Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

Thank you Starshine for your wonderful insight! I'm curious if anyone has (or would admit to having) prop 8 voter's remorse? It's too bad we didn't take a stronger stance before the vote, I get the feeling people didn't give a yes vote much thought.

Do you really think you'll convince any Prop. 8 supporters to switch sides by calling them "losers"?

Sometimes people get preachy and a bit sarcastic-angry when other people deliberately vote to ELIMINATE existing civil rights.

Yes, that is what happened when this ballot Proposition passed.

Sometimes people do not view the elimination of existing civil rights to be a deal subject to political bargaining, especially when the State Constitution already guarantees equality under the law.

In the longer term, the California Supreme Court will decide this about the tyranny of the majority.

I voted NO on 8 why legislate love, but what a full of herself &#@! and racist Starshine is. Was the following lines a coded dig at African Americans who supported the prop by a 70% margin, or Hispanics around 52%.

"But forgive me for getting so “thinky” about these issues. I know people with college educations voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 8. It makes me wonder: If you were just a little smarter, would it make you kinder?"

Nice, everyone just loves it when the enlightened white lady with her vanity column speaks down to them.

I disagreed with the outcome and hope the court overturns it, but hey Starshine take off the white robe and get over yourself.

I voted YES on Prop 8, as did millions of other people that 1.) don't believe marriage is for anything other than one man and one woman. 2.) don't believe that 4 judges should legislate from the bench. A ban was voted in before and was voted in again. What part of NO didn't they understand?

Wow this is the second article I've seen now about this on here. And it's the second one that sounds like it was written by someone totally blinded by anger and/or rage. Talk about a "bigot", Starshine is showing us the definition!

Bigot (n) - A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Kettle, Pot, Black...

"You’re hot for “traditional” marriage — which, you have to admit, is funny considering a third of your campaign was funded by Mormons, who think marriage should be between a man and, ahem, as many women as he needs to feel holy."

Apart from small rebel segements in the Morman demographic, this is a thing of the past. Using that same logic, it would be said that White folks are still slaveowners and Mexicans are into human sacrifice and Blacks are cannibals.

Tell me, ty: why is your interpretation of what should or should not be marriage the correct one?

And dang, we have the News-Press placing ads on Fox News Channel (no hiding they lean right), and now this paper has turned into their 180 opposite (i.e. way left leaning MSNBC).

What happened to a normal run of the mill, semi unbiased paper?

At least with the print version I can skip to the bands and events section...

That was a really pathetic article. Please name one right that homosexuals don't have in the state of California. Homosexuals are allowed to vote, they aren't asked to sit on the back of the bus, drink for a different water fountain, use a different bathroom etc... These are all things that black people have had to go through. Comparing the issue of homosexuals wanting to marry each other to the plight of blacks in our country is a terrible comparison. Homosexuals are allowed to get married in the state of California, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex. Even if they want to have the same benefits as a M/F couple, they are allowed such benefits in a civil union. The opponents of Proposition 8 lost the vote and look at them now. They are protesting and insulting those that voted for Prop 8. If the "no vote" had won, you wouldn't see the "yes on 8" people raising the stink that the homosexual crowd is. Pathetic!

Love, PangZhu

There were so many things wrong with Prop 8. First, it's actually totally illegal to legislate from a religious standpoint, and this fits that description from the conceptulization of the bill through to its funding.

At first, I was horribly disappointed and disgusted that this horrible proposition passed.

But, I'm thinking it might have actually been the best timing possible; I think the momentum of the backlash will ultimately result in a supreme court case which will quash the whole thing and finally give gay men and women equal civil rights.

It's not whether or not people have similar rights, PangZhu. That's not the issue. The issue is that if one citizen has a right to do something, it MUST be extended to all citizens.

There is absolutely no exception to that, no argument that makes any ethical or constitutional sense.

pangzhu:

The right homosexuals do not have now is the right to equal treatment under the laws. Why should a man not be allowed to marry another man?

Furthermore, while I think the supporters of Prop 8 certainly would be outraged if it had failed, the fact is that Prop 8 eliminates an existing right, and so elicits greater emotion from those suddenly relegated to second-class status.

Whoa, let me get this straight...

So was MLK a: Bigot (n) - A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own... because he was a relentless stand for equality and civil liberties for all men?

Come on guys... lets be honest with ourselves. We read columns to get other peoples PERSPECTIVE and OPINION. This is not a news story. Get over it. So she says supporters of prop 8 are losers and maybe not that smart... does that make her racist? A bigot?

No, YOU make that distinction based on the stories you have about yourself. Those are your stories, in your head... How are they working out for you?

There is nothing "coded", racist or intolerant about this read. We are talking about about support for HUMAN RIGHTS and the fact that the majority of CA voted from a place of fear.

She is correct about one thing. Every Yes voter I know is gleefully smug about having won. My friend's grandmother can't resist rubbing his nose in it every chance she gets to the point he won't visit her anymore.
We have stepped onto the slippery slope and the precedent of taking away a minority's right has been set. The next time it'll be a little bit easier to do. You reap what you sow, so when the majority decides to vote away something you hold dear I hope you remember how good it felt when you did it.

What is the major difference between "gay marriage" and "traditional" marriage? Is there any? Is one necessarily better than the other? To answer this question I propose a thought experiment that may highlight some differences and answer our quandaries.

Imagine two islands in the middle of the ocean, both capable of sustaining large populations. On each island is placed 500 newly married couples between the ages of 21 and 35. Since this experiment regards marriage, anyone who cheats on their spouse or gets divorced will be asked to leave the island.

One one island we put 500 "traditional" married couples. On the other we put 500 "gay" married couples.

Then we come back in 100 years. What do we find? If there is no difference, then that settles the question, they are equal institutions and should be treated that way. Fair enough?

On the "traditional" island what do we find. Because of divorce and infidelity reproductive rates are not great, but they are still puttering along. On the "gay" marriage island what do we find? Bleached bones. Everyone has either left, or died without having reproduced. Bummer.

Is there any discussion necessary at this point? The differences are so striking, so obvious that to miss them requires an effort not to look. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. Marriage implies the propagation of the species. Gay implies a reproductive dead end. Is it someones right to legislate nonsense? Of course not.

Luckily, the majority of California voters saw through this "civil rights" smoke screen and did the right thing.

jasonmcd101:

"Marriage implies the propagation of the species."

No, it most certainly does not. As civil marriage is the only marriage being discussed, let us use the civil definition that exists in the California Family Code:

"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract."

There is never any mention whatsoever of the ultimate purpose of that union. You are applying your own opinions and values about what you think marriage should be. It is not your right to legislate subjectively.

Tell ya what: I'll stay out of your bedroom if you stay out of my church. Deal?

I think the next ballot issue should be: Gay defined as happy, not male male, or female female relations in the Ca. constitution. Hmmm, how would it feel to have what you are called taken away from you? That's why I voted yes on 8, not because I have any problem with gay marrige or equality. I don't "hate" because of who I am, but the more you push and write things like this, the more you show how much you do "hate."

I am all for enabling two adult people to have the benefits of marriage. It is troubling to me that conservatives have a problem with two people caring enough about each other to solidify their bond with the ideal of insuring emotional, financial and family security for their lives.

Gay people (1 out of 10 people according to many sources) should be able to build their estate together insuring that their partner is able to benefit as any other married surviver would (marital trust, etc.) A couple is also family in the event of a health issue or child guardianship. Insurances seem like another area where marriage is important although there are domestic partnership arrangements that may be used to navigate that sometimes but I'm not sure how effective or encompassing that is.

So, are there other benefits than those that I touched on (other than the social event and contract) that are also part of "marriage?"

What if in an effort to more effectively and quickly institute these important benefits, gay people lobbied for an institution or contract that uses a different word and gave them these important rights?

Let the conservatives and others have their word - marriage - and pass it under a different word. Immediately and without disrespect "garriage" comes to my mind as a viable word.

What is paramount is that gay people get what they want. How could a rattional arguement be made by the other side if gay people create their own ceremony and legal contract that is not called the same thing as their "holy sacrament.". Then it would have nothing to do with them and only be a denial of equal rights...
Anyone see my point?

Jason in your childish island scenario with 500 gay couples on one island and 500 straight couples on the other island. If you come back in 100 years, one of the islands will have ZERO people left on it. That is what will happen. Where do you think babies come from?

Love, PangZhu

Secondly, like I mentioned earlier there are no rights that "homosexual people" do not have that a straight person has. Homosexuals are allowed to vote, work, and live their life style however they see legally fit. If they want to get married they need to marry someone of the opposite sex. So they have the right to get married. Nobody is taking this away from them. Get this, they even can get the same benefits as legally married couples without even being married to anybody, it's called a civil union. If you ask me it sounds like homosexual couples are getting special preferential treatment. And yet they still complain. Did you notice that the largest block of people who supported Prop 8 were blacks and latinos. Why aren't the homosexuals and denouncers of Prop 8 going after them? Why don't they boycott black and latino owned businesses etc?? They are cowards, that's why.

Love, PangZhu

Pang: You make some very good points and failed to mention that Gays are not losing any rights. They never had the right to marry each other in California. The voters overwhelmingly passed a gay marriage ban 62%+ a half a dozen years ago. Then an activist judge in San Francisco nevertheless, decided to legislate from the bench. After the current backlash, protests and bigotry we've seen from the gay marriage movement, I don't think we will ever see the people of California ever vote for them to be allowed to marry.

All the blaming and hate toward the churches! I voted yes and not because of any religeous reasons. The no-on-eight crowd can't live w/ the decision, so they spew hate at anything in their path: churches and blacks. Rochell has exposed herself as an immature sore loser at best, and a vindictive hate-monger at worst. Prop 8 foes failed because the issue was never about "rights"; only about a desire to rub same-sex marriage in everyone's nose, "whether they like it or not!."

jasonmcd101 - Sorry, I try to not be so blunt, but that's just plain dumb. A real example would be an island of 500 people where any two adults can marry, and another where only adults of opposite sex may marry. Let's call them 'Coneticut' and 'California'. Your two islands would be identical in 100 years, except that on one island the gay people would be pissed off because they can't get married.

pangzhu - Wow. Try reading jasonmcd101 again. Carefully.

Another straw argument is that civil unions provide all the same rights as marriage. Bzzt! Wrong. A man cannot file a fiance visa for another man.

Tell you what, if civil unions are so great, let's do away with marriage as a state institution, and just get civil unions instead. If you want to get married, you find a church that will marry you, but it has no legal significance. If civil unions are just as good, then I'm sure nobody will mind. They can still go have their wedding in a church, or any other religious organization they want.

Marriage = church

Civil union = state

Seperated!

p.s. Starshine, it was preachy. And the shot about Mormons just makes you sound uneducated.

Expresso,
the Supreme Court decision was not the result of "an activist judge in San Francisco" as the Yes on 8 campaign would like you to believe.

It was a 4-3 decision. Six justices were appointed by Republicans (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one by a Democrat, Moreno. Civil rights issues have often been won through legislative action. Unfortunately, history shows that the majority may not always be well-informed regarding Constitutional law and can not always be depended on to vote in the best interests on the minority.

If this country were to follow separation of church and state strictly, then the ideal situation would be to have only civil unions as recognised by the government, and marriage be strictly a socio-religious construct, wholly unrelated to the government. "Marriage" is such a buzzword that it inevitably gets people -- both pro and anti -- up in arms about the subject. Unfortunately, it's not an idealised system, and so the conflict's going to persist.

Still, after so many days there becomes not one person who can tell the audience what single right a gay person does not have that a straight person has. There exists none. Right to vote, right to own a gun, right to a job, right to a bathroom, right to a water fountain, right to sit on any seat in a bus, right to own property, right to seek medical care, right to attend school, right to get married, right to do anything that anybody else can legally do. And I am sorry, gay marriages will be allowed the day that polygamist marriages will be allowed. I don't see that as a day in all of our lives near future.

Love, PangZhu

PangZhu, first off, you may not have noticed, but gay people are chock full of kids these days. Despite our proclivity for partners of the same sex, we find ways to have babies so you'd be surprised how propogated the Island Gay would be. And second, here's one right we don't have under the state's domestic partnership arrangement- the right to wake up each day without fear that another ballot proposition may work its way down the pike asking this question again. So long as it is presumably "separate but equal", which it isn't, it's up for debate. As much as I don't care to tread on any religious boundaries, unless you backed marriage out of the definition altogether and called all of them civil unions, we now have to lump them all into one category and call it marriage.

As I read these comments, from both sides, I really become disheartened by society as a whole. The comments made by the author weren't ignorant comments or "uneducated". They were to make people think. Do I think the church or "god" made the decision for prop 8, no. But the legality and fairness needs to be looked at in a historic view. Did Mormons at on time have multiple wives.. yes, was there a law banning interracial marriage.. yes. Have we changed with the times.. YES. We as a people generally look at things later and think "wow, we were that stupid". People today would be appalled at the thought of slavery, but in the 1800's it was the norm. I think of my interracial parents and find it amazing that they weren't allowed to marry in many states in the UNITED STATES. I want to avoid comparing gay marriage to slavery or womens rights, because in all honesty I don't think the gay issue is even close to what they had to face. But I do want to point out that times change, and although you might not believe in this course now, attitudes and beliefs will change. In the 80's gay was a bad word and nobody wanted to be associated with it. 90's gays really started coming out of the closet and got noticed and now..we have the idea of marriage.
Just please try to accept people as people. I mean both sides. People have a right not accept gay marriage or even the gay culture, I just ask that you step back and really think about why we're so bad?

"Still, after so many days there becomes not one person who can tell the audience what single right a gay person does not have that a straight person has."

Since you missed it the first time...

A man cannot file a fiance visa for another man.

(nor can a woman for another woman)

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so forget tax benefits married couples get.

In fact, I'd guess there are lots of fedearl benefits not open to civil unions.

I'm all for getting rid of marriage as the term for a civil contract joining two people (which, after all, is the only thing homosexuals are asking for), and calling it something else. Religion can keep its word that way. Of course, the problem is that a civil contract between two people to obtain the benefits they do is called "marriage" in this society. Ergo, we either need to include ALL people in the civil marriage (obviously no one is trying to force religious groups to marry homosexuals in "the eyes of God"), or we need to let no one have civil marriages and call them something else. The status quo, however, is not acceptable, because it truly is a case of "separate but equal", which as we all know is always the former, but rarely (if ever) the latter.

Also, for those who think civil unions/domestic partnership are currently completely equal to marriage, I would encourage you to visit the following links:

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/...

"Marriage V. Domestic Partnership" PDF on http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c....

Well Rich..
We can add that with civil unions my partner doesn't have burial rights, no financial right and no property rights.

If my blood relatives chose to fight the legality of what we have decided to happen in the event of my death, he will lose. He would also have our home reassessed and property taxes would be increased because "civil union" doesn't give the other party the same rights over property. He would have the ability to visit me in the hospital (as long as he had a piece of paper) but wouldn't be able to make medical decisions for me.

To some of you this is small, to me it's huge because I live with fact I may die any day I go to work.

I'm not an advocate of the word marriage. If you gave me the same legal rights it would be fine and dandy.

It seems quite obvious to me. Now that the racial barrier has been all but shattered by the election of a bi-racial president, people still need a dog to kick, a group that makes them feel better about themselves. "Gee, who's left now? Oh, goodie, the gays, let's pick on them!"

Religious defense from churches is ill informed....Christ preached love and tolerance.

Yes Starshine is angry - so are a lot of us, and we have cause to be. Prejudice is wrong. Prop 8 supporters are haters, pure and simple. Intolerance of an opposing opinion IS defensible when said opinion stems from hate and bigotry.

Shame on you who voted YES!

Rainebow, while I agree with you in some respects, I think saying that people just need a dog to kick is trivializing this extremely important issue. Homosexuality has been taboo in our society for a long time, and it is finally being accepted more and more. The good news? One exit poll I saw said people in the 18-25 age range voted 66% against prop 8. Homosexuality is finally starting to be recognized for what it is: attraction to the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuals are people the same as any other, they just aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Who cares? Why would we strip rights from someone for this reason? It's as arbitrary, to me at least, as selecting any other group of people (say folks with black hair) and telling them they can't get married. But change is coming, because young folks clearly have much less aversion to homosexuals, and I believe this acceptance will grow with each generation.

Additionally, I would say essentially all the arguments I have heard in favor of prop 8 boil down to "it's immoral" or "it's gross." I don't believe either of those are reasons to legislate. In fact, I would apply both of those terms to the arguments for prop 8. So it's clearly subjective, and as Typo put it above much better than I ever could: "It is not your right to legislate subjectively."

The problem is that the government bestows rights and privelages on couples who are 'married'. If the Yes on Prop 8 people do not want to share the term 'marriage' then the government must cease to recognize all marriages since its not a right provided to everyone and must revoke all the rights that go along with the government recognition. It is the same as the government funding a group or company that discriminates based on age, race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Saying that gay people still have a right to marry someone of the same sex is ridiculous. Interracial couples faced the same arguements and eventually won, gay marriage will eventually win also. If you think the government can tell you who to marry (opposite sex only) then how would you feel if the government said men could only marry women who were shorter than them? What if you could only marry someone who lived within 5 blocks of you? Why should the government tell you who to love and if its going to give rights to people who stand together and pledge to bind their lives together, they should do so without judgement.

Why shouldn't people who are well educated and trusted to view and evaluate our laws and constitution and pass judgements be in charge of applying our laws and constitution?

Bottom line: How does it affect ANYONE except the couples getting married to recognize these unions and bestow upon them the same rights and privelages of straight couples? You don't like the government saying they are the 'same' as you? So what? What does it matter? You can still tell yourself that god knows that your marriage is 'real'... no one is going to think you are gay because you say you are 'married'... get over it and stop fighting what is inevitable, just, and fair.

I never knew that California is a theocracy.

And jasonmcd101, you must be so right because gay people never have children, do they.
It never happens, does it?

Not to mention that we should nullify the marriages of all those who can't (or choose not to) have children, gay or otherwise, according to this absolutely ridiculous argument.

PangZhu said - "Get this, they even can get the same benefits as legally married couples without even being married to anybody, it's called a civil union. If you ask me it sounds like homosexual couples are getting special preferential treatment. And yet they still complain ..."

And black people used to have to drink from separate fountains. But, hey, it's the same water, right? ... You know, it wasn't too long ago that interracial couples weren't allowed to marry either. If that were still the case today, we wouldn't have president-elect Barack Obama.

And for those of you making statements like you voted yes on 8 because you think gays want to "rub your noses in it" and such nonsense, I ask that you really listen to yourselves. These people (and they are people by the way) are fighting for the right to be considered equal to you and me. I think that's a little bigger than them just being a bunch of whiners. Their cause is just, and your thinking will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Thank you Starshine for saying it like it is! The BIGOTS who voted to take away the already LEGAL right for same-sex couples to marry, will utimately see their so-called "traditional marriage" and God fearing beliefs recognized by everyone else as "those unable to understand differences in other people = INTOLERANT! " We aren't living in the mid 1900s anymore...society cannot move forward unless they learn from the past and learn to COEXIST.

The ONLY reason it was LEGAL for a few months is because some judges BARELY overturned the People's decision. The People have spoken again, this time making it perfectly clear and putting it in the Constitution. Don't get mad, get even. Educate us on why we are wrong. I'll tell you what... the way the No on 8 people are behaving, you won't be getting any sympathy votes next time around.

"Starshine", is your passive/aggressive behavior the result of your obviously shallow upbringing? I'm a lib dem, and have supported gay rights, but the racist, violent an I'll say it, outright fascistic behavior that has been spewing from the gay community since the early hours of 11/5, was enough to cause me to reverse my stance, because of the deafening silence coming from it. Not one leader in the gay community has decried it, it's offensive. Gay organizations can do without my support and money until they purge the fascists from their movement.

For those who claim that "marriage" is a civil right, I would appreciate their making a citation of where in the US Constitution it is established as one?

Marriage is the name of a religious ceremony, a sacrement. The word might have come in to common usage, but that doesn't change the fact that it is religious. The state recognizes marriage, NOT as some sexual contract, but because it was shown to be a good thing, it protected the interests of children, to document parentage, so parents couldn't walk away from their responsibilities.

Later, the state decided to provide a civil alternative, for those who could not avail themselves of the religious ceremony. Civil unions were created, and heterosexual couples have partaken of them. My late husband and I were joined by a civil union. We considered ourselves married, though no church would have recognized our marriage, as is their right. We never felt discriminated against, because we weren't. We understood that the separation of church and state works both ways, and that includes protecting churches, as well as the religious from state and individual dictates and persecution.

With the implementation of laws for gay civil unions and domestic partnerships, gays and lesbians were provided the same access to the civil alternative for marriage, the only difference being that there hasn't been federal recognition of that access. In California, as well as other states with civil union laws, gays DO have the same rights as heterosexuals, they CAN have their partner's status recognized, regarding property, wills, in hospitals, etc.. The musician, Elton John, a gay man, stated a few days back, that he faulted American gays and lesbians for being hung up on the word "marriage", instead of pursuing federal recognition. He stated that in the UK, they have domestic partnerships, and the UK government recognizes them. He thinks it ridiculous for gay rights groups to stir the pot, by going after a religious term, attacking blacks and the religious, when they know very well that Obama will provide them with federal recognition. He was shocked by the racism and hatred that the American gay community has shown to be guilty of.

Gays have to stop lying and pretending that they are denied rights, they have NEVER had to go through the same things that black Americans have had to go through. They aren't denied the right to vote, to get an education, to be free, they have never been sold, and subjugated. To cheapen what black Americans have had to go through, the racist gay community have shown that they are not only ignorant and indifferent, but that they disrespect the full implications of civil rights are. Not surprising, since they don't respect anyone's rights but their own.

The first amendment does not allow the federal or state government to redefine a religious ceremony, which establishes a dangerous precedent that would allow further acts of encroachment into the rights of religion. Those four judges had no right to appropriate "marriage" to describe what was only a civil union.

The use of the term, "marriage" didn't provide federal recognition, it didn't change anything, the ceremony is the same thing as a civil union. Extremists in the gay lobby have sought to appropriate that word, because they sought the precedent that would allow them the ability to harass and persecute churches that refuse to betray their religious beliefs, as has been done in Massachusetts.

There is nothing in the interest of equality, when you are attempting to violate the rights of others.. you can't have it both ways.

The racism in the gay community isn't anything new, it's been reported on for decades. Black, gays and lesbians have written about it, but the wider, wealthier, whiter gay community has ignored it.

What is especially interesting is that the leading voices against prop 8, are those of Log Cabin republicans. Gay republicans, who have supported candidates who have been bad for gay rights, just so they could get bigger tax cuts and deregulation.. yet the wider gay community have never protested, or attempted to blacklist them. The fact that more gays and lesbians have been harmed by Log Cabin republicans doesn't seem to bother them at all.. no ideological purity it seems, when it comes to themselves.

I'll recomend an article written by Johann Hari, a gay journalist from the UK Independent, he published this article on the very left wing blog, the Huffington Post. It's titled, The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-har...

It goes a long way explaining gay fascism, and why rational gay people should take a stand against it.

Comparing the plights of homosexual marriage and the "Black" civil rights movement is just going a bit over the top for my books. If you stand back and take a fair look at the two sides, you will take careful notice that people of color have no choice as to how they are born, but people of loving the same sex have made a choice as to their lifestyle. I am in all support of equal rights, and I believe that the homosexual community has these equal rights already, in fact people have gone out of their way to give them preferential treatment. Comparing the two movements is troublesome. Please for a factual statement, take a look at the demographic voting results based on race. Wouldn't you think that blacks and latinos would be sympathetic to any such legitimate civil rights issue? Yes, they would be. But they voted in groves for Proposition 8, because they have lived through a legitimate civil rights movement and only know that the homosexual drive for same sex marriage is not a legitimate gripe. Thank-you for reading.

Love, PangZhu

Jenn, in my opinion, you have obfuscated the point a bit. Yes, you are right, marriage is the name of a religious ceremony. It is also the name of a civil contract which unites two people. You are implying (or perhaps it's just my inference) that these two words are equivalent. While in a literal sense they are the same word, a civil marriage and a religious marriage represent wholly different items. You can have either without the other, which to me clearly shows they are not the same thing. As I mentioned above, I don't think it's the word that matters -- only that the word be fairly applied to all people in our society. If that word isn't marriage, that's fine -- but I don't believe we can say that the STATE can marry some people and civilly union others, as that is discrimination. Either all people can get civilly married, or all people can have an equivalent construct with a different name, but it can't be one group gets A, and the other B. All people are people, regardless of their sexual orientation, and deserve to be treated equally as citizens of this state (and nation).

It should also be noted that this in fact goes both ways. Heterosexuals are currently unable to obtain domestic partnerships unless one of the partners (or both?) is over the age of 62. I think this is also unfair, but it is only a reaction to the fact that homosexuals cannot get married. We can kill two birds with one stone if we make all relationships registered with the state between two adults the same -- regardless of the gender of those adults.

And again, NO ONE is asking that homosexuals be allowed to be RELIGIOUSLY married, only CIVILLY married. And as stated (by many) above, there are still differences between civil unions and civil marriages in our state.

Why is it considered racist to recognize the struggles of gay people as SIMILAR to the struggles of other oppressed groups such as black Americans? NO ONE is saying that gay people have suffered AS MUCH. There are similar persecutions.. lynching is similar to gay bashing though gay bashing is not always fatal... both are physical attacks simply for belonging to a specific 'minority' group. Gay people may be able to 'pass' as straight and therefore aren't as visible a target, but should they have to hide who they are just to be safe? Gay people have not gone through slavery but their struggles can still be compared to those of other groups.

Most comparisons to the black community are regarding the fight to legalize interracial marriages. And in that case, the oppressed group includes the 'white' half of the couple.. someone who was denied the right to marry who they chose. Tell me how drawing a comparison is racist?

And once again, for those who think domestic partnerships are the same as civil marriages (non-religious marriages) you need to realize that the very need to define what the rights of domestic partnerships are is an indication that they are different. They do not have the same protections and rights. They can be forced to testify against their partner, do not have the same medical access or decisionmaking power and can have their rights to inheriting their spouse's (oops, I mean partner's) belongings can be taken away by almost any challenge.
Separate but equal was decided (rightly) by the courts to be IMPOSSIBLE... separation is inherently unequal.

Sounds like people still want to overturn that decision by telling the courts when exactly separation is equal and when it isnt.

And the people who have now spoken have only shown that by a very SLIM margin they disagree. That means the courts and the remaining HALF of the population think differently... there are times when a 50% majority should not decide something and when it comes to taking away or restricting people from access to rights I don't think 50% is enough of a majority.

Tell me, PangZhu, when did you decide you were going to be straight?
I know I never made a choice to be straight. It just happened that way.

Have you heard of the Kinsey scale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scal...

What about the theory of a sliding scale of sexuality in general? While some people do fall in the middle and find themselves attracted to both genders (often labeled as "bisexuals"), most people fall closer to one extreme or the other, and are attracted to those of either the same or opposite sex with no choice in the matter. Homosexuals "choose" to be attracted to people of the same sex in the same way that heterosexuals "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex: it's innate.

Bravo Starshine! That is one of the best responses I've seen! I hope one day all of you Prop 8 supporters will be as ashamed as the bigots who were against civil rights in the '60's. You are the people who disgrace our country with your hatred.

"Wouldn't you think that blacks and latinos would be sympathetic to any such legitimate civil rights issue?"

Wouldn't you think that black men would have wanted to give women the right to vote since they knew what it was like to be left out? Look back at your history, there were plenty of black men who didn't want women to have the right to vote.

Being discriminated against doesn't mean you don't discriminate. In fact, there are notorious cases of racism between non-whites in America.

Many people also think that being gay is a choice and therefore different. They also think that is 'gross' or an 'abomination' and therefore ok to discriminate. They don't realize the same agruments were used against their group. Hypocrisy is a word for a reason, and anyone is capable of being a hypcrite.

Josh, I decide every day of my life to be of the straight variety. I could choose otherwise, but do not feel that is what is best for my life. I have no problems with civil unions being of equal footing to marriage in terms of one or two items missing. But I do not believe that is not what the homosexual marriage team of supporters is pushing for as a goal. I get the feeling, this is just my opinion here, but I get the feeling that one of the main things the team is pushing for is the feeling of "acceptance". They wanted to be accepted and want everyone in society to think that homosexuality is "normal". This is the tone that I pick up from them. They will not stop until society accepts homosexuality as "normal" and it taught so in our school system. The homosexual movement is too extreme and too polarizing. One day they may get their way, acting like this is not how to do it.

Love, PangZhu

We can debate on prop 8 all day long, that's healthy.

This article is what sucks.

Hey! Maybe the powers that be can legislate the exact same rights for civil unions as for marriage. Dem President, Senate and House; should be easy! Then we can all shut up about marriage and equality. Can everyone agree with this??

A few points in support of Starshine and her article:

1. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all. Prop 8 should a will be overturned because it singles out a single class, people of the same gender, and denies them equal rights enjoyed by married people, such as being able to file a joint income tax return, inherit each others property absent a will, gain custody of each other's children in the case of death and absent a written agreement, make medical decisions for the other absent a written agreement, and many many more.

2. The majority vote cannot always rule. Here's what Jefferson wrote: "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, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

3. "Activist Judges" is just a phrase the right uses when then don't like a ruling. This phrase was NOT used when the U.S. Supreme Court took the Florida election decision OUT of the Florida Supreme Court's hands and gave the first election to Bush. Judges are there to interpret the law when it is not absolutely clear. Interpretation is their very business.

4. Starshine usually writes in a light, breezy and comedic way. But Prop 8 is so serious that for her to ignore it or make light of it would be inappropriate. We should thank and congratulate her for her thoughtfulness.

*sigh*

"I decide every day of my life to be of the straight variety. I could choose otherwise, but do not feel that is what is best for my life."

You could choose otherwise? I don't think I could. So I guess you fall in the middle of the scale I mentioned above then? Or did you not look at it?

I don't think you realize it, but what you are saying is actually extremely offensive to me as an ally of the homosexual community, and I would presume for the homosexual community itself. Of COURSE homosexuals want to be accepted. What's wrong with that? Doesn't everyone want to be accepted for who they are? And how does it affect you if homosexuals are treated equally and fairly? And what's wrong with teaching about homosexuality in schools? It's found in hundreds of species in the world, not just humans. It's a natural fact. This includes creatures humans would never say had the cognitive abilities to "choose" their sexual orientation. And ignoring homosexuality doesn't make it go away. it just breeds ignorance, fear, and hatred of an entire group of people. Or at least that's the way I see it.

PangZhu -
If you choose to be straight every day, does that mean when you look at a picture of a naked woman you have to mentally decide if it turns you on?
I don't think anyone cares if you 'accept' what they choose to do in their life, gay marriage, wearing clown shoes every Thursday, or whatever. They just want the right to do it without fear of persecution and bodily harm.
If two gay people kiss on the street, you have every right to look away. And if the government was giving out candy for every couple who kissed, they want their piece of candy. They don't care if you think they are gross, they just don't want you to tell them, harrass them, or deny them their share of the 'candy.'

As for teaching it in schools, they don't want it taught that its 'wrong' they don't want it taught that is right, just that its one of the kinds of marriages there are. Just as kids are not taught that only white people marry other white people, they are just made aware that a white person can marry a black or brown person.

"One day they may get their way, acting like this is not how to do it."

How would you propose homosexual people obtain equal rights? Sit down like good little boys and girls and wait? Unfortunately, sometimes we have to fight for our rights. They aren't given to us on a platter.

"I decide every day of my life to be of the straight variety. I could choose otherwise, but do not feel that is what is best for my life."

Some people are like that. They can enjoy having sex with persons of either sex. Most of us are simply not sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. It's not a choice, that's just how it is. I think people who seriously think it's a choice are either gay or bi and don't want to admit it to themselves. All the really straight people understand how inate it is.

I'm still really puzzled as to why some people can't just mind their own business. Honestly, and I said it before, it comes down to this:

All citizens must have the same EXACT rights. There's not any kind of excuse or argument for denying one group of people the same rights.

None of it holds water, because all of it, the opinions, the pontifications, the supposed defense of marriage as an institution....none of it matters. All that matters is that denying any one citizen a right that his or her neighbor has, especially when based on the subjective moral opinion of another group of people, is unethical and un-American.

As a married woman, I'm mortified that the institution of marriage is not offered to fellow citizens, but also that these anti-gay legislations are falsely using the "sanctity" of marriage to make a smokescreen for their own insecurity and hatred.

drowsysb, good point, i agree with you. It's not acceptance per se, but being allowed to live their life without fear of harm or retribution from others in society or the government itself. Live and let live.

I am 100% for traditional marriage, and my two ex-wives agree with me.

This gets scary sometimes, and at other times just downright discouraging--I refer to the polemic, the rancor--how we cannot seem to discuss without categorizing.

It's like if you're concerned for Palestinians you must be anti-semitic, or if you have questions about affirmative action, you're against African Americans, or if you want immigration reform, you lack compassion for Latinos.

I think that there is a discussion to be had, but to a great extent the principals have disqualified themselves from holding it.

Thanks, Starshine, for your insightful and honest article.

The issue here is simple. Allowing or denying gay marriage only impacts the lives of those who choose that course.

Think about it, the lives of all those who voted for Prop 8 would be no different now if it had not passed. How would their lives be different? Would there be an economic impact? A civil rights impact? Would their liberties be curtailed? No...No...and, No!

For Prop 8 supporters this is purely and simply all about protecting a challenge to one's belief system, which in this case should have no bearing on how we legislate. My grandparents were fundamentalist Christians who believed it was wrong to dance or go to movies. Should those things have been legislated against because they challenged their belief system? How about those who felt drinking alcohol was wrong or sinful? Should that have been legislated against on that basis? Ooops, it was! How did that work out?

It's likely that many of those who supported Prop 8 also are anti-divorce. Well, if that's part of your belief system, then let's get the ball rolling and get a proposition on the next ballot banning divorce. Can't wait to see what the penalties might be. Maybe it's time to bring back the stockade! Or, how about a proposition banning any form of contraception? Surely that challenges someone's beliefs . . . doesn't it?

As to azuresees earlier comment,
"I'll stay out of your bedroom if you stay out of my church. Deal?"
. . . I don't see anyone going into your churches, but you're sure going into a lot of bedrooms!

So, you just stay out of my bedroom and I'll gladly stay out of your church!

Different people have done a great job at outlining various rights that marriage has over a domestic partnership.

Can someone give some thought to an "all inclusive" list of the highest priority rights that gay people would like to be afforded that are not included in a domestic partnership?

I think the movement for gay people's rights would be helped by being more specific as to exactly what (how many rights are needed?) they want as often ignorant people don't have the faintest idea of what their (very real) problem is.....

Having a numbered concise list of focused rights that need to be enabled to gay people may be easier than using the word "marriage." This whole equal rights chant is too vague for society to address properly.

Thanks. I look forward to seeing a concise list to help better understand this universal issue.

1. For a group that is so quick to accuse others of "hate", I have seldom been around a group that outwardly expresses more hate than the "No on 8" crowd. Why all the name calling? Reasonable people can have a debate without calling each other names. I have yet to discuss the issue with a single "No on 8" supporter, who did not resort to name calling. I have many gay friends, I am not intolerant, I am not a bigot and I don't hate anyone. We just disagree. Can I explain why? Apparently not.

2. The bible is clear about homosexuality. The behavior is forbidden. The person is loved, the behavior is condemned. Those who try to explain that the scriptures do not mean what they explicitly say, are rationalizing. It is not a phobia, it is an opinion. You can disagree with the opinion, but someone who believes what the bible says is not intolerant, is not a bigot and is not hateful. You may have a different interpretation of what the bible says. Fine. You don't need to call me names. We disagree.

3. A civil right is not granted for a "behavior". There is enough scientific data now to make a convincing argument that homosexuality is a behavior and a person is not "born that way". How else do you explain the tens of thousands who have been "cured" of homosexuality and are living in happy heterosexual relationships. Same sex attraction is certainly present in humans in a very small percentage of the population. Acting on that attraction is a choice. It is not equivalent to skin color or gender. An obvious point of disagreement among reasonable people. But the gay lobby has been very effective in limiting the argument to civil rights, when in fact, the argument is a non-starter for many. And if a person disagrees, they are likened to the bigots of the fifties who discriminated against blacks. Again, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

4. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd all voted for it and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”). It contained language identical to PROP. 8. Should we label these men intolerant? Why did these champions of “civil rights” vote for legislation that the “NO on 8” supporters would have us believe is an act of homophobia and intolerance? Because the truth is that neither DOMA nor PROP. 8 are about either of those things.

5. The majority of people in California and indeed the folks in 44 other states who have laws and constitutional amendments identical to Prop. 8 obviously feel the same way. The election is over. It passed.

In the words of our famous (infamous ) Senator from Idaho Larry Craig " I am not gay , I have never been gay ". Nevertheless I believe we should stay out of peoples lives with "moral " legislation and worry more about the many things that are truly harming us as Americans . Thankyou Starshine !!!!

What's the next progression? Marriage to animals and young children. I see where this is going...

Are my constitutional rights being violated because I cannot marry more than one person at one time? Who should tell me how many people I can MARRY?!?

There are multiple posts pointing to domestic partnerships and civil unions as being equivalent (enough) in terms of rights granted to marriage and how some supporters of Prop 8 are "all about equal rights" just not the term "marriage". I can also appreciate the reluctance the African American community (or other Prop 8 supporters) have in relating their struggles for civil rights with the struggles faced by the gay community. However, one thing all of these have in common is that separate but equal is never equal. You cannot be a proponent of equal rights, but want a subgroup of the community to call their unions something else. Also, if you argue that domestic partnerships have all the same rights as marriages, why label them differently?

Also, granting gay couples the right to marry is not giving them special privileges (assuming they have the right to marry someone of the same sex) any more than enabling members of the opposite race to marry each other. They too had equal right, just as everyone else, to marry someone within their own race too, they just "chose" not to.

We can't easily change the terminology of all unions to "civil unions" either. If all unions were recognized as civil unions by the Federal and State governments, there would be less confusion on religious vs. civil semantics. Problem is, since the Federal government currently doesn't recognize civil unions, we can't simply convert all unions in CA to "civil unions" without changing how the unions are recognized by the federal government. Otherwise, we'd all be equal, but equally voiding our federal benefits as well.

Lastly (for this post anyway), being gay is not a choice. I know no argument will convince you otherwise, but consider, if you are wrong, and it isn't a choice, you are asking a gay man (or woman) to lie and potentially hurt a partner, and (if you believe) to lie to Him too. To me, THAT sounds immoral.

Loveforall,

First, the name is great, considering....

Second, it's not over. The "law" is actually not a law at all. Frankly, it is going to shortly be found both illegal and unconstitutional.

Supreme court just agreed to hear arguments against it, including more than likely, all the reasons it was illegal in the first place, which includes anything related to the bible.

You might not be able to explain why you feel the way you do, but that doesn't make you any less wrong to think that this movement is anything less than a disgrace. No name calling there, just an fact, I'm afraid.

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:13.

For those who say that the God of the Bible loves everyone, consider the above verse. The idea that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner, flies contrary to Bible scripture. Also, saying that Jesus says to love everyone does not mean that the Bible negates sin. As Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery "Go and sin no more". Yes, he forgave her and pointed out the hypocrisy of those who sought to stone her to death, but did not say that what the woman was doing was OK. My point is that people are twisting the Bible around to fit their agendas, and this is being done by right-wing hypocrits who condemn gay marriage but who turn a blind eye to people marrying, divorcing, and remarrying different people. The Bible is very clear that this is adultery. Likewise, the Episcopal church, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and other churches also twist the Bible around to fit their pro-homosexual agenda.

To those who do not believe in the Bible, this does not apply to you.

A question: I might have missed something but I see that some are accusing others of being anti-Black. They are saying that the anti-prop 8 crowd are blaming Blacks of being anti-gay. Where is the evidence of this?

Another point that conservatives may want to reflect on is the devastation caused by gay people who engage in herero relationships "fooling" their unknowing partner in hopes that they are "straight."

Often children are created, eventual infidelity rears its ugly head and the news flash is revealed to family and friends.

Some family members are dumbfounded and shocked while others share that "knowing" look (no surprise ..always had a feeling about so and so)

So bottom line is - Conservatives, save your own families to prevent them from being touched by people who are actually gay and doing their best to lie to themselves so that they can be accepted. Let gay people have the acceptance and human rights that all humans (God's children as well as much to your surprise also inevitably your own children) deserve.

They are not pretending to be gay or choosing any more than you are to be heterosexual. Also I think that scientists have discovered that even in nature this behavior does happen - so it is not exactly unnatural.

Last point - even on isolated Fijian and other south Pacific islands feminine behavior by males can be commonly seen. So these people are not exposed to media or other people on remote islands and this gay way of behaving occurs.

In response to a few of the earlier posters who asked about my comments.

My island "thought experiment" is just that, a theoretical set up made by myself to test a hypothesis. Einstein did them to figure out his Theory of Relativity. They have their place, but they are theoretical in nature. Is the island scenario totally out of the question? No. Does it highlight the fundamental difference between "Gay" marriage and "traditional" marriage? Absolutely. So, not dumb, just very to the point. Does anyone care to dispute the conclusions of the Island scenario

So "gay" marriages have children. Of course, these offspring do not involve the genetic contributions of both parents. That is impossible in a "gay" marriage. Any children are of necessity the result of heterosexual coupling. Either in the old fashioned sense or in a test tube, they are holdovers of heterosexuality.

Does this even need stating? None but those who engage in heterosexual relations will propagate. What is more important than the propagation of our species? How does "gay" marriage further the propagation of the species? It doesn't. At all. Never has. Not one gay couple has ever added their combined contributions to the gene pool together. It is complete and total farce to suggest that "gay" marriages are the equal of real marriages.

Let me say this though. I do not doubt that homosexual people are born the way they are. I do not doubt that they love each other in a serious and deep and committed way. It is wrong to suggest that they can not contribute to society at large and be people of integrity and good will. I do not hate (wish evil upon, or wish harm to befall them) gay people. I just think they are sadly mistaken and I will not stand by idle while they make a total mockery of the fundamental institution of society.

"Does it highlight the fundamental difference between "Gay" marriage and "traditional" marriage? Absolutely."

No, absolutely not. Your ridiculous claims have already been refuted, notably by Rich at 8:46am.

Here's a clue for all the dimwitted bigots who voted for Prop 8: Passing Prop 8 didn't eliminate gay couples. It didn't change whether gays can or do have children. It didn't change whether any child has both a mother and a father. It didn't change any of the things you say you are concerned about. What it did do is write bigotry into the state constitution.

Dimwitted bigot eh? Hmmmn. Rich's response did not address my conclusions at all, and if that is the best you can come up with, then I just rest my case.

I am not arguing for getting rid of gay couples, just call them what they are: civil unions. Not marriages. Elton John had it right all along. Gays have civil unions, heterosexuals have marriages. They are completely different and should be treated as such.

You probably pride yourself on your open mindedness and tolerance, but listen to yourself! How about you repute the conclusions of the Island argument with some sort of logical argument instead of name calling.

To resort to epithets instead of compelling reason is, ironically enough, one of the definitions of bigotry.

My hope is that the Mormon church will evolve and get past their fear of gay people. They used to support plural marriage (polygamy) until it became politically disadvantageous and God told the church leaders that plural marriage was no longer acceptable. They used to discriminate against minorities until it became politically disadvantageous and God told the church leaders that racial discrimination was no longer acceptable. My hope is that when it becomes politically disadvantageous for them to discriminate against gays, God will enlighten the church leaders one more time. In the past, both the elimination of plural marriage and the acceptance of racial minorities would have seemed unthinkable to members of the LDS church. It is my hope that a similar evolution occurs regarding sexual orientation.

Starshine, you rock! I think it... you speak it. Then again, I AM a transplanted Canadian. :-)

I just have to say, there's only one argument for 8 that makes any sense to me, and that I have any respect for. I can accept the people who just plain think homosexuality is wrong. Just like I think stealing, or torturing puppies, or having sex with children, or littering are all wrong. That's a morality choice on my part. I think all those things should be illegal, and to various degrees they are. If you think homosexuality is wrong, and should be illegal, fine. Ok.

But I doubt if 52% of the population really see it that way. I don't see that argument very often. It's usually "it will lead to X". or "gay people can't have kids, and marriage means having kids" or "homosexuality is a choice" or "they already have the same rights" or "it's part of their agenda to make us think it's normal" or "they're going to try to convert our kids" or "they'll force churches to marry gay people". I've even seen "8 = free speech" and "8 = small government".

None of those make any logical sense. They have all been refuted time and time again. If you REALLY think gay people are fellow human beings who are entitled to all the same rights as anyone else, then I can't see how it makes any sense to say "all the same rights BUT...". They have the same rights or they don't. Right now, in California, they quite obviously don't.

This column is an example of the polemic. Why must we
talk at one another and give up on discussion?

There is a discussion to be had, but to a great extent the principals have disqualified themselves from holding it.

To Prop 8 proponents: What are you afraid of? seriously? what possible harm could come out of gay marriage? Why? (and save that 'it'll be taught to my children in school...) we all know that's just a fright tactic. Why spend the time and the $$ to pass this horrible proposition? how will it help you? will it change your life at all? COME ON. Don't ignore it anymore. It's here to stay - mark my words - this is not the end, and if you don't like it, DEAL WITH IT. We are all only human. black. white. mexican, gay, lesbian, etc, etc. and we ALL deserve the same rights.

Starshine, you are my hero. thank you for saying what we all wanted to.

A quick addendum; I know many, many church going families and friends who voted AGAINST this proposition, and thank you all for doing so!

I just want to know WHY people voted the way they did -- it seems a total mystery to me. human rights are HUMAN RIGHTS, and we are all HUMAN. What's the hold up?

Rich,

My points don't make any sense eh? Let me rephrase it so that it can. Homosexual couples cannot produce offspring together. Heterosexuals can. Therefore they are different. That isn't logical to you?

Give me one good reason why that portion of society that actually reproduces should be made equal with one that doesn't. How is that fair?

You know what this reminds me of? Black berets. A few years back the US Army Rangers, an elite infantry unit, used to wear these distinctive black berets. Well, in 2001 Gen. Shinseki decided that since everyone in the Army is a super soldier just like the Rangers they should wear black berets too. Now everyone in the Army, even down to the lowest cook, is as awesome an Army Ranger right? Wrong. Nothing has really changed except that the black beret is meaningless (the Rangers wear Tan berets now).

Likewise, all the hooplah and ceremony over marriages is kind of like the black beret. All the pomp and circumstance is relegated to a special segment of society that does something very important. Gay rights advocates in the name of equality want all that too, despite the fact that they cannot do what hetero couples can. If that is allowed to happen, then marriage will go the way of the black beret. Everyone can have it, and it will mean nothing.

Loveforall:

"The bible is clear about homosexuality."

Fortunately for us, we live in an enlightened society where the religious beliefs of one group are not applied to the entire population. Unless you can explain logically why your religious views are valid, you are not adding anything constructive to the conversation. (I wrote a piece about this topic here: http://www.independent.com/news/2008/nov...)

"There is enough scientific data now to make a convincing argument that homosexuality is a behavior and a person is not "born that way". How else do you explain the tens of thousands who have been "cured" of homosexuality and are living in happy heterosexual relationships."

Unless you can reference this scientific data, you are once again failing to add anything of value to this forum. As it happens, however, I do have some direct links:

“Brains of homosexuals are structurally and functionally different from those of heterosexuals.”
(http://www.india-server.com/news/homosex...)

“Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.”
(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/bor...)

jasonmcd101:

"Does anyone care to dispute the conclusions of the Island scenario"

I did, actually. You might have missed it:

"jasonmcd101:

'Marriage implies the propagation of the species.'

No, it most certainly does not. As civil marriage is the only marriage being discussed, let us use the civil definition that exists in the California Family Code:

'Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract.'

There is never any mention whatsoever of the ultimate purpose of that union. You are applying your own opinions and values about what you think marriage should be. It is not your right to legislate subjectively." (November 19, 2008 at 1:36 a.m.)

Rich:

"I just have to say, there's only one argument for 8 that makes any sense to me, and that I have any respect for. I can accept the people who just plain think homosexuality is wrong."

I have no respect for this argument, because there is no logic behind it. Stealing, torture, pedophilia, and littering all result in harm done to others, in varying degrees. Two men or women does no harm to anyone else, cry as they might about the fall of society and immorality.

jasonmcd101:

"Give me one good reason why that portion of society that actually reproduces should be made equal with one that doesn't."

To repeat myself (see above). Why is reproduction the defining aspect of modern civil marriage?

(in my post above, I wrote "Two men or women does no harm..." I meant, of course, "Two men or women getting married does no harm.")

Anyone who thinks that marriage doesn't imply offspring, are fooling themselves and are totally ignorant in the face of history. Every known society has recognized only heterosexual marriage in one form or another. This has been so self evident that it didn't need defining until now because we are so open minded as a society that our brains have fallen out. That people have forgotten what marriage is for is why things like Prop 8 have to happen.

If it's so very self-evident, it shouldn't be too hard to explain. Logically, why should the civil institution of marriage, as defined by the California Family Code, be dependent on reproduction?

Are you also opposed to an infertile man or women getting married? Or an elderly couple? Or two heterosexual people who don't plan on having children?

"Why is reproduction the defining aspect of marriage?" Seriously? Because societies decided to honor that segment of society that reproduced and raised offspring that in turn reproduced. Thus long term survival of the species is ensured. You have to admit I have a point.

Nothing against gays here, but they are left out of the picture until they come to the hetero side to swim in the gene pool. As far as I know, there is no law preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they are granted equal rights and if any separation occurs it is self inflicted.

jasonmcd101:

"I have a point."

You don't, for two reasons:

As I have already explained, there are plenty of people who get married with no intention of having children. Unless you are advocating that they should not be allowed to marry, you have no argument.

Also, I have provided evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, which explains why the separation you champion is not "self-inflicted."

From the actual California Family Code:

"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman" Oh, a man and a woman, why was that part left out of the quote?

"An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage."

Why the consummating clause? Oh, because if you cant seal the deal, then you might not be able to provide offspring. That has historically been a deal breaker.

I realize that there are obvious exceptions to the the ideal that heterosexual couples are to reproduce. That some couples are unable due to age or malfunction or choose not to, still does not invalidate the fact that only heterosexual couples are capable of reproducing. And that societies honoring of those couples is due to the fact that they can reproduce, not that they can just hop in the sack and whisper sweet nothings to each other.

jasonmcd101:

"Oh, a man and a woman, why was that part left out of the quote?"

Because that part was the part found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. It no longer has any legal worth.

Consummation and reproduction do not necessarily go hand in hand. Any couple can consummate a marriage, but not every couple will or can have children.

"That some couples are unable due to age or malfunction or choose not to, still does not invalidate the fact that only heterosexual couples are capable of reproducing."

What you are arguing is that even though these people can't have children, and therefore should normally be disqualified from marriage, you support their unions because other people can have children. There is no logic behind that statement.

Nope, hetero couples who don't have kids can change their minds (they often do). They can also serve as adoptive parents and thus be role models the reproductive relationship of man and woman to their surrogate offspring. There are plenty of examples of surrogate parenting in nature to support the practice.

That homosexuality is not a choice is irrelevant. Can they reproduce? Can they model the reproductive relationship to surrogate offspring? No on both counts. Can gays handle heterosexual relationships? Some can, some cant. I am not their judge, so I would not deny a gay person a marriage license to someone of the opposite sex. Therefore it is up to them to decide, and therefore self inflicted if they decline.

Prop 8 is in effect right now. Marriage between a man and woman stands as is until further notice.

"Can they model the reproductive relationship to surrogate offspring?"

Irrelevant. Homosexual couples who adopt and raise a child will not somehow dissuade their son or daughter from reproducing. Legalizing gay marriage will not have any real effect on the number of children born in this country. You have not explained why this "reproductive relationship" is a logical base upon which to create public policy. Furthermore, idealizing reproduction is misguided. Overpopulated as we are, the last thing necessary today is the glorification of prolific childbirth.

"Can gays handle heterosexual relationships? Some can, some cant."

Because, as you admit, some homosexuals are actually not bisexuals, this constitutional discrimination is not self-inflicted.

Homosexuals who adopt will leave the children at a disadvantage because they lack either the male or the female role model. That is all I am going to say about that.

The reproductive potential of heterosexual relationships is the why society has protected and enshrined them. This needs no further comment since I have beaten it to death in previous posts. You just disagree, and would disagree no matter what I said.

We could solve a lot of our problems if we just stopped reproducing, like global warming, crime, etc. Of course, there would be no one left, but that is irrelevant to you.

It is not discrimination to point out the obvious difference between gay couples and married folks. To say two reproductively viable folks cannot marry each other because one is black and the other white IS discrimination based on racism. And I am proud to say that we have done away with such bias. That is progress. To say two people of the same sex cannot marry because they have no reproductive potential is just common sense. For this reason, African Americans voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. They know what racism and bias is and saw through the smoke screen and chose the right thing.

We are not going to agree. That is clear. Everyone here needs to realize that we who support prop 8 do so for our own compelling reasons.

Just got around to reading this, but thanks, Starshine for being able to actually write coherently (albeit 'snarkily') about this issue. I'm still too seething mad to do anything like that.

Won't bother reading what are undoubtedly some hateful comments by the true bigots (ironically trying to paint progressives as intolerant bigots), but your last point is overwhelmingly true:

History will show Yes on 8 people to be the true "losers." We know it, I'm pretty sure they themselves know it, and everyone else knows it too. It's just a matter of time before you lose, losers. Just a matter of time.

jasonmcd101:

You've posited that marriage is intrinsically linked with reproduction. This is a biblical definition of the word marriage. This is not in any way representative of the civil marriage we are herein discussing. Nothing in the California Family Code says that the ability to have children is a prerequisite for civil marriage. I would suggest that this in and of itself invalidates the argument that marriage is solely for the propagation of our species.

And can you further explain this?

"To say two people of the same sex cannot marry because they have no reproductive potential is just common sense"

It seems plenty of people have no "commen sense", including myself, because this makes NO sense to me. I guess it depends on what you view as the purpose of marriage. Of course, ultimately, it's not what WE deem the purpose of marriage, but rather what the state does -- and as yet I can find nothing implying it is solely for reproductive purposes. People can have kids WITHOUT marriage, can they not? Do they not? Gay people have always had (and will continue to have) relationships whether they can marry or not. Why would we exclude them from the same legal protections as heterosexual couples receive? Is it just the word?

LMAO ironically enough I misspelled common. Yes, I do have the common sense to spell that right. Usually.

"To say two people of the same sex cannot marry because they have no reproductive potential is just common sense."

But they do reproduce. Married or not, gay people have kids. Pretending that they don't accomplishes nothing.

Teenagers who are not married have kids. Pretending that they don't accomplishes nothing. Nothing is being 'protected'. Life will go on. The world will not end, just has it hasn't ended in any of the places that do recognize same sex marriage. At some point in the future, people will look at some kind of chart, listing the year that various jurisditcions recognized same sex marriage, and they may wonder what took California so long.

Afterthough:

How would everyone feel about a proposition that defines marriage as 'a man and a woman who can and intend to have children'. Anyone not pregnant within 5 years is automatically divorced.

I think I might actually be cool with that.. doesn't affect me at all.

jasonmcd101:

"Homosexuals who adopt will leave the children at a disadvantage because they lack either the male or the female role model. That is all I am going to say about that."

Convenient, because refusing to explain why a male and female role are essential to the development of a child makes your argument much easier to maintain. Until you can prove conclusively, without a shred of doubt, that a male/female family structure has significant benefits in the growth of a child, banning homosexual marriage (and adoption) has no logic behind it. And if you can prove that claim, you'll have to ban single mother- and fatherhood.

"The reproductive potential of heterosexual relationships is the why society has protected and enshrined them. This needs no further comment since I have beaten it to death in previous posts."

Despite beating this point to death, you maintain that infertile and elderly couples should also have the option of being enshrined in marriage, voiding your entire argument.

While I will not refute that religious marriage is often centered around reproduction and the proliferation of mankind, civil marriage is nothing more than a legal institution designed to promote long-term, socially stabilizing relationships.

The fact that there are two kinds of marriage and the resulting confusion seems to be one of the primary forces behind Prop 8. I, personally, would wholeheartedly support the abolishment of marriage as a civil institution, and the enhancement of civil unions to cover all couples with the full rights of civil marriage.

One more point, jasonmcd101:

"We could solve a lot of our problems if we just stopped reproducing, like global warming, crime, etc. Of course, there would be no one left, but that is irrelevant to you."

Do you really think I'm advocating the end of the human race? I never stated that we should stop reproducing altogether (although I've read an interesting argument in favor of it), but that we should be looking at ways to control our species. As it stands, it is unlikely that there are sufficient resources on the planet to sustain what is very nearly 7 billion people. If, through limiting reproduction, we can slow or reverse that growth, Earth will be a much better place for our children and their children, and for all future generations.

@typo

You are now my personal hero.

jasonmcd101, you have posted some 10 responses on various 8 related chats here all focused on a single issue, the ability to procreate a being with genetic ties to both parents. My friend, modern science has caught up with you in some regards, as people are able to utilize donor egg or sperm from family members providing the DNA match you require, and we are merely scientific seconds away from being able to pull sufficient information from one's own DNA to allow at least 2 women of the same sex to reproduce and 2 men to be able to pass there gene's on to their offspring. What shall you say then? Are you all of a sudden going to raise that bar? Wait, wait, let's hear it, tell us all that babies from artificial insemination or other scientifically assisted methods don't count. What a silly, silly basis for an argument for straight only marriage in modern society. Have you no idea how many of the straight union babies out there exist only because of modern medicine?

pelufo:

Thank you. I was thinking about how to make a similar point, but your argument is excellent.

And of course, thank you to equus_posteriori as well.

"I know people with college educations voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 8."

But don't you know? All college professors are crazy, radical liberals, brainwashing all college students everywhere.

It has nothing to do with the fact that more intelligent, "thinkier" people tend to lean to the left. It's not that the left is more logical at all.

Rather, all college professors are brainwashed liberals, too, with agendas to change the world to a place where all people have equal rights.

How horrible. Keep your children away from college! God forbid they use logic and find it doesn't fit so well with religion.

Well spoken, Starshine.

"But don't you know? All college professors are crazy, radical liberals, brainwashing all college students everywhere." -critterchels-

Let's put this issue aside and look at other issues. In that context, isn't it true that college professors are as *biased* to the left as radio talk show hosts are biased to the right? From the little experience I've had in dealing with folks from the academic world, I have found this to be true, hence the perception by others that there *is* an overall bias in other areas of thought as well.

The best approach is for people to admit their biases--be they to the left or right-- and take the dialogue from there.

jasonmcd sez: "Homosexuals who adopt will leave the children at a disadvantage because they lack either the male or the female role model. That is all I am going to say about that."

I'm a straight married parent, and we know a couple of families of same-sex parents who have adopted or "test tube" kids. Parenting's a challenge no matter what the circumstances, and any kid is lucky to have two (or more) people who care about him or her. From what these parents have told me, providing role models of the "missing" sex outside their family is something they make a point to do. Subtract that, and our experiences as parents are far, far more similar than they are different.

And their kids are great. And, not too surprisingly, far more tolerant than the average kid when it comes to dealing with people who are "different".

Get outside your circle, get to know some gay families, Jason. You may find your prejudices disappear faster than you can believe.

billclausen, it's like Stephen Colbert says -- "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

I don't know who Stephen Colbert is, but as long as he speaks ex cathedra, then I'll go along with it.

I am going to repeat a phrase I said earlier: Dont be so open minded that your brain falls out. Forgive me for saying that I think most of your brains are on the floor. If you cannot see that marriage is a heterosexual union whose primary purpose is to populate society, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree. There are exceptions that you have raised (infertile couples, etc) but those are just that; exceptions. The common denominator in reproduction is that it is heterosexual in nature between two people who are of age. Therefore, the law mandates only this common denominator and leaves other things unsaid.

What is the purpose of sex biologically speaking? What function does it serve? Is it not primarily reproduction? True it serves other roles, but those are secondary. When the law gives recognition to a heterosexual couple I believe that it is implied they will mate. In fact, if mating never occurs, that marriage can be stricken off the records as invalid (the consumation laws mentioned earlier). Marriage as an institution developed as a means to stabilize the mating process in society, ALL societies. Every society of note has had marriage traditions, so this is not a "biblical" thing at all. This is simple, universal truth.

Anyways, I am tired of repeating myself to a hostile crowd. You guys can sit around and congratulate yourself on how tolerant and open minded you guys are. Meanwhile the alienated "breeders" are silently dissociating themselves from the sick world you are helping to create. Have a good life everybody. I'm out.

I'm glad you left, jasonmcd101, because your persuasive powers and analogies fell far short of your passion (ex. marriage is necessary for species propagation :: therefore the law mandates marriage :: which tacitly results in kids...huh?) I'm dizzy trying to interpret what you so rankly promote.

Come back when you've got an A game.

"The common denominator in reproduction is that it is heterosexual in nature between two people who are of age."

As pelufo has explained, that is no longer the case, and the modern medicine that is driving this new development is also commonly used in homosexual childbirth.

Sorry to see you leave.

Ok, one last post because it addresses a point asked earlier, and then I am out.

So science, theoretically speaking, can make homosexual reproduction a viable option. I am not even going to estimate the effort in millions of dollars that would take. I can only imagine how expensive such gene therapy would cost. So let me make sure that I am clear, we are willing to spend millions of dollars and years of research to accomplish something that is done for free naturally by hetero couples? Brilliant.

Also, I never said propogation was impossible without marriage. That doesn't need comment nowadays. I simply put forth that it is the best way, the ideal way. I did say that propagation is impossible without heterosexual relations which is stating the obvious truth, fantastic science notwithstanding.

That my arguments are unconvincing to you binky is of no concern to me. My thoughts and sentiments are shared by the majority of Californians who voted for prop 8. My A game is just fine, thank you very much.

"We are willing to spend millions of dollars and years of research to accomplish something that is done for free naturally by hetero couples?" jasonmcd101, your statements once again show you're the one who has been in the closet for a few if not several years. Infertility services are routinely used by men and women, straight and gay, with millions being poured into the economy and research as you suggested. A bad thing? One could argue we'd be better off if people didn't cling to their genes and took on adoptions instead, but I suppose the research that goes into creating babies overlaps into gene research in general.
What's that I hear, .....your train being derailed? See ya :)

I maintain that US civil marriages have nothing to do with childbirth. Even in Russia, where the government actively rewards childbearing mothers, the benefits are not tied to marriage. It has been a long time since civil marriage was officially anything other than government recognition of long-term relationships, and I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.

"I simply put forth that it is the best way, the ideal way."

It is not the government's job to legislate ideals and your perception of what is best.

It's ok, AShaw.... your day in the loser's sun will come... sooner than you think. Everyone knows it.

"what's it to ya?"

To me, a heterosexual who despises proposition 8, it means quite a lot. For me, it's not about some sort of "guilt", it's about equality for all. I believe all people should be given equal chances. I do not think legislation which discriminates based on sexual orientation is valid. To me, that is as arbitrary as picking any other attribute about someone and saying that attribute disqualifies them from something others in society enjoy. As I've said before, it's not the word, but rather equality. If we want to change the word for all from [civil] marriage to something else, that's fine. But if we aren't going to, then I believe we need to afford marriage to couples, regardless of their sexual orientation. Separate but equal is not the same as equal, in my opinion.

I'm a gay person that really doesn't need to have a paper signed to legalize the feelings that I have for another person, which happens to be the same gender.... I DEFINITELY believe that your sexual orientation is not a choice, it came with you from the moment you were conceived and that you realized it when your first sexual behaviors occurred.
In my case, I'm an immigrant that moved to the U.S. from my birth place because I couldn't be openly gay, and it was affecting my health, the fact that I couldn't be myself and feel comfortable creating a life or even a moment with a person that I love not feeling ashamed of it....
Far from "religious or moral values" it comes down to treat us as equal as we are. I can't believe how in almost the end of the first decade of the century XXI we have this kind of discussions... It feels selfish and at the same time bizarre, the fact that someone will feel offended for me to have the same rights as a straight couple.
It's not fair for example, if you live a lifetime or even a life span with someone that you love and the other person dies or even if you decide to split, that you can't have the same partnership benefits.
For me it all comes down to fairne

8, the last gasp of a dying dragon.

AShaw:

"I must ask all of the heteros against prop 8, including Rochelle 'what's it to ya?'."

Proposition 8 is an injustice to millions of loving, normal people who simply want the same thing we all want. To quote Olbermann:

"In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world."

"...demanding everyone adapt to your chosen lifestyle, and force it on others and their children is another."

As has been repeated ad nauseam, the passage of Prop 8 did not affect you. Or your children. I agree that Roshell's piece is shrill at times, but she nails it here:

"You were so worried your kids would learn about gay marriage in school. Now, thanks to your vote, they’ll learn something else: that when they realize they’re gay — and one out of 10 absolutely will — the Golden State will cease to treat them as equal citizens."

As the following article shows, intolerance can run both ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Gr...

The number one and two racial demographic that voted in favor of Proposition 8 was African-American and Latino. Please feel free to call them out and boycott them with your hate. The Mormon and other Churches are such easy targets. Why not go after the African-Americans and Latinos? Afraid?? I think so.

Love, PangZhu

Pang Zhu: What makes you assume no one is making efforts with African Americans as well? Can it only be one or the other?

And is AShaw just completely mentally ill? I know... stop feeding the troll.... But all the whites who came out for African-American civil rights through the decades -- were they just "closet blacks"? Why were they getting so indignant about something that didn't even affect them? Why did any white folks march with MLK? They didn't have a horse in the race.

AShaw and Luis, do you realize that had Luis met an American and moved to the US to be with him, he would be granted NO immigration rights even if they became domestic partners, while a straight American could marry whomever they please from wherever they please and that person would be granted residency and eventually citizenship by virtue of their marriage. Redefining a word? No, equal civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibeltemple...

billclausen:

So Sweden doesn't have as strong protections of free speech. What's your point?

Before 1967, interracial marriages were illegal, and considered "against God" by many churches, but the issue was never put on a ballot for the general public to determine if they thought interracial couples deserved that right. As a matter of fact, the high court determined "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. ... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state."

So when did it become acceptable to allow the general public to vote on whether or not someone is entitled to civil rights?

When are the rights of Catholics (or Christians, or Mormons, or any other group) going to be put on a ballot for us all to vote on whether they deserve them or not? If any other group in this country had their rights called into question, there would be a national outcry. The whole thing is disgusting to me that people have nothing better or more productive to do with their time and money than to try to deny rights of others. It doesn't take anything away from anyone else's rights for others to have them, too. I am straight, the members of my family are straight, I have nothing to gain or lose in this battle except my faith in the decency of the people in this country. When will we live up to the "All men are created equal" that we pretend to hold so dear in this country?

"billclausen:
So Sweden doesn't have as strong protections of free speech. What's your point?" -typo-

My point being that a society can get so caught up in the idea of protecting people that in so doing it can end up becoming oppressive.
Sometimes the oppressed become oppressors themselves. A good example of this is the Khmer Rouge nighmare.

Perfect article! Thank you, Starshine!

billclausen:

Obviously, people have been angry and irrational. They have had rights taken away from themselves or people they know, and want someone to blame. But this is not in any way comparable to government censorship or mass murder.

"Obviously, people have been angry and irrational. They have had rights taken away from themselves or people they know, and want someone to blame. But this is not in any way comparable to government censorship or mass murder."

But throwing people in prison for expressing their non-violent opinions is a good start.

Who in the US is being thrown in prison?

"Who in the US is being thrown in prison?"
OK, I'll explain the whole thing. The two links I posted were about how in the name of justice, people can get so wrapped up in it that they end up becoming oppressors. In Sweden, they have already thrown two men in jail for preaching against homosexuality. It is worth noting that neither of these men in any way were advocating action being taken against homosexuals, but expressing their opinions against homosexuality itself.

Sweden is held up by many as being the model for progressive thought. In the U.S., we now have "hate crimes" which say that if someone is of a certain identity group and a crime is committed against them, the intent of the perpetrator is a mitigating circumstance. Now we talk about "hate speech". I'm wondering how long it will be before the self-styled "progressives" in THIS country decide that since the Bible preaches against certain sexual behaviors that we must outlaw it as "hate speech" because these people feel that teaching it will cause people to hate those people whose behavior is against scripture.

If someone wants to cut loose with an obscenity-laced tirade against the Bible/Christianity/Christians, I defend their right to do so. I also believe that people should have the right to say that according to their understanding, they believe homosexuality is not a healthy way to live. Having seen what is happening in what is supposed to be the most enlightened society in the world, and connecting the dots between things that are happening in the U.S., I am taking the unpopular stance of saying that I'm concerned that this issue will go the way of Sweden.

That having been said, I agree with the few bloggers who point out that it is hypocritical that people who get divorced and remarried--a practiced condemned in the Bible as adultery--can get all the same marriage benefits as once-married people.

Billclausen,

The trouble with your argument here is not so much that it's entirely out of the scope of this issue, but that religious thought doesn't actually belong (legally or ethically) in any debate about citizen's rights.

The bible, and however a person chooses to interpret it or incorporate it's doctrines into their daily life-while certainly their choice as an invidual-has nothing to do with governing the country.

Therefore, the bible, or opinions about "homosexual lifestyle" being healthy or not...well, they simply don't really matter.

The law isn't based on the bible, and in fact is based on the fact that no one religion governs this country.

I'm all for opinion, individuated religous beliefs, what have you....but, I'm saying that none of those beliefs have ANY sort of validity when taken out of context of the indivual's life who is having those thoughts. Express away, but it's simply an opinion and not a "fact" that civil rights should be based upon.

I understand your point, and I agree that our free speech must be protected from those on the right and left who would seek to weaken it, but the slippery slope you're seeing hasn't seemed to have appeared. Preaching or expressing one's opinion against a certain person or group is not the same as hate speech, and I can't imagine anyone going to jail for declaring that their God thinks that homosexuality is a sin.

The key point here is the differences in our Constitutions. For example, this excerpt from Article 4, Chapter 7 of the Swedish Constitution, regarding "offenses against the freedom of the press":

"11. agitation against a population group, whereby a person threatens or expresses contempt for a population group or other such group with allusion to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religious faith or sexual orientation;"
(http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page...)

The phrase "expresses contempt" would, I imagine, make it very easy to prosecute someone for saying something which would be Constitutionally protected speech here in the US.

My post is in response to billclausen, not Native1. I didn't make that clear.

My post isn't about religion, or our current constitution, it's about human nature and how people react to injustice. Human history shows a tendency to see the "swinging of the pendulum" and what I'm saying is that if it can happen in Sweden, it can happen here.

In summary: In Sweden if you express certain opinions, you go to jail. The source of this is people who think they are protecting people from extremist thought. I know perfectly well that no one has been thrown in jail in *this* country for expressing their interpretation of the Bible, (of course if someone is practicing polygamy or breaking some other existing law, than that's a different story) but I'm saying that one can go down the slippery slope of "hate speech" and say "The Bible creates an atmosphere of intolerance so let's outlaw it's preaching" and of course as we know, laws are enforced with the butt of a rifle.

I think my point is clear; you can do with it what you want but I'm simply raising the point to make people think about the dangers of well-meaning people and what they will do to usher in a Utopian society.

If you didn't read the links I posted, please read them. Anyway, I think I've expressed my point, and if I've been unclear, let me know.

Because gays and lesbians have all the legal everything they could ever need with civil unions, this whole debate isn't about being allowed to be "married" at all. It is about SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE and for some reason they are small-minded enough to think that if they can "legally" "marry" they will be more socially acceptable in a world that prefers marriage between a man and a woman. Hello! You can't legislate acceptance! We still won't like the fact that you are very different from the rest of us. Just because homosexuals can "marry" one another in some of the eastern states and Canada doesn't mean they are socially accepted by those of us who like to call a spade a spade. You can legislate it, you can eventually get your way but you will still be socially unacceptable because, face it, you are so different we don't want to socialize with you. We may have to work with you but we don't have to like you. We may be nice to you but at home we throw up. Because to most normal people it is physically nauseating to even think of kinky sex. (I saw two guys kiss in a car in the mall parking lot once and I actually went home and lost it over the porcelain throne because I was so physically disgusted -- sorry, that's the way I was born -- it was my normal reaction, I didn't "tell" myself to be sick!) And that's what it's all about, really. They want people to know they practice kinky sex in the bedroom and that it's ok, that it is socially acceptable. Fine, do your kinky thing, just don't expect the rest of us to accept it as normal -- because it isn't normal. And that's what you also want -- you want us to think you are normal. You are having the worst tantrum right now, screaming about how you want to be considered socially acceptable and normal. Sorry, you are not normal -- even if you get married, you are not normal. And even if you get married, we don't have to accept you as "one of us" because what you do is not normal. It's funny how we can tell obese people they have to get "normal" and too-thin people that they need to get "normal" and hyper people that they need to become more "normal" -- the list is long -- but for some reason, homosexuals don't need to try and become normal -- just social accepted? I have several educational degrees but I never will understand the logic and rational thinking behind one group demanding social acceptance from the majority who think they are, yes, I'm going to say it, weird. Homosexuals have a definite identity crisis and in trying to deal with that they think if we can legislate social acceptance they will feel better about themselves. Sorry, it doesn't wok that way.

One last comment, to Starshine: By the way, Mormons don't practice polygamy any more -- haven't for 100-plus years -- where have you been, sweetheart -- I thought you were "educated" and "knew your facts" -- you blew it on that one. What school did you graduate from? One that taught only history from the 1800s? Actually it is the Muslim religion that openly and widely and currently practices polygamy -- and they would vote against homosexual acceptance also -- they don't even admit to having homosexuals (the 1 in 10 you claim) in Iran, for example -- I don't see you bashing them and their attitude. There are more Muslims in America than Mormons and I'm sure they helped fund this debate as well -- as did the Catholics and many Jewish groups. And it was the Black and Hispanic vote that put it over the top in favor of true marriage -- not only in California but in Florida and Arizona as well. Just because someone has graduated from college or a university doesn't mean they suddenly accept homosexual marriage. Finishing a "liberal education" does not turn one into a liberal who can suddenly and socially accept homosexual marriage. Are we all little stamped cookies with no minds of our own once we come out of the great "halls of wisdom?" Obviously YOUR bias is showing through on this column. By the way, Mormons don't like to be called Mormons -- just like homosexuals don't like to be called "weird," I guess -- that shows me how many Mormons you actually know. You shouldn't be bashing something -- and people -- you obviously know nothing about.

@sbconservative

"Because gays and lesbians have all the legal everything they could ever need with civil unions, this whole debate isn't about being allowed to be "married" at all. It is about SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE. . . ."

You are completely wrong on that point. Do some more reading in the thread--or perhaps some outside research, and you should realize the difference between a "civil union" and a marriage, and the rights afforded to them.

And, do you seriously believe that Mrs. Rochelle would not know the state of polygamy in modern law? She is positing Mormon (LDS) practices of polygamy as once being considered "traditional", where now it is not--incidentally, I think this was due to the change in it's legal acceptance, prior to any change in the church ideals, but I would need to confirm that. If you read the whole discussion thread, you will also see that you are not the first to misunderstand that.

Church and State are separate.

Religion and Politics are not.

I have an idea, lets put up a ballot measure to change the meaning of the word GAY back to it's original meaning: "Happy and gleeful". I wonder how the gay community will feel about that.

And all you sore people screaming about civil and human rights, you are merely reciting the can lines you've learned from No on 8 web sites and others who are in your boat.

It's not a civil rights issue. It's not a human rights issue. You can't compare it to the struggle of slavery or the holocaust. I mean do people even know what are the issues in front of the court right now?

Does it have anything to do with civil or human rights? No, it has to do with the legality of the amendment to the states constitution. Gays aren't mentioned, marriage isn't mentioned, Mormons aren't mentioned, etc, etc.

It's down to the last gasp legal gambit that hinges on semantics and word play.

Prop 8 will ultimately stand in the California Supreme Court. I hope this sends a clean message to activists judges that, at least in California, the people will no longer sit by and let them "make up" laws from the bench.

*I* have done some more research, and found that comparing "marriage" to "civil union" may be the problem in itself. I was assuming "civil union" to be the same as what California calls "domestic partnership". Evidently, a registered d-p is supposed to afford the same rights that would apply to a spouse. Another confusing bit, is that when d-p laws were expanded to include more 'rights', then there was an outcry that it was illegal, under Prop 22--which of course was overturned in 5/08. Regardless, I think the d-p rights still apply at this point.

Now, this would seem to point the argument back to being a semantic one, just to protect the word "marriage". And, the only argument that I personally could make in favor of that, would simply to be to say that "marriage" denotes a male/female partnership--linguistically--while, same-sex joinings might be called a "garriage" or something like that (better than "civil union" or "domestic partnership", but still not that good. . . .). However, I BELIEVE that it simply makes more sense to call a married couple, "married", regardless of the genitalia involved.

@bronc

Yes, there is a lot of semantic argument, and yes, there is often more word-play involved legislation than "topical" legislation, but I think you couldn't be more wrong--the argument IS about rights. You appear to be confusing "The Issue", with the "issue at hand". The question of whether Prop 8 was legally brought forth, is a tactic being used to re-open the bigger issue, by invalidating the raison d'être of Prop 8 from it's inception.

In California a Domestic Partnership affords you all the rights and responsibilities as a hetero married couple.

Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't know the law or is trying to pull one over on you.

Gays don't care about the "rights" associated with marriage, they want the perceived respect and dignity that goes along with the institution of marriage. The respect and dignity that hetero couples get - because the institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years and has garnered it.

That's the 500lbs Gorilla in the room no one wants to point out. Rather then addressing the respect and dignity issue, we would rather spend $70 million fighting over the definition of a word that the majority of Californians don't want to change.

Even the judges on the state Supreme Court that turned over Prop 22 agreed to that fact, and stated so in their decision.

How did African-Americans, Latinos and other minority groups get that respect and dignity they deserved? Education.

No law is going to govern how people THINK or form their personal opinions. The government is NOT the thought police.

No one wants to be FORCED to have to do something.

And, do you seriously believe that Mrs. Rochelle would not know the state of polygamy in modern law? She is positing Mormon (LDS) practices of polygamy as once being considered "traditional", where now it is not--" -equus_posteriori-

That having been said, it was the Bible itself used as the argument against the practice of polygamy wheras in this thread it's the Bible itself that is under attack so the argument is inconsistent.

Someone may have already pointed this out, as I skipped a bit, but my husband just said, "Actually, if you went back to the straight island after 100 years, a portion of them at least would have left and headed over to the other island!" Maybe that's what Prop 8 supporters are most fearing. And Pangzhu, you keep saying they have a right to marry the opposite sex, just not their own, as if that should be satisfactory. There was a time people said,"Hey they have a right to marry other black people, just not any other race. What's the problem?" Saying it once is opinion, that's fine. Saying it post after post is just begging for a smack in the ass on EITHER island.

He then lying on Jesus' breast said to him, Lord, who is it?

Hmmmmm.

bronc:
"...they want the perceived respect and dignity that goes along with the institution of marriage ... That's the 500lbs Gorilla in the room no one wants to point out."

It just so happens that I have pointed this out. Allowing homosexuals access only to civil unions, which lack the respect and dignity that you see in marriage, is what makes this separation unequal, and therefore unconstitutional.

billclausen:
I do understand your point, and the sentiment that could lead to restrictions on free speech in the name of social good, but I do not believe that such forces will muster the strength necessary to pose any real threat.

"billclausen:
I do understand your point, and the sentiment that could lead to restrictions on free speech in the name of social good, but I do not believe that such forces will muster the strength necessary to pose any real threat."

I hope that if it ever does, I'm not around when it happens.

@typo

"Allowing homosexuals access only to civil unions, which lack the respect and dignity that you see in marriage, is what makes this separation unequal, and therefore unconstitutional."

But with access to a Domestic Partnership, which appears to afford spousal-like rights to same-sex couples, it would seem that the idea of a "civil union" becomes something of a dead-end. Although, the difference would appear to be in the presentation and the ceremony. That is, the D-P is something a couple *registers* for, but the civil union is the ceremony which carries the trappings of a marriage--standing before a 3rd party/witness to the joining, exchange of rings, etc.

All that being said, I think that the idea of, if you will excuse the math notation, [Domestic Partnership + civil union = (same "rights" as marriage)], is still an inequality--Why should homosexual couples be required to jump through two hoops, when hetero couples only need one?

NOTE: I don't beleive that this invalidates your argument, about a civil union being unconstitutional, because it does not equal a marriage (when it is being paraded about that it does).

loveforall-

1. you write "I have yet to discuss the issue with a single "No on 8" supporter, who did not resort to name calling."

I am a no on 8 supporter who does not resort to name calling. It is never conducive to a discussion to paint everyone of a certain view with the same brushstroke. It is as unproductive as name calling.

2. you write "The bible is clear about homosexuality."

What the bible does or does not say (depending on which translation you have- there are numerous) has no relevance to this discussion. As citizens of this country, we are not required to follow what is written in the bible. The foundation of our country are in direct opposition to that kind of religious requirement.

3. you write "Same sex attraction is certainly present in humans in a very small percentage of the population. Acting on that attraction is a choice."

Although I disagree with your opinion that homosexuality is a choice, it is irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that we all deserve to choose who to marry & deserve the same legal support regardless of who we chose.

4. you write "Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd all voted for it and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”). It contained language identical to PROP. 8."

I disagree with them on this & other issues. On this issue they are clearly behind the times (the younger generation is far more progressive as a whole). This movement to provide equal rights for people regardless of their sexual preference, is this generation's civil rights movement.

5. you write "The majority of people in California and indeed the folks in 44 other states who have laws and constitutional amendments identical to Prop. 8 obviously feel the same way. The election is over. It passed."

The election is over but the movement for equal rights is not. Speaking of the election- what a difference 4 years can make as we've just witnessed.

Jason wrote "When the law gives recognition to a heterosexual couple I believe that it is implied they will mate. In fact, if mating never occurs, that marriage can be stricken off the records as invalid (the consumation laws mentioned earlier). "

This logic eludes me. My spouse & I married knowing that we could not have children. Does that invalidate our marriage? Although we both have children from former marriages, our decision to marry had nothing whatsoever to do with propagation.

Furthermore, the notion that modern marriage is centered around propogation of the species has become an outdated concept in our nonagriculturally based society.

In fact, because of overpopulation & shrinking natural resources, species propogation is not neccessarily considered a 100% positive thing these days.

i am against any ban that takes away rights from a person based on sexual orientation. that is plain discrimination, no other way around it. who cares if their lifestyle doesnt agree with your own, what country are we in, again? however, this is my issue: i have a problem when it involves children. i should specify. i do not have a problem with a gay person, or a gay couple for that matter, adopting, parenting, or raising a child. who is anyone to make such an assumption that sexual orientation has absolutely anything to do with a person's parenting skills? its almost comical to me when i hear such insinuations. sexual orientation cannot and does not define an ability to be a good parent. i do, however, have a problem with any theory or law that suggests a child does not absolutely need and DESERVE both a mother and a father in their life. this could sound contradicting. ill try again. i dont have a problem with a gay couple getting married, i think it is absolutely their right. what holds me back, or i should say, what makes me question where i stand on the issue is what i dont know about standards for adopting children. if u are a MARRIED couple, gay or straight, u are automatically given a higher probability of being granted permission to adopt children, compared to a single parent, right? (correct me if im wrong, im here to learn) i am realistic in my thinking that it is probably close to impossible to even fathom a law being passed that would preserve the necessity of both a mom and a dad in a child's upbringing. so to be perfectly honest, i am somewhat unsure on where i stand as far as my vote would go. when it comes to anything OTHER than children (adoption or surrogacy alike) there is nothing that has convinced me that gay people should not be granted the same rights as straight people to marry who they love. if we somehow could revise or redefine adoption pre-requisites to include the biological mother or father of the child (whoever is not a part of the same-sex marriage) as a parent, this would make sense to me. adopted orphans who have neither biological parent in the picture would be an obvious exception. but this has really been eating at me, and to this day, i dont know exactly where my opinions put me in the ongoing debate. does anyone have any information regarding this or constructive criticism to offer? i would love to hear other's opinions of my own...

moose,

children deserve more than just a physical mom & a dad, they deserve loving, emotionally & mentally healthy parents with good parenting skills & the resources to assure their children are healthy & loved

unfortunately there are no requirements of any kind made for heterosexual couples to have children so why should there be requirements of any kind for same sex parents?

there are no conditions put on heterosexual couples who have children- either one can desert their child or abuse their child

there are no guarantees & it is an imperfect world

I do believe it would be wise for same sex couples (& for any single parent) to seek the involvement of someone who can serve as sort of a surrogate parent of the opposite sex, maybe a friend or family member

this is an interesting subject since we just elected a man for president who is as even tempered and intelligent as we've seen in a very long time & who was raised without a father present

i am greatly offended by this article you obviously dont think outside of the box your just filled with anger and rage. think about it you say its discrimination for saying gays cant have a marriage what about people marrying their family? or people marrying animals? or people marrying young children? or having 10 spouses?? who is anyone to say they cant its all discrimination isnt it?? exactly! so if you can change what the deffinition of mariage is you better change it for everything because it is all discrimination!! this article of yours just makes every no on 8 supporter look bad you should try using love not hate.

So much rhetoric after the fact. Many people were confused by the proposition itself. To many "no" meant "yes" and "yes" meant "no". I truly believe that many who voted "yes" meant , let's leave it as is. Live and let live. Smart people know that how two same sex individuals conduct their own lives, does not interfere with how another lives his.

This is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. There are basic civil and human rights that we must all uphold, regardless of our prejudices or religious brainwahing.

I remember two old gentlemen in my neighborhood who were quiet and kept to themselves, but every weekend worked together in the yard. They both worked each day , came home and tidied their work trucks, brought in the mail, did their daily home chores--just just like "regular folks" After 40 years, one of them died. They owned the home together, but not married. The remaining heartbroken partner was forced to sell and downsize to a trailer in Ojai. The family of the deceased partner wanted THEIR SHARE of the Goleta property in which the couple had happily shared their life. Had the family supported their happiness? Were they around to nurse the dying man? There were no rights to protect the bereaved man. Unjust, Unfair?YES.

They never demanded anything from society-just lived a quiet life. They shared love and life and were content.

How many of us with our opinions on how others should live and what they should do are content?

I am a heterosexual woman,72 ,divorced and remarried, baptized and educated Catholic, and I voted No on 8.

I feel that the Church and the State and the voters should stay out of our bedrooms.

This injustice to roughly 10 percent of our population must be rectified.

ilovemymoose:

Needless to say, being raised by a same-sex couple will have a different effect on a child's development than being raised by a heterosexual couple, but I wouldn't presume to claim that the latter is "absolutely" better. It's very hard to accurately determine such claims. The bottom line is, family structures are not all going to be modeled after the traditional nuclear family, and if single parents can successfully raise children, I see no reason to hesitate in giving that right to same-sex couples. Any family willing to take a young boy or girl into their home would surely provide a healthier environment than an adoption center, anyway.

@ilovemymoose

From your examples, it seems that you are looking at adoption options for families as being better-to-worse, with a hetero COUPLE as optimal, a gay COUPLE being less than optimal, and then a SINGLE person as the least desirable.

As typo has posted, it would be hard to agree on just what makes this quantification possible. Would a hetero-couple who are both social drinkers be better or worse, than a tea-totaling same-sex couple? Should a couple of low economic status be given preference over a single parent in a higher tax bracket? And these are just "measurable" examples, and don't begin to touch the realm of what really makes good parents (or single parent).

So, I am in agreement with what typo has essentially said, that pretty much any parenting is better than none.

If STARSUNSHINE were smarter, would she be kinder?

That was awesome; you managed to insult the entire Hispanic, African American population and anyone who did not receive an education as fine as yours in one article. Intolerant? Who's intolerant? Hateful? Who's hateful? I've read more hate from No on 8 people than vice verse. This is the first and last time I will read your column.

You must be so proud of this article. Did your parents read this article? Did you copy this to your English college professor? Better yet, you must save this one for your children to read, they will be so proud of your hate and insults. Mommy, my favorite article was your opinion on Proposition 8- it was so kind and loving. I want to grow up and voice my opinion just like you.

amsotelo:

I believe Starshine actually teaches writing at a local college; I think she gave herself an "A."

typo and equus--
I sincerely appreciate your responses. I am very interested in learning as much as I can about this. I do agree that any parenting is better than none. I also agree that, yes, there are countless hetero-couples who don't deserve to raise children over a same-sex couple who prove to be better parents. With all due respect, however, I don't believe this to be part of the argument at hand. There will always be people who may not necessarily 'deserve' a right based on actions &/or decisions they choose to make. But this is America, and there's no way around that. It is unfortunate but also unfortunately inevitable in the free country we live in. It is my opinion though, that when laws are being considered regarding something as important as the upbringing of our children-our next generation-every effort should be made to accomodate the absolute best interests of those children. I'm starting to think that my theory may sound good on paper, but also is virtually impossible to implement. Because, like I said, I cannot say that I would favor leaving children in foster homes and orphanages over going home with two loving parents who may just happen to be of the same sex. I guess then my only disagreement is when a same-sex couple decides to have a child through surrogacy, and by the parents' choice, that child only ever has contact with the two same-sex parents. Because I do stand strong on my opinion that a child needs and deserves both a mother and a father. Mothers cannot father, and fathers cannot mother. This is fact. Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference. It has been proven. This is my only argument, I guess. Adoption aside (since parents are not in the picture at all anymore), I personally think that choosing for a child to be without one or the other biological parent is depriving that child of significant elements of development and growth. Like I said before, I also would have no problem with a same-sex couple raising a child while keeping in close contact with the other biological parent, and that parent playing at least somewhat of a role in that child's life. I know this probably sounds all over the place. I'm not sure where my opinions put me, as far as whether I should vote for or against gay marriage, any thoughts? In my gut, I truly believe that I am more in favor of it, but it is only this one part of it that I have a hard time agreeing with. Any thoughts or insights would be apprecitated:)

@ilovemymoose (PART 1)

". . .there are countless hetero-couples who don't deserve to raise children over a same-sex couple who prove to be better parents. With all due respect, however, I don't believe this to be part of the argument at hand."

ILMM, I provided arguments that sought to quantify hard reasoning, as to why a couple *might* be better to let adopt a child. You're trying to bring "deserve" into the argument, which I would agree is not relevant. It still stands, that what is better for a child is not necessarily what it appears on the surface. Also, you appear to be confusing the right to marry and adoption rights. Of course, I believe they are both rights which would naturally fall together, but so far they cannot be guaranteed as inseparable.

As for the psychology angle and upbringing, it's really pointless to consider. Although, I would agree that there are certain things that might be best taught from a male adult to a boy, and a female adult to a girl, there's no way to prove it. Besides, for the most part, I think much of this "special knowledge" goes untaught, and gets learned regardless. Think about it, do kids learn more about sex from their parents, or television? Does a girl need to learn about menstration from her mother, an aunt, a female friend, a school "health" class, or is it okay if her father is honest and not embarrassed to do so? Does a child learn how to emotionally deal with the opposite sex from their parents, and what if their parent is emotionally blocked themself? As for all the non-sexual (meaning male/female, and not relating to intercourse or procreation) issues, does it matter who teaches a child to cook, to clean, to drive, to fight, to make peace, or to love?

(cont'd)

@ilovemymoose (PART 2)

When it comes down to it, the "fitness" of a couple to provide and care for children is NOT tied to their primary sexual characteristics. But if you still think state-approved, same-sex marriage is a domino on the way to gay adoption, then you certainly have the ability (I wouldn't call it a 'right') to campaign against it. However, until you are ready to force couple to stay together "for the children's sake", then you can't think that disallowing gay couples to adopt is wrong. (BTW, the staying together for the children thing USED to be the norm, but it led to many unhappy couples, and I would imagine some unstable children. Think about it, would it be best to have a hetero couple as parents, if one were an alcoholic, or a physical or emotional abuser? What about both?

Also, have you ever considered that the idea that a male/female parentage is "best", is a romantic notion, but not really measurable? And, even if you could, you would probably see that, given ANY parenting permutation (male/female, male-all, female-all, separated, divorced, single, abusive, or non-existent), there would still be a bell curve, with children falling into the 'average' for whatever result you are looking for: human relations (general and sexual), education, economic strata, etc.).

Lastly, ilovemymoose, ask any parent around you, and they will say the same thing when it comes to their kids, that they "did the best they could". In this regard, is a hetero couple able to truly do any better than a same-sex couple?

equus-
i agree that i used the wrong word, when i used the word, 'deserve'. i simply meant one couple being more fit to be parents over another. and the reason i brought adoption rights into the argument about gay marriage is because adoption is easier with a married couple versus an un-married couple or single parent, is it not? i have thought about this more and more since i began posting here, and i have come to the conclusion that, while i may have my own opinions on it, i do not represent america as a whole. i always try to put that into perspective when it comes to politics and the policies we choose to run our nation. nobody should assume that their way, which may be right for them, is automatically the one and only right way for america and i think that is one of the biggest problems among americans in politics today. they do not think about america as a whole, they think about themselves. i can keep my opinion that every child needs and deserves a mother and a father, (& however that would make me vote on gay marriage) however, as times have changed and different circumstances have arisen in recent years, i cannot assume my opinion to be fact. if there ever has been a same-sex couple who has raised a child 'successfully' (so to speak), then that blows my theory completely. and there have been. i may still think that in most cases, a mother and a father should be present, but i cannot assume this to be of EVERY couple who wants to raise children. so then there is no way to determine who is better fit.... (continued)

(continued)
...so, i have decided that i do not have the right to deny a same-sex couple a child, even if i do not believe it to be in that child's best interest. i am one person, and, in america, no one person should ever be allowed to deny another person the same rights that they have (no matter the reason) based on sexual orientation. when it is completely broken down, it is discrimination. everyone can think what they want and believe what they want, but at the same time, everyone should be granted the same rights as an american. just because i dont agree with it does not mean i should be able to play God, in a sense, and be able to pass a law that follows my personal opinion. i dont agree with so-called Christians who say that this means i am not a Christian, because i am condoning something that should be condemned. i dont understand how some people cannot see that it IS possible to be a good Christian and also a good American. you do live here too, you know. that really bothers me. for the greater good of america and what it stands for, i dont think i can, in good conscience, deny anyone the right to marry &/or raise children, based on something i, personally, happen to not understand or agree with. there is a reason why religion and politics remain independent of each other. opinions are one thing, but american rights are another. we HAVE to learn to co-exist among our differences. because america is made up of nothing BUT differences. and that is what makes her so amazing. if someone doesnt like it, find another country to live in, right? america is and always has been about liberty & justice FOR ALL. ive realized that that's really all it comes down to.

AShaw:

"Children will imitate their behavior, presuming it to be normal and correct."

Such as being tolerant and open-minded? I think we've established that having gay parents will not make a child gay. If you have any newfound evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

@ilovemymoose

I'm impressed. Not because you have taken a view that I could easily agree with, but that you have posted so sincerely the reasoning by which you came to that conclusion. I also find it heartening, that you looked into a deeper place in not only the basic discussion, but uncovered the broader idea of what tolerance really means.

Now, by saying that I do not intend to appear elitist, as I think anyone who reads your few posts should be, at minimum, impressed with your original desire to resolve your own personal conflict, and did not just pick a side to agree with, but seemed to have weighed the arguments again, more than just the surface ones), and found your own path.

I find this to be a good reason to post to these maddeningly, all too often "going nowhere" threads.

Peace.

AShaw:

I have never attacked Christians or Mormons for their religious beliefs. Others may have, but I do not speak for them. Stop making baseless insults towards anyone who disagrees with you and try to engage in civil discourse.

"Catholics or Mormons", I meant to write. But my statement applies to all Christians.

well-diffused, typo:)

thanks for the discussion, equus:) i appreciate it. peace back 'atcha.

"Dimwitted bigot eh?"

Yes, very much so.

"Hmmmn. Rich's response did not address my conclusions at all"

Liar.

"and if that is the best you can come up with, then I just rest my case."

Good -- then you can shut up.

The opposition to gay marriage is and will remain EVIL, and none of the arguments given here by supporters of Prop 8 changes that. What will change is that, as with sexism and racism, the newer generations reject this evil; over 60% of those under 25 voted against Prop 8, and the bigotry against gays will eventually fade away.

Oh Jeezus! This argument will never be settled when you are dealing with such blind followers who pick and choose what they want to believe (enforce - choose to make laws about) and what they don't from the book they base their lives on - and seem to now be able to force down others.

These bozo know it alls who claim gays with civil unions have the same rights as those who are married full of crap. Do a little research - you will find they are very wrong.

If I - as a married straight woman - am given FEDERAL benefits because I have a "marriage" blessed by the government - so too should any committed gay couple who choose to marry.

I did not marry to procreate. Besides the fact that I love my husband, the main reason we got married was to share benefits that were not available any other way. We in no way needed this stupid piece of paper called a marriage license to confirm our commitment to each other, nor did it have anything to do with any sort of religious commitment. It gives us benefits. Plain and simple. Benefits benefits benefits....

Inheritances are FULLY taxed federally to those with civil unions - not so for those lucky enough to qualify for a marriage. My husband can inherit it all without being taxed by the feds...Not so for my gay friends.

Federal taxes must be filed separately for those with civil unions - not so if you have a marriage license. We have the choice of filing jointly OR separately - whichever way benefits us the most. Not an option if you are gay.

Social Security, retirements and veteran benefit payments are provided to married couples upon the death of a spouse - - not so with civil unions - they get nothing.

Any rights that are guaranteed in states that offer civil unions are not recognized outside of that particular state (except New York). Get in an accident in Utah, and those with civil unions forfeit their rights to "blood" relatives - who may or may not be accepting of their relationships. (How would you like your in-laws leaving you out of decisions regarding your spouse?)

These are just a few of the benefits they don't get with civil unions.

Hope you religious preachers aren't eating shrimp or other non-finned crustaceans! Don't wear linen or cotton together either...Let's take your rights away for committing such blasphemy...sounds ridiculous huh? It's in your Bible...right in the same chapter calling homosexuality the same thing...BLASPHEMY...It's OK for you to sin and eat what you want, wear what you want...but don't outlaw it. That might violate someone's rights...

Our state OR our COUNTRY have no right to make laws that prohibit one group of American citizens from receiving benefits offered to another group of American citizens. REGARDLESS if it's the vote of the people. The people in some southern states might still vote to make it illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. Is that the right thing to do even if the majority thinks so?

No on Prop H8TE forever.

Gotta Love this:

Prop 8 the Musical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5-fZKg4U...

Ms. Roshell,
I came upon your column concerning the passing of Prop 8 yesterday (1/21). Better late than never I guess but I've been appalled about the entire situation ever since a bunch of bigots made the decision to try & pass it. This right after thousands took the law as it was and married. With the passsing of Prop 8 I am ashamed that this country continues to have so many hateful bigots. I am a straight woman who has married 3 times and each one was a disaster. If only I could have a portion of what my brother and his soulmate share, as well as many of my other gay friends, my life would be fulfilled. Marriage is a santified union and should be available to ANYONE wanting and able to make that commitment. That's all the gays want; to be able to love, have that legal, emotional commitment and have the same rights as the rest of us. You that voted for Prop 8 should be ashamed of yourselves for the bigotry and ignorance you harbor. I might add that I am a Christian and the God that I know is not a bigot and gays are HIS children too. He loves each and every one of them just the same that HE loves me! Thank you Starshine for your column; I wish I could've said it as well.