it was removing rights from a select group (something I abhor) and so I voted against it.
Don't count on lawmakers to write laws or Propositions that comply with either Constitution.
Get informed beyond the blather from talk radio, columns and websites.
For goodness sake, the more emotional that people are regarding an issue, the more you need to to look at it with as little emotion as possible and throw out the hype from both sides to be able to make an informed and intelligent decision.
Regards, Alf.
Regards, Alf.

observer wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:48 PM:to Alf
from 7:39am

Instead they throw the faction a bone of unequal civil unions or domestic partnerships to homosexual which they themselves would never accept.

Why wouldnt they ever accept this? This is a reasonable compromise that does not take away any rights. Marriage is a word that has a certain criteria that must be met. Right now it is stated that a marriage is between a one man and one women. Its clearly defined. You know whats weird. Elton John has no problem with his gay relationship being called a domestic partnership. Hes just going about enjoying his life. No worries.

Its Not About Rights wrote on Nov 16, 2008 4:55 PM:Domestic Partnerships extend state level rights that gays can't get anywhere else in the country. This isn't about their rights.

It's about wanting gay marriage to be accepted as "just as good" as traditional marriage for the benefit of society.

Stop saying your rights have been taken away - that's a lie and I'm not buying it.

To we played nice wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:00 PM:"We tried it the nice way, it didn't work. Now we do it the hard way.
If you were fed up with us before JUST WAIT."

Is this a threat??? Are you now threating bloggers in the paper? Please when someone gets hurt all we are going to hear is ...it's because were gay!! Enough already. Quit threating the citizen of California. This could be more of a legal issue than you know

But To Discriminate... wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:06 PM:You are obfuscating again.
STAY ON SUBJECT!
Child molestation is a crime AND there is the thing called the age of consent.
STAY ON SUBJECT!
The issue is marriage or the exact legal equivalent of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS,
nothing more and nothing less.
STAY ON SUBJECT!
And again you ADD the word CHOICE regarding attraction, i.e. sexual orientation, which is not a matter of choice.
STAY ON SUBJECT!
You keep going off subject which indicates that you have no rational arguments.
STAY ON SUBJECT!
The more you toss out wild tangents the sillier you look.
STAY ON SUBJECT!
If you are able.

Alf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:14 PM:Well, "observer" at 4:48PM,
why?
Because, to date, there has been nothing, not one thing, that conveys the exact same legal status as marriage that has been allowed in any of the states that do not allow homosexual "marriage".
Witness DOMA and its stipulation that no part of the federal government need recognize any homosexual marriage from any state.
When last I heard, Sir Elton is a British subject, not a U.S. citizen, but I could be wrong.
Regards, Alf.

Take it out of Escondido wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:15 PM:Do you really think protests in Escondido are going to change anything? Take it to Sacremento. We have enough protests here already. You lost the vote. Quit trying to compare it to civil rights. Nobody can physically harm you without legal consequences. That was common with blacks in the south. Gays can vote and attend any school they want to. Give it a rest. The Supreme court will handle it. We have bigger problems with the economy and you drain police services with your silly protests.

Alf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:18 PM:Well, "Its Not About Rights" at 4:55PM,
you are wrong.
It most certainly IS about rights.
Domestic Partnership is NOT the exact legal equivalent of marriage and, thanks to DOMA, it is not subject to full faith and credit recognition in all states.
Regards, Alf

Alf wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:25 PM:Legally, "To we played nice" at 5:00PM,
legally, the gloves are coming off.
Appealing to reason did not work, so now you can expect hetreosexuals like me to support any and all legal challenges to any and all courts AGAINST PROP. 8.
Take away a right, push people back into a wall and they will come out using everything they legally have.
Yes, it IS more of a legal issue than YOU know, BY FAR!
Regards, Alf.

Wang wang wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:27 PM:How could you say that protesting against churches is "hate" when those very same institutions are taking away people's rights in the name of their "holy" book? Discriminating on the basis of being "different"/"abnormal" is HATE! McCain was right the first time he said that churches are havens for intolerance.

The Solution wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:30 PM:Okay, here is the only FAIR solution.

Every tax paying citizen regardless of gendor, sexuality, affliction, etc will only be issued 1 marriage certificate. Only time you get a new certificate, is upon death of your spouse. NOW, lets look at what a mess and how many divorces are out there. Disgusting that I would believe that the majority of the Vote Yes citizens, have at least 1 divorce, and counting. Talk about abusing the institute of marriage.

To Obama... wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:42 PM:That seriously surprised you? I guess that explains the rest.

Logic wrote on Nov 16, 2008 5:49 PM:What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular. Things we needed to continue voting on until we got it RIGHT: slavery, segregation, women's sufferage,date rape, child abuse, spousal abuse....

Marriage and Health wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:27 PM:Our health (mental & physical) is extremely important. Those that voted 'yes' to Prop8 are most likely harming the homosexuals daily. Those that wish homosexuals of every age to stay in the closet are harming the homosexuals.

March 20, 2008 — "Marriage must be of a high quality to be advantageous" for blood pressure, the study states. "In other words, one is better off single than unhappily married."

The study included 204 married people and 99 single men and women. Participants were 20-68 years old (average age: 31).

Most of the singles — 89% — had never been married; none was living with a partner. Married participants had been married for eight years, on average, note the researchers, who included Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, of Brigham Young University's psychology department.

Participants wore a blood pressure monitor that tracked their blood pressure around the clock for 24 hours. They also rated their marital satisfaction in a survey.

Happily married people had the best blood pressure. Singles ranked second. The unhappily married had the worst blood pressure of those three groups.

Having a healthy social network was a plus for singles' blood pressure. But it didn't equal the blood pressure advantage of being happily married.

Of course, other factors — including diet, exercise, smoking, and stress — also affect blood pressure. Those factors count for everyone, single or married, happy or not.

The study, published in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine, paints the big picture about blood pressure and marriage. It's not meant to describe every single or married person's blood pressure, since there are exceptions to every rule.

The study appears in the March 20 2008 edition of the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.

SOURCES: Holt-Lunstad, J. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, March 20, 2008. News release, Brigham Young University.

Sex and school wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:29 PM:Which public schools in SD County and or other Calif Counties are teaching homosexual marriage and will NOT allow parents to have a choice?

What grades: K, Elementary school, Middle school, High school.

Please name the school and the city (address). Please name your source from the school, such as teacher, nurse, etc.

Proof please.

Monogamy and your life wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:32 PM:MONOGAMY
How will homosexual marriages interfere with your life.

How will their marriage interfere with your beliefs.

How will it change what you do.

Please let us know.

Facts:
several wives, 1 man, are few;
arranged marriages are few;
women finally can vote;
black and white are able to marry;
government recognized that separate schools (restaurants, drinking fountains, etc.) were not equal;
we allow all to sit anywhere on a bus.

The fight for equality and freedom continues.

The majority is not always the winner. The majority can be wrong.

And most important, our country is based on the majority protecting the minority. That is our strong point.

Religion/church has caused most deaths from wars.

Religion/church can be good i.e., helping the sick and poor, helping those that need to grieve, etc.

Religion can be very bad if the only interest is power and everyone is forced to live the religious way.

Religion/church has allowed children to be molested.

If 50% divorce, some with kids, what makes the word marriage unique.

There are several definitions of Marriage including "any close or intimate union."

The dark ages aka Middle Ages of intellectual stagnation, ignorance, poverty, cultural decline are gone.

Earth is not flat.

Science, Math, History, etc. are important.

Times are changing.

TO Enlightened wrote on Nov 16, 2008 6:49 PM:I am not a bigot and I do not associate with any particular church.

I voted YES on 8 simply because the Teachers Union wasted 1.3 million Dollars backing No.

The vote is over, get over it.

I figure the Liberal judges that overturned the last vote wasted the state of california over 60 Million Dollars.

Church and our rights wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:06 PM:Because of Prop 8 passing, homosexuals do not have all the rights that 'straight' people have.

This is not acceptable.

This is taking us back to segregation; women not being able to vote; black and white cannot marry.

When you voted, the church/bible had pointed you in the wrong direction.
You are going back to the Dark Ages.

Think carefully because you are causing strife to people who must have the same rights that you have.

The majority does not rule.
The majority is supposed to protect the minority.

Guess the church/bible does not tell you all the facts.

Sodom and Gomorrah wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:07 PM:California is the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, so why would we be surprised that the Birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving, latte-drinking, fuzzy-headed liberals are up-in-arms about Proposition 8?

I voted YES on Prop 8 because I really don't want the institution of marriage altered any more than it already has been. Gays and lesbians can go get 'married' if they want. They can get an attorney to draw up a will and powers-of-attorney and make things as legal as they can.

I'm not a religious person, but believe in a 'higher being' or spirit. What is probably most disturbing is any gay/lesbian wedding conducted by a minister of any faith since most (if not all) religions claim homosexuality a sin.

Here's a suggestion to the gays and lesbians who want to marry their partner; go to your favorite spot, viewpoint, mountaintop, beach, or wherever and have someone perform a wedding. Invite your friends and relatives and conduct a wedding on your own. But, don't force the majority of us to accept legalized marriage.

The voters have spoken, and let's put this to be before California and the rest of the country looks more like Sodom and Gomorrah than it already does. If you don't think we're not headed that way already, just go to Hillcrest, West Hollywood, or the Mission District in San Francisco.

Susanah wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:21 PM:This reaction is very childish. I lean left, but if the response to a voter approved bill is to throw a tantrum, than count me out. I also intend to support the businesses that support this Prop. I did not vote on it, but I will vote next time. Please act responsibly. You are turning off the centrist folks. . .

Christine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:33 PM:What does Linens N Things have to do with the gay issue? I don't remember that article but wouldn't mind one of those here why? Still am against Gays marrying....too stupid for words!

Christine wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:49 PM:The Gays have the Civil Union in California that gives them all rights a married couple would have. So, I take it the word Marriage is what they want to steal from the straight husbands and wives instead of taking what you have been legally given and shut up! Keep your "issues" to yourselves we really don't want to hear about it. Some people cringe thinking of that issue. I find it sickenings as many others do.

Re TO Enlightened wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:14 PM:"I voted YES on 8 simply because the Teachers Union wasted 1.3 million Dollars backing No."

Well that's intelligent. A vote is not a sword to wield around with vengeance. Great care, thought and consideration should go into every vote that is cast. People like you, shooting from the hip with knee-jerk reactions, shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

Dennis wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:33 PM:It's not up to the voters to decide who gets rights and who doesn't. Remember the constitution? Equal rights for ALL men and women! That's all we want and you bigots have NO right to take away the rights of any other group of people!

Volvosteel wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:48 PM:To those who keep saying make Divorce Illegal, In Most State's It IS! CA is one of a very few who allow Irr Diff as an option, otherwise you would have to commit adultry or the like to divorce. Considering Gay's cant actually commit adultry i dont see how you could be married, Adultry Being defined as A Women having wrongfull intercourse between any other man then her husband. you did pick the right state to start this battle,( See Common Law ). now that i informed you of this stop saying make divorce illegal in general term's. You keep useing the history of black's as your argument also, come on, IM A WHITE MALE, need i say more, oh i guess i should, since i am not colored im not entitled to anything by the state of CA or Fed's give that one a rest real quick! Just go look up the freebie's anyone other then a white person can get!

Spider wrote on Nov 16, 2008 8:52 PM:Love sucks. Quit whining about love. Love is a disease.

Borngay wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:00 PM:Some say that people are born gay. It is not a lifestyle. For those who are born gay, a loving parent and society will be accepting... after the person has reached an age of majority.

The problem is that for every "Ellen", who seems quite satisfied with her lifestyle, there is an "Anne Heche" who is dazed and confused, looking for love in all the wrong places. For example, there is a disproportionate number of lesbians who were abused as children. It is not unusual for a person who was abandoned as a child through divorce or neglect to search for love in all the wrong places too.

Many want society to give rights to adults who make the choice but not to place blinders on by saying there is no difference between gay and straight unions and having that mantra taught to children by their local school district.

They don't want to rob innocence of kids by having to do bed checks for the weekend slumber parties after some junior high or high school teacher tells kids to explore their sexuality and not accept society's "bigotry".

Many also just want to respect the historic tradition that the term "marriage" has always held. They feel it takes something away from one group to appease another.

The reasons for the people's votes varied, but it would be wrong for four justices to again mock the will of the people by overturning this election. Lifestyles are not protected by civil rights rulings. Otherwise NAMBLA would have as much say as the powerful, litigious, and church-intimidating gay/lesbian lobby.

Talking about people wanting it both ways wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:14 PM:the gays and lisbeans have attacked religion, churches and the voters of California. They have blasted religion over and over again. They blame churches for the prop passing. They are trying to put blacks and segregation on the same table as prop 8. They have called those who voted yes on 8 bigots, liars and everything else they can think of. The simple fact is, ONCE AGIAN the people of California (all different races, religion, and different backgrounds) voted to keep marraige between a man and a woman. Again they want to deny the people of California the right to vote unless the people vote in their favor. This is stupid. I wish I voted yes on 8. I can tell you that if this was to go into vote again, the gays just lost another vote!!

bodecea wrote on Nov 16, 2008 9:28 PM:To "Get It Straight",

How cute, another bogus "I voted No but I'll vote Yes next time because you gays are uppity"...please do not insult our intelligence.

This Isnt Over wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:54 PM:I hope all those who are disgusted by the militant secular gay activists forcing their way through our court system and having our votes overturned by the courts twice now will realize that we must be prepared for doing it all over again in 2010.

Personally, I am not against gay lovers doing whatever they want to do with whatever rights they already have. Gay marriage will never be a nationally accepted alternative to traditional man/woman marital contracts.

So what, are California gays better than everyone else? Don't gays in all the other 47 states deserve equal rights? Ain't happening. Remember Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act??

To Stay on Subject wrote on Nov 16, 2008 11:37 PM:The subject I was writing about was discrimination. Unless the law says ANY number of ANY type of people can get married, some group can claim discrimination. It's that simple.

BTW, I'm not "obfuscating again"; I think you are just confused all on your own. That was the first blog I wrote under this article, so you obviously got that wrong too.

Lloyd wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:21 AM:A lot of people seem to think that this argument is tied to racial issues of the past, but they are wrong. You could use that same arguement against people who think NAMBLA should be legal. After all who are you to say what a man and a boy does should not be blessed by the "Raciest people of the past". You logic is flawed on using that argument

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:59 AM:Give me a break! Stop with the marching and useless protests! the people have voted and now it's done. Wait till the next election and to try and vote again. Just realize that marriage between a man and a woman is the social norm. We are destroying society with gay marriage and that confuses our kids even more. If you want to get married, go to another state and do so.

To Volvosteel wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:29 AM:"To those who keep saying make Divorce Illegal, In Most State's It IS! CA is one of a very few who allow Irr Diff as an option, otherwise you would have to commit adultry or the like to divorce."

You might be surprised to know this but most states stopped requiring stated fault reasons for divorce. You can get a No Fault divorce in pretty much ever state in the country. Some states just require a separation period before a No Fault divorce will be granted.

NAMBLA Argument Getting Old wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:10 AM:Those types of relationships would never be legal because of a crazy little thing called Age of Consent.

As far as brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, etc getting married ... theoretically, that could happen now unless since we're talking about one man and one woman. Logic says there should be something in there about not being related.

And don't even get started with that whole beastiality "I want to marry my dog" stuff ... that's just stupid.

To NAMBLA wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:20 AM:I could just as easily say, "Logic says there should be something in there about one man and one woman."

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:29 AM:TO aDAMANT:

So, social norms are to be legislated now? Left handed people cannot marry because they are not the social norm? Redhaired people cannot marry because they are not the social norm?

When did we become the Soviet Union, aDAMANT?

BOdecca wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:38 AM:you are the one who insults anyone who doesn't believe in the things that you do. You have called us names, blasted our religions and even said some of us are still in the closet. Guess what, you are doing your cause no good. YOU are making people wish they could change their votes to YES!! YOU are part of the problem!! You really need to get over yourself, move on the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA have spoken. I can really see you physically hurting someone over this. Take a prozac and move on

Arlo wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:47 AM:Thank you everyone for voting YES on Prop 8!

Crazy laws wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:48 AM:The laws regarding age of consent can be changed just like the crazy laws about sodomy were.

If an 11 year old girl can give informed consent to have a surgery which can potentially cause her death, why can't she give consent to marriage?

No gay marriage wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:50 AM:What? Who says? I think we should put this up for a vote once and for all!!!

Re To NAMBLA wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:52 AM:Not with nearly as much ease as discussing adult/child relations.

If marriage was strictly within the confines of a church I would say absolutely ... leave marriage as a man and a woman if that is what the tenets of your church says.

The problem comes when you acknowledge that the government is also in the marriage business. When it comes to the government overseeing civil contracts (issuing marriage licenses) the option of free will that the churches have ceases to exist. The government is bound to provide the same services/options to all legal, law abiding and tax paying citizens.

With specific regard to government sanctioned marriage: As long as both parties are above the age of consent, non-related and actually consent to the partnership ... the government needs to allow it.

Maybe the churches should take 'marriage' back and leave the government to issue legally equal domestic partnerships to all couples (gay or straight) who wish to have all the public benefits their private marriages afford them. Of course marriage shouldn't be a requirement for a domestic partnership.

I'm a straight white woman who has been happily unmarried to the same man for more than 10 years. We personally don't get all the hub bub about getting married to begin with. But we do understand the problems involved in allowing the government to treat people differently based on such asinine things as sexual orientation. Once that door is open, it's only a matter of time before you're private whatever is next on the hit list.

To dodeca wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:11 AM:Are you saying that there is no crossover between social norms and law? If so, you are just plain wrong. There is a crossover, but that doesn't mean that ALL social norms are law.

BTW, social norms refer to socially accepted standards of behavior, therefore your whole point is irrevelant.

But bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:12 AM:I'd like to say that Bush started it, but the "religious right" predates his occupation of the White House. Should Prop. 8 be upheld, the precedent which it sets will serve to embolden those people and religions who feel that they MUST control others. Freedom, be it of mind, spirit or body, is anathema to them. They are not satisfied with having one person's freedom stop where another person's begins, they MUST control more than that to keep their power. "Animal Farm" illustrates that the grasping for power over others is truly the worst sin of all and is what will eventually destroy the best of intentions and ideals.

But Re To NAMBLA wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:16 AM:No, no, no, not my "private whatever"!!!

On the other hand wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:26 AM:RE to NAMBLA says, "Once that door is open, it's only a matter of time before you're private whatever is next on the hit list." The slippery slope argument goes both ways. One could just as easily say, "Once that door is open, it's only a matter of time before marriage will be allowed between more than 2 people, regardless of relationship, regardless of age."

The line for "age of consent" is getting pretty blurry when a young girl can have an abortion without parental consent and children committing murder can be tried as adults.

There is no reason 3 people cannot get married if they're all consenting adults. No one else is harmed.

There is no reason 2 related people cannot get married (as long as they don't have children) if they're both consenting adults. No one else is harmed.

No harm, no foul, right?

To Crazy Laws wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:30 AM:Sure, I suppose anything is possible. After all, theoretical physics tells us that it's possible for an elephant to hang off the edge of a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. Common sense, however, tells you it's really not probable.

You can fear monger all you want with possible maybes, but the odds of the age of consent being lowered to the age of 11, or 10, or 8 or whatever other arbitrary number you want to throw out there is slim to none (heavier emphasis on none).

To But Re To NAMBLA wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:31 AM:Right ... as long as the rules only hinder the other guy it's ok!

Protest on wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:39 AM:Go ahead and protest. You are calling attention to yourselves in the same negative manner that the illegal aliens did in their marches and walkouts. Instead of Mexican flags flying in the streets, now we see rainbow flags, but your demands are similar: society will accomodate me and validate and celebrate my behavior because I refuse to change what I do. Tantrums, name calling, and intimidation don't elicit sympathy to your cause.

To But bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:42 AM:"They are not satisfied with having one person's freedom stop where another person's begins..."

Tell that to the firemen who were forced to take part in a gay pride parade.

Tell that to the photographer who was sued because, based on her personal beliefs, she refused to take pictures of a lesbian ceremony.

Tell that to the physicians who were sued because, based on their personal religious beliefs, they refused to artificially inseminate a gay woman.

esteban wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:06 AM:Typical liberal BS..."You don't agree with me, therefore you are a bigot, racist, nazi...etc". Wah wah wah...I support prop 8, and I am not a bigot. So there goes your argument.

Crazy laws wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:08 AM:I'm not fear mongering, just using the same slippery slope argument used by the other side.

To On the other hand wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:11 AM:While a child can be charged as an adult in specific instance when the crime is severe enough, there are still laws in place to determine the maximum sentencing allowable, which is typically lower than that of an actual adult. Of course, those are all taken on a case by case basis ... as should anything dealing with minor children.

As far as minors having abortions .. maybe if people weren't so concerned about Prop 8 passing, Prop 4 wouldn't have failed. Quite frankly, I find it far more alarming that a minor can consent to surgery than I do gay people getting married.

Multi person relationships are also not a problem for me. They're not for me personally, but I had a good friend who was in one for more than a decade at the time I lost touch with her. If they were going on the same path, they're probably all still together today. Now I wouldn't tell your church that they had to recognize it but, like with any other civil business arrangement (that's what marriage is in the eyes of government), there's no reason it shouldn't be licensed. The uncommon nature of it, however, would make it very unlikely to pass into law.

Related people also can actually marry in several states. They typically are just required to be a little farther down the family tree than brother and sister. This is another type of relationship that is not for me personally. Of course, that may just be because I've never met any of my family that I can't live without.

The main point is that, while a church can do whatever it wants, the government does not have that same luxury. They are beholden to all legal, law abiding and taxpaying citizens equally. They don't get to pick and choose which one is equal and which one is equal but different.

But Protest on wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:48 AM:It's much more than mere protest. When rights are taken away from a minority, even people like me, a heterosexual male, get involved. Lawsuits are being filed as I type this to protect the minority from the tyranny of a slim majority. We will protest on. We will sue on. And we will keep going until equal rights are achieved, despite the flailing of those who would steal our rights under the Constitution.

To Conway wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:29 AM:You need to go back to elementary school. Your grasp of grammar and of our political system is horrendously skewed. Our Governor cannot be president because he was born in Austria! YOU are a dunce!

anon wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:31 AM:After one good divorce, the whole question of sanctity of marriage becomes a joke. Religion and semantics are way down on my list of things to worry about. I am totally jaded on the whole stupid thing. Next crisis?

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:58 AM:To Bodecea,
Please stop equating the gay agenda with civil rights. This is NOT a civil rights issue and frankly it is very disturbing that you rant on with your "civil rights" mantra.

For you to equate homesexuality with the plight of the truly suppressed peoples in their quest for eqaulity is absurd. You CHOOSE to be gay. You are NOT born that way. It is un-natural and nothing you say or do will ever convince me that you are oppressed, segregated, or in any way discriminated against.

You have the same rights as any other legal citizen. Stop making play that you are somehow a "victim" because of this.

Maybe you should join the military and learn what sacrifice is all about. On second thought, don't...please. I would not want you in a fox hole with me when rounds are going over head.

Alf wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:14 AM:Well, "esteban" at 9:06AM,
you did not disappoint me with your post. Had you said much different, that would have been newsworthy.
Regards, Alf.

Hey Sally wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:18 AM:I hate to break this to you, but sodomy is not only practised by homosexuals. May hetero couples enjoy it too. Would you like to invalidate their marriages too?

NO DISCRIMINATION wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:20 AM:WHERE IS THE DISCRIMINATION. ANY MAN CAN MARRY ANY WOMAN, ANY WOMAN CAN MARRY ANY MAN REGARDLESS WEATHER YOUR ARE STREIGHT OR HOMOSEXUAL. ALL ARE THE SAME. A STREIGHT MAN CANNOT MARRY ANOTHER MAN NOR CAN A HOMOSEXUAL MAN MARRY A MAN. SAME WITH WOMEN.
TO STAN, IF THE STREIGHT COMUNITY DID NOT USE THE SLANG TERMS AND USED THE CORRECT TERM HOMOSEXUAL HOW LONG WOULD THE SLANG TERMS CONTINUE.

Forget the marches wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:30 AM:File an IRS 501(c)(3)complaint to revoke the Catholic and Mormon churches' tax exempt status. These churches are wealthy and cunning, and have access to the best legal representation money can buy, so I'm sure they'll find a way to get around it, but it'll be entertaining to watch it all anyway.

Chubton wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:32 AM:If you really think "Liberal" judges were appointed by Republican governors, you're kidding yoursexlf.

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:36 AM:To MarineGunner,

It is too civil rights. It is the right to marry which is a civil license with civil protections, responsibilities and privileges. And if I chose to be gay, my mother would seriously disagree with you...in that she tells me she knew I was at the age of 4! But...of course, if you are correct and I chose to be gay, it logically follows that you chose to be straight....could you tell us when you made that decision, please?

As to the military...I am a 21 year retired veteran....Mr. "My ... Rides In Navy Equipment". And I know for a fact that you ARE sharing your foxhole with gay marines...I am friends with many of them...active and retired.

LOL at you.

what if wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:42 AM:Wouldn't it be great if every one in this forum who made an unsubstantiated accusation or called the opposition a name or made an unspported statement out of the abundance of their ignorance had to pay $1 to the City of Escondido?

That would make a big dent in the budget deficit and might fill a few pot holes.

Name calling will achieve nothing. Neither will throwing rocks through windows or spray painting hate messages on walls.

The sad fact is that some of us have lost friends because of the hateful actions of a very few vocal people who largely mis represented their side of the Prop 8 issue. Glass can be replaced, and graffiti can be painted over, but friendships are hard to replace.

The continued inappropriate actions of a few are an embarassment to our community, no matter which side of the issue you support.

The electorate has spoken and some are unhappy. This is always the case in a proposition.

The system of our government allows for calm, reasoned, and peaceful ways to express one's dislike of a result and pursue a change.

This is a serious issue and it needs to be resolved responsibly. Not with name calling and incindiary remarks that can only escalate from here. We are not far from many people being injured or even worse.

There are people on both sides who should be ashamed of themselves for their conduct. They are, I am confident, a small minority of the people who feel passionately about this issue.

It is time to express our passion and concern in a way that is not only peaceful, but also leads to a satisfactory conclusion.

I am passionate about my position on this issue, but, I am willing to listen to those on the other side and even to concede some territory in the interest of a peaceful conclusion.

I would hope that many others would join me.

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:44 AM:To NO DISCRIMINATION,

Pretty ironic how your excuse for discrimination against gay couples is the SAME used by Virginia when defending their law against interracial marriage. The Supreme Court didn't buy it, btw.

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:47 AM:Cant you gays get over it already? This has nothing to do with civil rights because, you already have them just like every other normal marriage. This was passed to protect our children so, GET OVER IT because, the children come first.

Trent wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:55 AM:The majority of the California people said no to gay marriage... again.
The majority feel that gay marriage is not a proper family value, and inappropriate for children to accept as normal. It is unique behavior, some will call deviant, that cannot be endorsed by state or church. It should be tolerated, yes. It should not be celebrated with partying and parading with "look at me, look at me, I'm gay and proud". Tolerated and accepted, that's all. So, two times society has said no, not in my state. If it is unsatisfactory - go to another state.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:02 PM:Bodecea,

First off, you cannot be a "retired" vet. You may have served 4 years(most likely less) but you certainly did not spend the minimum 20 years for retirement.

I have many friends that are gay. I knew that some of the folks I served with were gay. I don't have a problem with that. They never tried to force me to accept their way of life or try and indoctrinate me. I certainly didn't have had a problem sharing a fox-hole with them. They were rational people.

Explain to me why a "Civil Union" is not good enough for you? What is wrong with Domestic partnership? Why are you so bent on taking over the word "Marriage"?

Again, this is not a "civil rights" issue. No one ever kicked you off a bus or made you sit in the back of the bus, use a different door to enter an establishement or sold your ancestors into slavery due to your orientation. Sure, it may have happened in isolated cases but to equate what you are doing with that of truly suppressed people is just what I said earlier: An insult to those whom have been truly oppressed.

Also, what is up with the personal insult? Your insult aimed at the Marine Corps is somehow supposed to anger me? Please grow up, get a grip and move on with your life.

If you truly were a person of thought and are trying to further your agenda in a peacefull manner then maybe, just maybe you could try and be logical and understanding in order to sway peoples minds. However, we are seeing the true side. You have no interest in furthering acceptance and understanding, just pushing your agenda down peoples throats and calling those that disagree with you names.

Very mature of you...

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:22 PM:I most certainly am retired...my DD-214 and my monthly retirement check from Cleveland prove it. Sorry how you have problems with the truth....tho I am not surprised.

As for civil rights...maybe I should break it to you gently...there are DEGREES of abuse when it comes to government taking away civil rights. While I am not pushed to the back of the bus as was Rosa Parks, tell Matthew Shepard that the violation of his civil rights wasn't as serious. Tell Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond that the violation of their civil rights weren't as serious.

As to the classic "pushing our agenda down peoples throats"...(why do so called heteros LIKE that imagery so much?) how about Mardi Gras? Girls Gone Wild? Wet T-shirt Contests? Hooters? Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders? Flaunt much?

Oh, that's right....double standard....something mature people can see right thru. Immature people have a problem seeing the irony in your obvious double standards towards gay CITIZENS.

As for Civil Unions being good enough...how about YOU accept a Civil Union because it's "good enough"...I would have no problem with Civil Unions if ALL state issued marriage licenses were Civil Union licenses...equal treatment. But that separate but equal jive was proven wrong and unConstituional way back in the 50s

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:24 PM:To Trent,

But Hooters with "look at me, look at me" and Spring Break wet t-shirt contests are ok?

Just want to gage the level of your hypocrisy....

But MarineGunner wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:26 PM:Please accept this challenge in the spirit intended.
I challenge you to explain why YOU would not accept the current version of "civil union" instead of marriage for yourself.
Do some research and see if YOU would accept a "domestic partnership" for yourself instead of marriage.
In doing so, you will have explained why homosexuals will not accept those less than third-rate pieces of crap.
Why should you advocate that others accept a legal status that is anything less than what you enjoy? You enjoy that status for only one reason, that you are heterosexual (I presume).

There is the UNequal protection under the law.

About The Majority wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:31 PM:Again with this whole "the majority of Californians said Yes on 8" thing.

No they didn't.

The majority of registered voters in the stated of California who actually got up and voted said Yes on 8.

A slim majority at that.

It's a sad day when any constitution can be changed in any way with only a 4% simple majority.

Actually... wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:18 PM:...Hooters serves some pretty good chicken wings.

Protest on wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:32 PM:If a domestic partnership is so inadequate, sue or lobby to get the domestic partnership law amended, but leave marriage alone. Don't attempt to defile the long accepted (and now constitutional) definition of marriage. Endless attempts to get your relationship termed a "marriage" indicates your quest is not about equal rights, but all about self esteem.

To about the majority wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:36 PM:I'm sure you'd be crying all the same if the "no on 8" won by 4%. NOT!

To About the Majority wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:37 PM:It's pretty obvious, though, that the majority did not care enough about gay marriage to allow it.

Majority Huh wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:42 PM:Duh "about the Majority," where did you park the squad-car Dick Tracy?

I'm going out on a limb here, but when people say "the majority of Californians spoke" they mean voters.

And, a majority is a majority, there is no "slim majority," there is MORE or LESS (you are the latter).
Maybe you have difficulty grasping this. You think the majority of furry dogs voted? Or, the majority of smart chimps voted? Or, a majority vote was cast by super-sharp pidgeons?

It's a sad day when citizens have to change their constitution to protect themselves from oppressive groups & judges.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:46 PM:To: But MarineGunner,

Being Heterosexual, I do not have to worry about such classifications. Lucky me I guess. However, If I DID have to worry about it then at this point I would be happy with a Civil Union.

California recognizes a civil union as being essentially the same as marriage. They have the same benefits on a State level. The only reason that I can see for the gay community to be fighting for the word "Marriage" is that the Federal Govt. does not recognize a civil union as far as Federal benefits are concerned.

Now, even if California were to pass legislation to allow gay marriage, the Feds would still NOT recognize those as valid marriages, they would still not offer you the same benefits as a marriage. So, why not take what you can get now and continue on to the Federal level?

So, your next course of action is to get the law changed on a Federal level. However, the tact you are taking here in California is not helping your cause. Alienating people with heavy handed, borderline gestapo tactics is not helping you fight your fight.

That is my problem with this situation: The tactics being employed, threatening, instigating hatred and equating this with the Civil Rights movement.

I live in a Democracy. We vote on issues. To have some Mayor tell me that something is going to happen whether I "like it or not", to hear the threats being made against religious institutions because the outcome was not favorable... this is not the way things are done in a truly free Democratic society.

I would suggest being rational and regrouping. Look at how much further along the gay community is now than it was 40 years ago. Are you willing to take the headway you have made in those 40 years and jeopordize that by burning churches now? Gestapo tactics only hardens people against you. You will lose more ground than you have gained by making enemies now. The people that were indifferent, or were even on the fence but open minded about this situation are being polarized by this tactic. Unfortunately for you, the majority will be against you if you continue to use these tactics. They are not going to sway people to your side.

I can't even tell you how many of my friends that are gay don't care a whit about being "Married". What you all need to understand is that still today, being gay is not considered "normal" or even natural in many folks' eyes. However wrong or right that may be, it takes time for people to change thier minds. Tolerance does not happen overnight and you cannot force people to change. They will just hold on to their beliefs even harder and stronger.

Melissa wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:56 PM:The fact is 8 did pass. It was done appropriately and should be upheld. Many Christians voted no on 8. That's right, they voted no. Don't blame Christians for this.

From what I can see, the word marriage is the problem. As Christians, a few of us have thought about this and come up with a plan.

Try this, instead of spreading hate and discontent, get a proposition on the ballot that gives everyone in California a committment certificate, domestic partner permit, or whatever you want to call it, issued from the state for legal purposes: i.e. benefits, taxes - and if you want to get "Married" get a marriage certificate through the local church.

If the Episcopal church wants to marry same sex couples and the Morman church doesn't want to - so be it.

That would be equality!

Lauren wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:44 PM:Coretta Scott King said,

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

We cannot treat gay and lesbian people as separate but equal. It does not work! Domestic partnerships do not offer the same legal rights as marriage. No matter what you say, it just doesn't.

California came a long way from the first vote on this issue in 2000. There was a 22% difference then. Today, the ban won by a much smaller margin. We are making progress and I believe that sooner than later, gay people will be given the same civil rights and protections under the law that straight people currently enjoy. Those who oppose gay marriage do so out of fear, ignorance and hate.

Jesus commanded to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Slim majority wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:20 PM:What is a slim majority of voters? I thought it was several hundred thousand? The word "majority" is defined as the greater part of a number. It's not some philosophical, subjective gray area. Which is why our great nation uses this method in the democratic process.

I'm not a Californian resident so I don't vote in this state, however, I've lived in many places throughout this great nation and I've never been surrounded by such a whiny, complaining, entitled group of people who pattern their lives around whatever the media tells them. I just threw-up in my mouth thinking about this place...

To forget the marches wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:57 PM:yes that the answer...attack the churches. Get over yourself. Why would you want to hurt the church? Why? Do you HATE God that much? It sounds like there are people here who need serious mental help!! I can understand being angry, but attacking a church like you guys are doing is WRONG!!

Me wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:09 PM:equal protection under the law. Well gay people have the same rights as me to marry, If Mr Gay want to marry Mrs Gay he can. I'm sorry that they want to marry someone of the same sex. But they still have the same rights as me to get married. So what they want is to change what marriage is. And I dont think that is right.

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:44 PM:To Me,

So you admit it is about gender discrimination.

BTW...where's my reply to Marinegunner?

But Me wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:47 PM:If you are heteosexual, the one you love as a soul-mate will be of the opposite sex and you can marry the one you love.
If you are homosexual, then the one you love as a soul-mate will be of the same sex and you can not marry the one you love.
I don't give a rat's behind what it is called, right now there is no EXACT LEGAL EQUAL to marriage as an option for homosexuals, there is only "civil union" and "domestic partnership", neither of which is EXACTLY LEGALLY EQUAL to marriage.
DOMA, a federal law, removes "full faith and credit" from any homosexual marriage and no federal recognition.
Like I asked of MarineGunner, would YOU accept a "civil union" or a "domestic partnership" FOR YOURSELF instead of a marriage from a legal standpoint?
If not, WHY not?
Discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation is what Prop. 8 and DOMA are and such discrimination violates 2 Constitutions.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:10 PM:To Bodecea:

I miss-read what you posted about your TIS. I thought you were saying you were 21 years old, not had 21 years TIS and that is why I questioned your retirement. My bad.

But Majority wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:14 PM:My, how you Yes people cried about 4 out of 7 (57.14%) Supreme Court Justices overturning Prop 22.
A greater majority of the California Supreme Court chose to overturn Prop 22 than voters voted for Prop 8.
Your numbers are falling and the only people wasting time and money are those who are fighting the inevitable. In 2 or 4 or 6 years, homosexual marriage or some EXACT LEGAL EQUAL will be the law of the land.

aDAMANT wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:55 PM:TO LAUREN: Jesus also highly condemed homosexuality. He was absolutely against it and against His law and homosexuality makes a mokery of His desire of what marriage should be: Man and Woman.

IHATENORTHCOUNTY wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:03 PM:North County is a hateful place, and the comment page makes that obvious. Everybody here is so mean spirited. They vote to take away a minority's rights, and then they are infuriated and outraged that that particular minority didn't like the results. North County funded nearly 2 million in favor of the proposition, and the region was ground zero. All the signs and bumper stickers were in favor of it. Even conservative Orange County is liberal haven compared to here.

bodecea wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:03 PM:To aDAMANT,

Could you please quote Jesus talking about homosexuality. I don't remember seeing such a passage.

Mini Me wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:37 PM:"Me" says gay people can get married to people of the opposite sex. Here's my reply: Me has freedom of speech as long as Me advocates gay marriage and condemns Proposition 8.

C in San Diego wrote on Nov 17, 2008 11:00 PM:People choose to be gay...cause it is really easy to be gay in this society....

Yeah, they choose to be gay. What an ignorant statement.

Whether you like it or not wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:16 AM:Whether you like it or not !

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.

Whether you like it or not !

LOL

I voted YES on 8

OHH LOOK wrote on Nov 18, 2008 7:17 AM:wonderful bodecca is still around. He/she is still causing problems. Get a life, get a job do something beside sitting on the computer spreading your hate towards Jesus, and straight people. ...

But Whether you like it or not wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:04 AM:When the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, your side loses,
whether you like it or not.
Will you try to pass YET ANOTHER UN-CONSTITUTIONAL Proposition so that it can also be shot down?

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:09 AM:Get it straight!! Cant you gays get over it already? This has nothing to do with civil rights because, you already have them just like every other normal marriage. This was passed to protect our children so, GET OVER IT because, the children come first. THE CHILDREN!!!!

But YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:31 AM:Ah, the "the children" excuse. If you were so concerned about "the children" why were they holding those Yes signs?
The "the children" excuse is the last ditch effort of a failed philisophy. It is no longer effective.

to YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:27 AM:From what, exactly, are you protecting your children? They already go to school with kids who have two gay parents. Some of their teachers are gay, as well as a few of their classmates. If you think that somehow passing Prop 8 is going to magically keep all mention of homosexuality out of schools you must be living on another planet. I prefer to teach my children that everyone is created equally and just because there are those that are different than we are doesn't mean they are less worthy of the same rights and respect. My two (straight)teenage daughters are now in high school and their lives include both gay and straight friends and family members. Both are well adjusted, loving, kind, caring, compassionate kids. I like to think that this is due, in part, to my guidance and open communication with them. They get a lot of information at school from both their teachers and via their classmates and friends. Some of it is good, some not so good and because of my parenting they've managed to sort through it all. Domestic Partnerships do not afford the same rights, protections and legal recognitions that Marriage does. That is a fact. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, Prop 8 is revising the California State Constitution and is unconstitutional and therefor requires that it be passed by the legislature before going before the people for a two thirds majority vote. Don't make a mockery of our constitution just to forward your own beliefs. If you allow this it hurts all of us and sets a bad precedence.

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:56 AM:Last ditch effort, I highly doubt that!! In fact, it should be at the front lines because, they are the root of our society as we know it. You look at it as an excuse depicting your frame of mind and that is why We The People of California spoke loud with our words so, GET OVER IT and accept democracy!

Voted No wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:06 PM:But I now see how the voters are not accepting the turnout. Why did so many Gay people vote if they are not going to accept the results. Next time I will vote Yes on 8.

But YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:40 PM:You still seem to think that this is a democracy, it is not. Passing un-Constitutional laws results in them being overturned. No matter how many un-Constitutional laws or propositions you pass, they will be overturned.
The California Constitution and the United States Constitution BOTH specify equal protection under the law and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation of either or both parties in a marriage violates that protection. To use your words "GET OVER IT", the "IT" being trying to codify discrimonation, it won't work, not in the short, medium or long term.

But Voted No wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:46 PM:I don't believe your switch-a-roo story any more than I believe that the Earth is flat.
If it was YOUR marriage on the line, YOU would be right out ther as well.
I will not and no one ever should accept the passage of an un-Constitutional law or proposition, not now and not ever. Anyone who does accept an un-Constitutional law or proposition is showing no respect for our country or our Constitution.

un-Constitutional wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:55 PM:I've asked this before with no takers...

Can anyone cite where in either the US or CA constitution sexual preference is declared a right? If it is not then Prop 8 is NOT un-constitutional.

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 4:19 PM:Marriage is defined as a Man and a Woman not, Adam & Adam. This is Gods law and the laws of Nature. Your marriage should and will be overturned because, we need to protect our society as we know it. This is the foundation of a true moral normal family raising children between a man and a woman. You guys lost, get over it!

WOoo but voted no wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:59 PM:The people voted and that's how it's done...get over it!! The PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA have spoken.....again

To but Yes.. wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:01 PM:what discrimination? Quit calling this civil rights issue and discrimination. Maybe I should start yelling and protesting because a fluke of a crowd is bashing my church, teaching my kids about homosexuality, and yes....blocking traffic. I guess I am a minority so start giving ME all the benefits and attention that you all are getting. Sounds stupid right? Well this is what we are seeing with this group.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:41 PM:It IS about the children!
The problem with homosexuals saying that there are already teachers, parents, etc, whom are homosexual is just this:
Being straight is the natural way of sustaining life on earth and to say that the promotion of any lifestyle other than that is... other than normal. I do not want some... no make that: ANYONE with an
"agenda" teaching my children their "said" agenda. I want my children to be able to grow up free of those dilemmas as they are not appropriate in the classroom, at any grade. It is MY duty as a parent to raise my children as responsible creatures inhabiting this planet. "I" will clarify these dilemmas for them. That is MY duty as a parent. If I raise a child and he/she happens to be homosexual: so be it. They will have that freedom. They will have the knowledge and understanding instilled on them in an unbiased way. Personnel politics have no place in the classroom. Too bad so many teachers use this to their advantage and unfairly indocrinate children into their way of thinking because they are the ones spending so much time with our kids. We trust teachers to teach our children FACT. We do not want teachers teaching our children biased, personel politics.

Anyone who thinks that a child raised by homosexuals will be raised un-biased, is a fool. Obviously, a straight child raised by homosexual parents will have a homosexual bias taught to them. Since the homosexual community is so staunch on the fact that they are "born" that way. How many of you think that the bias imposed on these children will not make a difference in their sexual choices throughout their lives?

The gay community really wants the "right" to raise children as gay. It swells their numbers. By imposing thier homosexuality on these children they indocrinate these children into a homosexual lifestyle. Just look at gangs for an example. How many of you would allow gang members to adopt kids into thier families in order to promote the gang lifestyle? Not many I would guess.

What makes you think that homosexuality is any different?

But MarineGunner wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:13 PM:I think you went over the edge with "The gay community really wants the "right" to raise children as gay".
Homosexual parents want the same as most heterosexual parents, to raise a healthy and happy child without "forcing a lifestyle" on them. Homosexuality is as much of a choice as heterosexuality and since no heterosexual has told anyone here WHEN they MADE THE CHOICE to be heterosexual, that argument is bogus. The only difference is that most homosexual parents will not try to "cure" their child or "program" their child.
Comparing homosexuals to gangs is beneath even the worst I had thought of you and is definitely over the edge of the cliff and into the ravine.

But To but Yes.. wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:28 PM:If the situation was reversed, homosexuals had a lock on marriage and heterosexuals were denied the right to marry, were discriminated against because of one of their genders and their sexual orientation, it would be the heterosexuals with the lawsuits in the Supreme Court.
If the homosexuals declared that heterosexuality was a choice and that heterosexuals had the same right to marry as homosexuals do, as long as they marry someone of the same gender, would that be equal protection under the law? Who would be protesting?
If homosexuals declared that their lesser increase in the population was for the benefit of the planet and called the unrestrained propagation of heterosexuals a sin and an abomination, who would be insulted and defensive?
Can you ever, even for 1 minute, consider things from a different perspective? Or are you that far removed from being a member of the human race?

steve wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:43 AM:BOTTOM LINE: The voters answered with a "NO" to gay marriage.There should be no way on this earth that should be overturned.If it does why even vote? We did it the right way and the people spoke.Get over it ,move on please I'm tired of seeing it on the news.If this gets overturned I will never vote again and I would hope alot of people would thank the same way.It's just not normal nor right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman or a son to marry his mom or a brother to marry his sister or a daughter to marry her dad ,to me the examples I gave above are all wrong.To me theres no difference.

To MarineGunner wrote on Nov 19, 2008 7:36 AM:First of all VERY WELL SAID, 2nd I have been reading you post and you have very good thoughts. 3rd of all: Thanks for your service to our county. The freedom you help provide is wonderful.

YES ON 8 wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:20 AM:To Gunner-I second your comment, very well said. There ultimate goal is to have access to the children so, they can be raised in a biased enviroment in hopes of turning them gay. That was good stuff and very true! PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!!

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:21 AM:To: But MarineGunner,

Don't be ridiculous. I did not equate being homosexual with being a gang member. I used the gang member terminology to illustrate a point. One which you obviously missed or have chosen to be blind to.

Comprehend much?

Alf wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:12 PM:Well, "MarineGunner" at 11:21AM
I don't know about this "But MarineGunner" critter.
When you ask "What makes you think that homosexuality is any different?", I do have a female friend who teaches in Colorado, she's homosexual and has never tried to "convert" anyone. She has a grown daughter and a grand-daughter, hasn't tried to "convert" them either.
Actually, I fib, she tries to "convert" people from strangers into friends and she's good at it. She's a "people-person".
I don't know where you get the idea that homosexuals try to "convert" anyone to homosexuality because it is not a choice, any more than being heterosexual is a choice.
Rearing a child to be accepting, not merely tolerating, of the many differences in people is for the good of society, don't you think?
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:16 PM:Well, "YES ON 8" at 11:20AM,
paranoia sure does strike deep, doesn't it?
Next thing you know, children will accept people without slapping a label on them for the purpose of discriminating against them,
ain't that a terrible thing?
Regards, Alf.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:34 PM:Alf:
It is good to hear that you have a friend like that. I am certainly not going to stand on a soapbox and claim that EVERY homosexual has this agenda. I know that is not the case and would never make such a broad claim.

At the same time you cannot deny that there ARE those that would take advantage of the situation in the way I described.

As I have mentioned before I have many friends who are homosexual, not a one of them are of the kind that would attempt to "convert" or unfairly bias a childs mind.

As I have also mentioned previously, my issue with this situation is the militant attitude that some of the homosexual community are exhibiting. IE: The attack on that old lady at a protest, the attacks on churches, The hate-speak that has been coming out of what should be peacefull protests.

There is no justification for this behavior. For a community that has fought for years seeking tolerance to resort to the exact same thing they are supposed to be fighting against is hypocritical.

Alf wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:42 PM:It is unfortunate, "MarineGunner" at 1:34PM, but there are nut-cases on either end of the spectrum on just about everything.
But we must judge the issue on its merits and try to ignore the extremists unless the extremists ARE the issue.
In this case, the issue as I see it is how to reconcile the the state issuing marriage licenses and the state not being legally able to discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation versus declaring marriage to be between only one man and one woman. Those two things would seem to contradict each other.
Anyway, the issue is in the hands of the California Supreme Court which has accepted several of the anti-Prop. 8 lawsuits.
All we can do now is wait and see if we can fathom or agree with the decision(s) when handed down.
Regards, Alf.

Mobs dont rule wrote on Nov 20, 2008 9:57 AM:"Gay marriage mob the ones exhibiting 'insane rage'".
This is the title of an article in the NCT today by Michelle Malkin. She says it exactly as I feel about the[m].
The more childish tantrums they throw, the less sympathy and respect I have for their cause.

Roberto1 wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:20 AM:Your votes of yes on proposition 8 was a waste of time. I voted no and fully expect the supreme court to over turn your legislation of morality. No I'm not gay but want these gay dinks on my side in cutting all the entitlements so those who whine about illegals sneaking around working can compete for these jobs instead.

Wayne wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:03 AM:Why even vote? Why is it when the majority of people vote and the majority wins, the minority rise up and cry that they lost? Why is it the minorities want equality and demand the same treatment as everybody else, yet if they don't get their (special) way, they have a fit and accuse everyone who don't agree with them as biggots and racists and a bunch of haters. We're not all going to agree. We all have different views and ideals, but why must we make an exception to the minorities? I don't care who you are, where you come from, or what you believe in, in my eyes, you'll be treated the same as everyone else. Stop your bellyaching and whinning because you're feelings are hurt and you demand special treatment, or for myself and everybody else to accept you. Most of us do accept you for who you are. What we don't accept is your constant agenda of pushing it, and pushing it, and pushing it and your demanding attitude that we accept you and treat you well/better based solely on your status, background, or lifestyle.

When they come for you wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:58 PM:Does anyone remember the prose that was written about the Nazis coming for the Jews? Had something to do with Catholics and others not saying anything to stop the gassing and extermination of the Jews until the Nazis came for them. I can not help but think of this as I watch the religious right (wrong) going after the gays. I wonder when they will take away my right to marry (and I am not gay) because I am an athiest? I wonder when they will take away my right to vote becuase I am a democrat? I wonder when the will lead me to the gas chamber because I am not like them?

Fascism wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:28 AM:A wave of quasi-fascism has descended upon California and touched several other states. But instead of exposing the abuse, the media are ignoring it.

On November 4, California voters approved Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in the Golden State. Since then, militants have vandalized property, threatened individuals and mailed white powder to Mormon churches. Most Americans probably are not aware of this fascistic behavior, because the media – the people who are supposed to be the first line of defense against domestic tyranny – are absent.

On to the news media elites. Democracy itself is under attack in California, and what are the supposed watchdogs of freedom, the free press, doing about it? When they're not applauding, they're strategically averting their eyes.

America hasn't yet seen political violence of the kind that led to takeovers of Germany and Italy by fascist thugs before World War II. But if media outlets don't investigate these incidents, expose the perpetrators, and pressure the government to press charges, we can only anticipate greater political violence.

Citizen Beware wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:30 AM:A wave of quasi-fascism has descended upon California and touched several other states. But instead of exposing the abuse, the media are ignoring it.

On November 4, California voters approved Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in the Golden State. Since then, militants have vandalized property, threatened individuals and mailed white powder to Mormon churches. Most Americans probably are not aware of this fascistic behavior, because the media – the people who are supposed to be the first line of defense against domestic tyranny – are absent.

On to the news media elites. Democracy itself is under attack in California, and what are the supposed watchdogs of freedom, the free press, doing about it? When they're not applauding, they're strategically averting their eyes.

America hasn't yet seen political violence of the kind that led to takeovers of Germany and Italy by fascist thugs before World War II. But if media outlets don't investigate these incidents, expose the perpetrators, and pressure the government to press charges, we can only anticipate greater political violence.

But Citizen Beware wrote on Nov 22, 2008 1:38 PM:While I completely disapprove of the violence and other unlawful tactics perpetrated by a fringe few of the No on 8 people,
you need to understand that this country is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic.
The Constitution of the United States is the highest law of the land and the Constitution of California is the highest law of the state.
Neither the Constitutions nor I care one bit if 100 percent of the voters vote for something, if it violates either Constitution, it's toast, gone, outta here.
Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of both Constitutions.
The state issues marriage licenses, the state can not discriminate against someone based on gender or sexual orientation, therefore the state can not refuse homosexual marriages.
Prop. 8 would specifically have to void the equal protection clause in order for there not to be conflict within the Constitution (on the one hand it says equal protection and on the other (prop. 8) it orders discrimination). It does not, so the Constitution wins and so do homosexual people.

Monogamy wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:49 PM:The pro-sodomite media would have us believe that all homosexuals are in a
wonderful, long-term, committed relationship with only one other person.
They are portrayed as just another kind of “family” perfectly capable of
raising children and making a valuable contribution to society.
This is because that “promiscuity has become the norm….” If promiscuity is
the norm, why do we only hear of the “committed relationships” that
“deserve” to be recognized with formal and legal “marriage?” It is because
the sodomite lobby gained control of Hollywood and the news media and we
are denied the truth. Studies have shown that even the small number of
homosexuals who claim to be in a “committed relationship” have their own
definition of monogamy.

Homosexual researchers Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen found that “the
cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches
100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open
relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are
couples.”

In fact, another study concluded that 43 percent of male homosexuals have
more than 500 partners in their lifetime. A smaller percentage had over
1000. Thus, the wonderful same-sex “family” image we are fed is largely a
myth.

To But . . . . wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:14 AM:The Constitution protects those because of sexual gender. Homosexuality is not such but a choice. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence anyone is born a homosexual. There is overwhelming evidence people are born male or female.
In addition, for 150 years judges gave opinions. They did not have the power to make law. Recent legal events and your statement above violates logic and past practice. The original intent of the Constitution has been preverted!

But To But . . . . wrote on Nov 23, 2008 4:09 PM:While you're at it, there's ZERO scientific evidence that homosexuality IS NOT an something with which one is born. And so the debate continues.
What is perverted beyond all else is purposeful discrimination being written into a Constitution that specifically forbids it.
You have your beliefs and I have mine, one of my beliefs is that the one purpose of our Constitutions is to expand personal freedom, that, given the options of either expanding liberties and rights and reducing them, the Supreme Courts should always side with expansion, not reduction.
I know that others have asked and I believe that I have as well, how has any heterosexual's marriage been in any way diminished by homosexuals getting married from June to November? Or are you fighting not to protect the insstitution of marriage but to protect your claim on the word and the legal status? I'm a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual female, our marriage has not been harmed by the homosexuals who married in the slightest.
Has yours (if you are married)?

To Yes on 8. wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:18 PM:Want to "protect the sanctity of marriage"?

LETS BAN DIVORCE.