Prop 8: Are you yes or no on banning same-sex marriage?

Home » Opinion » Reader Forum

Friday, August 29, 2008

Comment

By DAN ROSS
Register Online Staff

Poll: Voters oppose same-sex marraige ban

Full Text of Proposition 8

Reader Forum

Proposition 8, the "Limit on Marriage, Constitutional Amendment," on the November ballot, calls for an amendment to the state constitution, declaring that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Do you support this proposition, or do you oppose it?

(Note: napavalleyregister.com is going to offer reader forums on all state propositions on the November ballot in the coming weeks. Look for these any many more election-based forums leading up to election day.)

346 comment(s)

a teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:26 PM:

" NO! Who cares if homosexuals want to marry. It's not the gov't business.

It's also unwise to make it so easy to amend the constitution. "

Raven wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:29 PM:

" most definitely against it...as i would be against anything that seeks to take rights away from anyone. "

steph wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:31 PM:

" PPPT!

NO!

MIND YOUR BUSINESS!

Help a child or a veteran if you have so much time and concern on your hands! "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:48 PM:

" NO! "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:50 PM:

" Contrary to how many here may believe Id vote, I will actually vote no on this.
The reason is, they are trying to make this a State Constitutional Amendment. These become very difficult to 'undo' and this issue doesnt warrent such a 'written in stone' solution.
We do, however, need to take a hard look at where we continue to move that line of acceptable moral behaviour in our society.
I do believe gays deserve the right persue happyness. I just disagree that sepparate but equal isnt a solution in this case. Legal unions are/were the solution.
But hey, thats just my $.02 "

antipc wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:31 PM:

" YES!!!

It's time to remind liberal activists judges that it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:57 PM:

" "It's time to remind liberal activists judges that it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. "

Unless you happen to agree with their decision, in which case they are upholding the constitution... "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:03 PM:

" I do not like the idea that such a small group can thousands of years of history and overnight change it. If no one noticed, when the CA Supreme court changed the ruling on Prop. 22, they did some damge to civil unions as well.

I would much rather they call it civil union. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:02 PM:

" I will vote yes. I believe that the recent California Supreme Court decision was based more on being 'politically correct' than on any solid legal foundation. Gay civil unions, yes; gay marriage, no. Marriage belongs to a man and a woman. "

kevin wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:16 PM:

" The voters of California ALREADY made their intentions clear on this issue, passing Proposition 22 by a large margin. I would vote YES on Proposition 8 for no other reason than to send a signal to activist Judges to STOP re-writing the laws! "

NapaSnapper wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Let'em get what they want. Then they would enjoy the problems normal people enjoy....divorce,alimony and child support. My mom always said...be careful what you ask for,you might get it!! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:58 PM:

" YES on measure 8!

The institution of marriage should be protected, and should remain exclusively between a man and a woman.

I, too, am disgusted with judicial activism in our courts. "

Raven wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:37 PM:

" so I think there will be a new entry in the next edition of Webster's dictionary: activist judge- one who renders a decision I don't like.

just because the majority votes for something does not make it constitutional, one of the reasons constitutions were set in place to help protect the rights of the minority from a tyranny of the majority "

pharper wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:07 PM:

" "separate but equal."

...Now why does that sound familiar? Of course, I'm sure you don't agree that blacks and whites should still be "separate but equal..." right? It should also be noted that when such a policy was kept in the United States, there was hardly anything "equal" about it.

NO on this discriminatory, homophobic proposition. "

antipc wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Raven,
The judges are trying to rewrite the definition of marriage not the majority.

Teacher,
The constitution mandates the separation of powers. Since the amendment has been adopted by the voters, judges have no right to overturn it. Their job is to interprete the law. "

Raven wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:30 PM:

" So if their job is to interpret the law, why are you upset with the interpretation of May 15?

They didn't rewrite the definition, they merely clarified who had the right to participate, according the to state constitution. If that is amended....a whole new ball game starts. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:43 PM:

" I'm voting NO on Prop. 8. The "institution of marriage" is not protected in any way by preventing homosexuals the right to a legally sanctioned union.

All relationships are ultimately harmed when we focus on condemning others and pandering to our natural tendency for intolerance. I and pretty much everyone I know will vote NO on Prop. 8. Because we all know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that allowing homosexuals to engage in legal commitment is better for society and better for the partners than the alternative -- preventing them, through discrimination, from pursuing happiness honorably. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:50 AM:

" "The constitution mandates the separation of powers. Since the amendment has been adopted by the voters, judges have no right to overturn it. Their job is to interprete the law. "

They did interpret the law. You just don't like their interpretation. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:58 AM:

" I also think it is unwise for the stae's constitution to be amended by a 50%+1 vote. The majority of voters here are liberal. Imagine what we could foist on you conservatives. "

fmmt47 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:34 AM:

" I vote yes. The judiciary has been stealing our votes for years with their perverted and nonsensical rulings. Thomas Jefferson himself felt that the biggest threat to our government would be from the judiciary, not the executive or legislative powers. You can thank the Supreme Court for overturning the Texas sodomy statutes (Brown vs. Texas) using foreign case law as a basis for their decision which sets a dangerous precedent. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:41 AM:

" I can't think of any reason to vote yes so I'll be voting NO "

kevin wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:45 AM:

" ateacher, that's what you Libs have been doing to us for years. That's why California is in such a fiscal crises. That is why California schools are a disaster. That is why unemployment is high, taxes are high and employers are fleeing the state to places that actually want them there and don't treat them like a "cash cow".

How much more punishment can you Libs deal us?? "

Raven wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:16 AM:

" kevin, the judges who made this decision were for the most part republican appointed judges so why not stop whining about the "libs'....and can you explain how Prop 8 has any bearing on the schools, unemployment, taxes and employers leaving the state "

Bauhausfan wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Gays marrying will ruin the institution of marriage.

Why they may get married more than once like those heterosexuals who hold marriage so "sacred". Or they may elope and get married in Reno or Las Vegas. Or they may have a marriage annulment. Or may get a separation and live apart. Or they may have a dysfunctional marriage and have some violence thrown in for good measure.

But they will never be able to have a "real" marriage like us heterosexuals.

Of course I am so frightened by the prospect of gay marriage that I am now starting to question my own marriage.

What is love?

What does it all mean?

Who am I?

Oh, the horror of it all! "

misfit wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:10 PM:

" If the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is so strong and if it is "
Natural" then, NOTHING can "Ruin" it! "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:39 PM:

" I vote no. Let them eat cake! Let everyone who wants to marry, do so.. But they have to deal with all the same issues as strait folks. IE: divorce alimony, custody battles, and domestic violence laws. The benefit's are, health care for both people.. and proving we as a society have risen to the challenge of a new day. Let them eat cake!!!! "

GetReal! wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:50 AM:

" I am voting yes on prop 8. If they want to live their behavior behind closed doors they get no opposition from me. The state declaring, pushing, publishing, enforcing, and educating their relationships to be as normal as marriage between a man and a woman is inappropriate. The state should have stayed out of it, and if they would have we wouldn't be having this vote. "

kbf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Definately Yes. All this equality for homosexuals, now if your child feels he or she is the oposite gender they can go into the bathroom they want. Gov. S, signed that bill not too long ago. What they do behind closed doors is their business just don't push it on stright people. And sorry I don't believe that they are born homosexual. I've seen homosexuals go stright. "

St.Hell.comNative wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:04 PM:

" What's normal? As usual, a bunch of homophobes and "christians" trying to tell everyone to act like them, that's what is normal. NOT! I vote NO and hope that I am invited to the wedding! "

ladaddy wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:07 PM:

" All I know is this: My husband and I have two children who are very happy that we are married, like all their friends' parents. Two months ago I could not call him my husband, nor could our children could not say that their parents were married. But in May our Supreme Court, in its wisdom, changed that. My conservative, Republican Southern parents are thrilled that my children, their grandchildren, now have the same protections that all their other grandchildren have. This morning after church (yes, we go to church; we actually met there, can you believe it?), I spoke on the phone with my 93-year-old aunt who also lives in South Carolina. She was so happy for us. Even she was able to see the truth: marriage strengthens relationships and families. So this November we will be voting NO to protect OUR marriage. "

pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:43 PM:

" kbf-- Remind me again how homosexuals are "pushing" their sexuality on straight people. Perhaps--here's a novel idea--you should actually do some research. First of all, people don't "turn" straight, or get "cured" of homosexuality. It's like being black or white--you can't change it (unless you're Michael Jackson, but that's another story). People can PROFESS to have changed, but either they're only pretending to save face, or they weren't gay in the first place.

Secondly, how are homosexuals "pushing" what they do behind "closed doors" on straight people? Are you frequently approached and asked to marry someone of the same gender? Do gay men/women flirt with you and try to force you to have "perverse" sexual relations? Have you ever been ordered to change your sexuality to fit the "norm?" The ONLY thing that's changed here is now another ten per cent of the population in California has been given equal rights. What the "majority" believes is irrelevant--if we'd gone with the majority in the case of abolishing slavery or allowing interracial marriages, we'd still have plantations where black people call white people "master." Another thing to bear in mind is that, according to a news station (I can't remember which; I'll have to look it up), the California majority is changing-- more than half of the population ( a slim margin, but nonetheless) is in favor of gay marriage, a turnaround from the last time a gay marriage initiative was on the ballot. The only reason anyone here is accusing the judges of being "activist judges" is because they don't like the ruling. The court did its job, you just don't like their decision.

And ladaddy, congratulations! You must be very happy. :) "

funnyme wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:09 PM:

" YES.

Just to annoy the minority even more (that would be the "I will never be a happy gay" and their supporters).

A few gays I know find the "Gay Marriage" disgusting in context. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:15 PM:

" Government has no business being in the marriage business. This should NOT be a constitutional amendment.

I remember the previous blog on the gay marriage topic, where I said that now the gays can have all the fun of paying attorneys and going through expensive and brutal divorce proceedings and some lefty ripped me a new one for "being mean", and "what made me think those things would happen to gays?"

Took me about an hour to get up off the floor from laughing so hard. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:42 PM:

" There really is no need to go back to pre-historic times in order to ascertain if gay marriage was normal back then. Let's just settle for what recorded history says about marriage. I think the record is pretty clear about that.
Oh, there were a few ancient civilizations that began to glorify homosexuality (Greeks, Romans). Funny thing, those civilizations were destroyed shortly after that. "

misfit wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:56 PM:

" Wow PPF. Sure doesn't take much to entertain you. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:41 PM:

" My laughter was for the incredible naivete of someone thinking that because you have a gay marriage you will live happily ever after, never want to break up, never get a divorce and never have to settle property/custody issues.

To believe that is truly funny because it is so ignorant of the human condition. Maybe you don't think that is funny, but I do. Actually going through it is not at all funny (been there done that, and didn't even get a t-shirt for it - that was taken too). But believing that you won't have to go through it because you are in a gay marriage is warped.

And yes, being a fairly happy person I do enjoy a good laugh. If someone wishes to provide me with a laugh, I will take them up on it. One of the reasons I enjoy reading and posting here is because of the high entertainment value. Anyone who takes this too seriously needs to step back and take a deep breath and find something else to do. We are all just venting and stating what we believe to be the truth. Your truth obviously is different from mine. And from time to time some humor creeps in (visit the Bloggermania thread for bizarre evidence of that).

Yes, in the Socialist New World Order when we are subservient to the UN, humor will be outlawed because people will use it to poke fun at government. So I'm getting mine now, while I still can. "

pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:49 PM:

" So you're saying the fall of Rome and Greece had to do with homosexuality?

Wow...clearly, someone has not read a historical text in a while. As I recall, with the Romans, it was the strain of having an empire that stretched so far that its leaders had trouble maintaining it, leading to its crumble.

And I haven't taken ancient history since seventh grade four years ago! "

pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:51 PM:

" Just because recorded history says something doesn't mean it's right. Recorded history says that black people were slaves to white people for hundreds of years--should we have just gone by what has "always been" in that instance? Recorded history says that people were hanged or decapitated for perceived slights--should that practice have continued? "

Raven wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:11 PM:

" The Romans were destroyed 'shortly' after glorifying homosexuality?....lets see, the fall of rome is about 476 C.E., and it was established about 750 B.C.E, so that works out to about 1200 years.....yep...sounds like a short time to me... "

Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:24 AM:

" once more, just because voters pass something, doesn't make it constitutional. Prop 22 was a statute, not a constitutional amendment as Prop 8 is, and Republican judges found 22 to be unconstitutional.

As for every state passing such a law, I believe Arizona attempted too in 2006 and it was defeated. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:27 AM:

" "Just because recorded history says something doesn't mean it's right."

You have to be truthful with history. You can't say just because it is history it is right. Things happened that were not right, and that's how we learn from history.

You can't take a piece of history and turn it out of context, twist it around and make it be whatever you want. That's revisionist history as practiced by lefties who have no problem with destroying reality to prove their point.

Learn from it or be doomed to repeat it. "

Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:02 AM:

" so what part of history has been twisted, what part has been taken out of context? Be little more specific,....Rome didn't last 1200 years? "

MP wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:08 AM:

" I intend to vote no on the ban. I see this as an attempt to deny civil rights to a segment of our society. The previous voter approved law was determined to be unconstitutional since it violated California's civil rights provisions in the constitution. All laws are subject to judicial review for constitutionality. If this constitutional amendment passes, it will also be tested against the civil rights amendment, I'm sure. Seems like popular opinion as exemplified by voter initiatives often approve laws that make fast and loose with the constitution since many are struck down even by relatively conservative judicial interpretations as was the case with the marriage law. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:43 AM:

" Raven, In spite of what you imply, Rome did not become decadent immediately after its establishment in 750 B.C. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:47 AM:

" MP, would you enumerate all those civil rights that will be denied if Prop 8 passes? The one and only 'right' that is affected is for gays to call their unions 'marriage'. Not much of a real right, more like a word definition. "

Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:23 PM:

" JR, take a second look at what i posted....I never said it did....matter of fact I don't think Roman attitudes about homosexuality had anything to do with its downfall. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:26 PM:

" history response was to pharper's earlier comment.

Like most major powers in history, there was not one specific thing that brought Rome down, but a collection of weight of mistakes etc. Kind of like what is bringing us down now. "

Webster9 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:05 PM:

" "Antipc"said:
" YES!!!
It's time to remind liberal activists judges that it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. "
_______________________________
Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. The justices who voted in favor of gay marriage were 3 REPUBLICANS and 1 Democrat. And, the majority opinion was written by the REPUBLICAN Chief Justice.

The legislature makes rights for the majority.
The judiciary makes rights for the minority. "

tfytmp wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:15 PM:

" The proposition as proposed is clearly unconstitutional. California must recogonize any action of another state or country. California can say that only a marriage between a man and women can be performed in the state. Therefore everyone must fail this proposition and have another proposition fiked that states simply A marriage may only be perfomed in the State of California between a man and a woman. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:02 PM:

" "Oh, there were a few ancient civilizations that began to glorify homosexuality (Greeks, Romans). Funny thing, those civilizations were destroyed shortly after that. "

WOW! That statement is so historically inaccurate it boggles the mind.

First off, the Romans did not glorify homosexuality so much as they accepted it. Romans pretty much figured that whatever a Roman citizen did behind closed door s was his business. The Roman empire lasted more than a thousand years and stretched from the borders of Asia to the Atlantic. There were lots of reasons for their eventual collapse, homosexuality is not one of them.

The Greeks did glorify homosexuality, however it was a whole different style than what we have today. More like "experimenting during my college days". The Greek civilization's longevity is a little harder to judge, much of the time there wasn't a Greece, just several city states that had a common language. Alexander the Great was certainly gay (his father wondered if Alexander would ever have heirs). At the height of his power, Greek civilization spread from the Adriatic to the borders of India. When he died, the disintegration of his empire was more the result of his not planning for his own demise (he did die rather young).

JR-read a book or two on the subject... "

John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:21 PM:

" A Republican in California is like a Democrat in the other states. California's Supreme Court justices could not be called conservative by any stretch of the imagination. The word "activist" fits much better. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:33 PM:

" It should be noted, that Oregon, a fairly liberal neighbor of California, has had a constitutional ban on gay marriage since 2004. All court appeals of that ban have upheld the law. "

WorksInNapa wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Yes - for the same reasons I voted for Prop. 22. Nothing has changed to make me flip-flop. "

Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:30 PM:

" JR, if Oregon's were a constitutional ban, then it would stand up in court as not violating it's state constitutional. No big surprise there. What was tossed here in California was a statute, apples and oranges.

I wonder how the state GOP would consider your description of them..

as far as the judges, one could argue that the ninth circuit court of appeals was activist and the most liberal in the land, but the state supreme court....hardly "

tfytmp wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:22 AM:

" To John Richards: Oregon's law maybe worded correctly or maybe no one has challenged Oregon's law. Remember Redwood's dress code that was just ruled wrong within the past year. If I had a child that went to Redwood, it would have been challenged and overturned years ago. Another point of "law", does anyone know that a building permit is needed to put in a light switch in Napa. "

antipc wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:59 AM:

" Webster9,

Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. However being a registered republican hardly qualifies one as a conservative. "

marine1/1 wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:55 AM:

" YES>>>YES>>>>YES.Don't ask , don't tell.WE don't want to know.Thank You... "

a-ve wrote on Jul 22, 2008 11:31 AM:

" I do not agree on gay people getting married because what are our children going to think when they are growing and they see people from the same sex acting like a married couple, they are going to think that is normal, and is NOT. they still do it without getting married but is not the same. "

NValleyGirl wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:00 PM:

" No...Boo Prop 8!

marine1/1 - Are you sure that you aren't confused on the issue as to what Prop 8 entails?

a-ve - Your logic is confusing at best. So people can still go around and "act" like a married couple but it is different when they are a married couple. Because if Prop 8 is defeated you are going to know the difference between a gay married couple and just two gay people dating? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:44 PM:

" I completely agree with John Richards. With regard to judicial activism, it is irrelevant whether the justices who handed down this opinion are affiliated with the Democrat or Republican Party. Judicial activism is unacceptable irrespective of political party affiliation.

The Constitution should be strictly and narrowly interpreted. Judges must look to the plain meaning of the lanuage in the instrument as well as to the clear, unambiguous intent of the drafters. If a decision cannot be made in accordance with the plain meaning or clear intent doctrines, then judges are flirting with judicial activism.

Further, it is patently unfair and undemocratic for judges to prevert and distort the Constitution by giving it an interpretation that is clearly contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the drafters.

The Constitution should NOT be interpreted to accomodate the whims of activist judges who want to impose their personal views and beliefs on the people of this great country.

YES ON MEASURE 8 "

Raven wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:27 PM:

" okay maybe we need to focus here....we are talking about the state constitution and not the federal one....

and if we hue to what the drafters intended, there wouldn't be a means for prop 8 even be on the ballot in the first place....there was no referendum process in the state constitution..

a constitution is a growing, living document...that changes as the needs of the people it serves change. "

notshocked wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:00 PM:

" No on Prop 8.

Survivor benefits. Equal treatment.

NV Moderator... thank you for cleaning out the remarks that are hateful and hurtful. I appreciate, now, that you didn't publish my rebuttal once I noticed you removed the offending entry. "

bchiloquin wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:12 PM:

" if it was legal when i was single {i am not gay}i would have married a buddy for the tax break! "

barefoot wrote on Jul 22, 2008 9:03 PM:

" God vs. Darwin. The homosexuals loose no matter what. Anybody have another theory? "

tfytmp wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:56 AM:

" The proposition as worded is clearly against the US Constitution. Any state must recognize the action of another state. "

Indigo99 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:14 AM:

" For everyone arguing that the 'state has no business' here or 'It's not the government's business' here's a news-flash: it is the GOVERNMENT that gives out the marriage licenses. It's the government that you pay your fees to, change your name with, etc. Ditto for divorce cases. It's about revenue.

For everyone arguing that 'gays marrying ruins the institution of marriage' here's another news-flash; there is no institution. Unless you are referring to a religion which needs to promote pro-creation to continue whatever doctrine is being taught. Religions are institutions. They need your revenue too.

This case is much much less about honor, dignity, equality and much more about control, power and where the money is going. The state should have stayed out of it? The state IS it. "

steph wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:10 AM:

" barefoot--your "theory" presumes homosexuals don't procreate, and so your "theory" doesn't hold up. "

y2kcbr wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:53 AM:

" No. I have no problem with Gay marraiges. I have no problem with Inter-racial marraiges and I have no problem with divorce.

Not to get into symantecs (sp?), but all the holy rollers that are saying it is against the Bible (I'm Catholic) have seen divorce. Isn't that against Christianity?

Let people marry who they want. Who cares. "

napadad wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:46 PM:

" Go Go Indigo! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:44 PM:

" Raven - The Framers did indeed envision for changing and adapting the Constitution to the times. Its called a constitutional amendment (ie. Measure 8). This was the intent of the drafters. The state system models the federal system. Each state has a constitution. My comments regarding judicial activism apply to both the U.S. Constitution as well as to the CA constitution.

Perhaps you should focus on Article 2 Sections 8 - 10 of the California constitution which delineates rights with regard to referendum and initiative powers.

I agree with you that the Constitution is "a growing, living document that changes as the needs of the people it serves changes." The Constitution can be "changed" by being amended through a process that ensures changes are done with thoughtful deliberation, public debate, and supermajority approval. It is not the role of judges to legislate from the bench and create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own view of what society needs.

Yes on Measure 8! "

Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 2:01 PM:

" The refrendum process was not a part of the state constitution until hiram johnson fought for it in 1911. Until then all changes had to go thru the legislature, in which case prop 8 wouldnt not even be possible.

It is the job of judges to interpret the constitution. By your standard interracial marriage would still be banned in this state. "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:40 PM:

" I support the amendment if for no other reason than same sex marriage is revolting.

I feel the same revulsion when I'm near anyone who hasn't bathed for a long time. Offensive is simply offensive. Enough of the gay agenda in our faces already.

We need to put this to bed and be done with it. You can't marry your Mother or your brother, or your dog or any farm animal, nor anyone of the same sex. All of those are an insult to the sense of public morality. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:18 PM:

" The former governor of CA, Hiram Johnson, incorporated provisions for the initiative, referendum, and recall processes into the CA Constitution through CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS which were later ratified by the CA voters in 1911. Since it was the clear INTENT of the drafters that there be a mechanism for constitutional amendments, the voters of CA were able to ratify the amendment which made a provision for the referendum process in the CA Constitution.

Judges must apply the law to the specific facts of a case. That is their constitutionally prescribed power. So, yes, in that sense it is the judges duty to "interpret." However, the Constitution did not give judges the power to create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, etc. See previous comments.

When a court ruled that "evolving constitutional standards" MANDATES a right to same-sex marriage, contravening 200 years of state law and hundreds of years of tradition, the court was practicing the judicial activism and was acting outside the scope of its constitutionally prescribed powers. For your reference see Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)

Interracial marriage is completely different. The Court reasoned within its constitutionally prescribed powers. In making its decision, it relied on the plain meaning and intent doctrines to interpret the law prohibiting interracial marriage as violating the 14th Amend. (Per the standard I am advocating) The Court had made a reasonable interpretation based on the facts and the law. It did not attempt to confer a new right and
re-define marriage as in the case of same-sex marriage. "

Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:23 PM:

" shaking my head......back to the incest and bestiality theme.... "

Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:48 PM:

" and show me what the clear intent was by those drafters for the voters to be the initiators as there was already a process in place to amend the state constitution?

its okay to make some interpretations but not others? what about a right to privacy? is there one...nothing in it in the federal constitution but clearly stated in the state document

and the state justices were quite clear as to what the reasoning was when they rendered the decision in may...Massachusetts law has no bearing when applied to the California state constitution "

Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:50 PM:

" insult to public morality?....the 51 percent opposed to Prop 8 don't seem to be insulted. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:01 PM:

" MissNapaValley: You are playing semantics here. The California Supreme Court's decision ruled that it would be unconstitutional to deny a marriage certificate based on the same sex status of the couple.

That is not the same thing as creating a new right. It's the same argument as the one for inter racial marriage.

Oh and an aside: The right wing seems awfully preoccupied with beastiality. What's that about? "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:24 PM:

" No..... Back to the immorality theme....

Knowing right from wrong is the key..... "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:04 PM:

" A teacher: "It's the same argument as the one for inter racial marriage."

No it's not. Interracial marriage is a racial issue, and homosexuality is a moral issue.

Where do you folks learn right from wrong, anyway? People with an agenda seem to disregard the difference between right and wrong, as if it does not exist. Kinda like a bank robber who thought it was okay because he needed money. What kind of thinking is that...??? Justifying the means to an end because it sounds good?

It seems that principles in this country are going down the drain. "

Webster9 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:39 PM:

" California also borders on the state of Arizona, home of "Mr. Conservative" himself: Barry Goldwater !

It's funny how Radical Right Wing Conservative Republicans always drag out the tired "activist judges," and "legislating-from-the-bench" lines whenever (and ONLY when) the justices do not agree with their opinion. "

Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:01 PM:

" I must disagree....the interracial issue was considered a moral issue at the time, ....

And as for where I learned my morals, where did I learn right from wrong? Mine was in my church, where it was the golden rule....treat others as you would expect to be treated.

Gay and Lesbian people are not asking for any special treatment, they are simply asking to be treated as we treat everyone else....sounds a lot like treating them according to the golden rule in my book "

a teacher wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:02 PM:

" "No it's not. Interracial marriage is a racial issue, and homosexuality is a moral issue."

The people who would be against inter racial marriage would also say that it's a moral issue. "

barefoot wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:43 PM:

" I'm sorry Steph. I didn't mean for it to sound like my thoery. Thanks for the heads-up. P.S. You're smart. "

barefoot wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:47 PM:

" If you want to hear my theory, (misspelled earlier post)........I will explain in due time. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:59 PM:

" What's immoral about two people who are in love wanting to get married? "

pharper wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:24 AM:

" An agenda? What agenda is that? One where equal rights for everyone are a reality? The scare tactics are just a smokescreen--nobody can come up with a valid reason against homosexual marriage, unless it comes from the Bible (and one could argue that even that isn't a good argument)--so they use the comparison to bestiality or polygamy. It's a fact--Californians (though, perhaps, they disagreed a few years ago) now oppose a ban on gay marriage. Apparently, 51% of Californians don't know right and wrong by your definition, Dwayne. Perhaps that's a good thing. The way I (and apparently, many people) see it, the issue of gay marriage is EXACTLY like the issue of interracial marriage was years ago. The Bible was used to oppose it, the issue of "morals" was used to oppose it. Luckily, we've come a long way since then. This is just another step towards becoming a country where every man is TREATED as if we're all created equal. "

Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:59 AM:

" jeez, dwayne is that the best you can do?..why is it that opponents to gay marriage always drag these shibboleths out of the closest when they cannot find a reasonable argument to support their case.

We are talking about allowing two legal adults to commit themselves to each other. "

Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:02 AM:

" my apologies for the incorrect use of shibboleths in the previous post.....stalking horse would have been more appropriate "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:47 PM:

" Raven,

The intent of the drafters of the CA Constitution was clear. It was manifested in the plain meaning of the language in document itself which provided a means for accomplishing a constitutional amendment to effectuate a change to the CA Constitution, i.e. adding the referendum process. A judge did not "interpret" the right to initiate a referendum by distorting a provision of the CA Constitution into something it was clearly not. (judicial activism) Rather, the right was properly established through the constitutional amendment process.

Often times, the court will use case law from other jurisdictions to decide an issue. This is called persuasive authority, and although it is not binding, it aids the court in its analysis. When there is very little controlling case law or when the case is a case of first impression, then persuasive authority becomes an important judicial tool. The Mass. case to which I referred to above was referenced in the majority and dissenting opinions of the CA Supreme Court decision that we are currently discussing in this forum. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:12 PM:

" A Teacher,

I respectfully disagree. You stated that
"The California Supreme Court's decision ruled that it would be unconstitutional to deny a marriage certificate based on the same sex status of the couple."

That is not quite accurate. The CA Supreme Court held that the language in section 300 of the CA Family Code limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marraige available both to opposite sex and same sex couples. Futher, the Court held that section 308.5 of the CA Family Code
(Prop 22) can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the previous conclusion and that the provision cannot stand.

With regard to your interracial marriage argument, consider the following which was stated by Justice Baxter of the CA Supreme Court in his dissent.

"The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood into something quite new. They could accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. That change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate." "

Paddy wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:46 PM:

" Get off of the poll numbers. They're meaningless. In every previous pole the yes vote would have won hands down but weak minds have become so tired of being beaten down by the gay-bisexual minority agenda that they're on their knees begging for a merciful end to the screeching... "

a teacher wrote on Jul 24, 2008 4:57 PM:

" The only people screeching are the proponents of prop 8. Everyone else is asking what the big deal is.

The only time I hear people say polls are meaningless are when they are on the losing end. It's just like those activist judges... "

John Richards wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:48 PM:

" pharper, sounds like you're bringing up another red herring to bolster your argument. I don't recall the Bible ever being used as an argument against interracial marriage. Even in Old Testament times, godly men were recorded as having married non-Jewish wives from other nations and races. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:51 PM:

" Perhaps Webster and Teacher should take some time to read and study the approx. 172 pages of judicial opinion offered by the majority and dissent in this case. Maybe then, Webster and Teacher can intelligently articulate why, in their opinions, the decision was not handed down by an activist court.

Please offer your analysis and insight with specific references as well as your rationale supported by the facts. That would be far more productive than regurgitating the trite platitudes of bitter left-wing liberals who cling to their close-mindedness and assume the predictable defensive posture.

The Court of Appeal in a 2 to 1 decision agreed with my position. Moreover, Justices Baxter, Chin, and Corrigan of the CA Supreme Court acknowledge that the majority was acting beyond its constitutionally prescribed powers.

Justice Corrigan stated, "The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined. It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists."

Justice Baxter stated, "Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage - an understanding recently confirmed by initiative law - is no longer valid.... The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and in doing so, oversteps its authority." Justice Chin concurred. "

Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:34 PM:

" okay....get used to it...judges have and will interpret the law and the state and the federal constitutions....screaming and hollering about activist judges wont change that fact. ...get used to it...

No one has answered the key question yet...how does homosexual threaten, endanger, harm marriage in any way?

How does Lisa and Ellen or Jerry and Joe becoming a married couple threaten your marriage? Try and give us a new answer instead of falling back upon Biblical text or tired misdirection about pedophelia (sp?) or bestiality. because in the threads so far I have yet to hear any concrete cause for harm.... anything that helps couple make a long-term commitment to each other is a positive for society. "

Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Miss NV...you miss the point about the Corrigan and Baxter opinions, they were in the minority. They lost the argument. Until prop 8 is voted on, it is settled. "

Webster9 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:56 PM:

" "No it's not. Interracial marriage is a racial issue, and homosexuality is a moral issue."
_______________________________
You are mistaken. The Republican Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, who wrote the decision to allow gay marriage, relied chiefly on the 1948 California case concerning interracial marriage, citing that they involved the exact same kind of discrimination.

BTW, morality is a choice.
Race and homosexuality are not. "

barefoot wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:29 PM:

" If gay marriage is okay, then all bets off. The rules have changed. Don't get disguested at me when I find the loophole. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Raven,

No one is "screaming and hollering." I am simply pointing out the injustice. Perhaps others will see the injustice and vote YES on Measure 8 to send a clear message to the Court that it is the people's will (as approved in Prop 22) that will ultimately prevail. Personally, I am opposed to same-sex marriage for moral reasons.

There is a flaw in your reasoning. The mere fact the majority is the "majority" does not automatically make it right and does not change the fact that it violated the separation of powers. Take for instance the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision in which the activist majority overturned the anti-slavery portions of the Missouri Compromise and affirmed that slaves were indeed "property."

My examples of the Baxter and Corrigan opinions served the following purpose: to support my contention that this decision was handed down by a majority of activist judges. In Baxter's opinion, it states, "the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration."

If we adopted your view of not speaking out for injustices because we should just "get used to it," then it really would be doing a disservice to our country and to our fellow Americans. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:51 PM:

" Please insert "speaking out against injustices" in my previous comment.

The federal law defines marriage for purposes of federal law as "only a legal union between 1 man and 1 woman." See 1 USC section 7. There is now the issue of how to distinguish same sex married couples from heterosexual married couples for purposes of administering federal benefits/law since only heterosexual married couples are recognized as "married" under federal law. If we kept same-sex couples distinct from heterosexual marriage, i.e. civil unions, then there would not be this problem/burden.

Why is it necessary to name and privilege same-sex unions in exactly the same way traditional marriages are supported? The current CA statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded to couples under CA law.

We should respect everyone's freedom to make lifestyle choices, but draw the line at re-defining marriage for the rest of society. "

Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:34 PM:

" And again you seem to using the reasoning that judges are activist if the ruling is one you don't agree to.

At no point did I ever say not to speak out against injustice, that is why I am voting against Prop 8, to prevent an injustice from being done. "

opiniagirl wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:05 AM:

" MissNapaValley;

Thanks for the detailed accurate accounting of the judicial process in this case. Don't be discouraged by those who "just can't get it", you'll find a lot of that here. You'll find yourself in a semantics game with no drive other than to discredit the truth you have outlined. Just wait until you misspell a word, they’ll pounce.

Morality set aside (difficult I know), it is dangerous when judges "interpret" or in this case "create" amendments that are in DIRECT CONFLICT with the wishes of the American people, who already voted on this issue. That's when democracy dies and dictatorships are created. When the Mayor of San Fran issued marriage certificates, he BROKE THE LAW that he was elected to enforce. He should have been criminally charged. Why is everyone OK with that? From any standpoint, what he did was illegal, and what these Judges did is not what the American People want - I can't believe that this doesn't scare people!

What's next - how we raise our kids, how we keep our homes, gun elimination, what we say, what we read...this pendulum swings both ways...this puts all of our rights up for the same "interpretation" and eliminates the voice of the people.

How can that EVER be something that is OK, even if you agree that the law should change; don't you think that we owe it to our fellow citizens to honor the democracy of this country by upholding the decision that has already been made. Dictatorships are NEVER ok. Keep this door SHUT!

I'll be voting NO on this prop - if only to send the message that the people of this country are not stupid or willing to be manipulated or tricked by words like "interpretation". "

opiniagirl wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:07 AM:

" OK , lol - vultures step back from the keyboard - I meant I'm voting YES! "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:46 AM:

" again, Miss NV, why should same -sex marriages be kept separate and distinct from hetero-sexual marriages? And we are talking about the state now, now federal...one battle at a time

Saying civil unions give virtual all the same benefits as is like saying segregated schools gave virtual all the same benefits....the courts found that separate was never equal, and by denying homosexuals the same rights, and yes marriage is a right, you arer saying they are not equal. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:14 PM:

" MissNapaValley: I haven't the time to read 172 pages of legal opinion. I have, however, read both the California Constitution and the US Constitution.

You will note that the California Constitution mentions marriage in two places, both of which involve property. At no point is the gender of the parties in a marriage addressed.

Article 1, section 7 addresses equal protection (particularly school integration). It states:

"b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."

That, I believe is the crux of the matter. The judges ruled that you can not grant heterosexuals the right to marry and NOT also grant homosexuals the right to marry. The judges did not create a right, they acknowledged Article 1, section 7 of the state constitution.

Prop. 8 seeks to change the constitution to define what a marriage is, a dangerous precedent, in my opinion. The fact that the constitution of the state can be so easily amended is troubling. Majorities matter since only 50%+1 is needed. It concerns me that a small portion of voters could amend the constitution. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:09 PM:

" Raven, would you care to enumerate all those rights that civil unions are deprived of when comparing them to traditional marriages?

Discrimination based on gender is often appropriate, as we see it with respect to such things as public restrooms, and in laws that define public nudity. "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:20 PM:

" JR....the fact that they could not marry is the right they were deprived, as the court agreed. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:09 PM:

" So we agree, only one 'right' for gays is involved, the ability to call their union "marriage". There are no practical implications, it's just a word definition. Charges of discrimination should be based on practical and real criteria, such as blacks not being allowed to sit in the front of the bus. Where is the 'bus' equivalent for gays? "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:24 PM:

" The practical effect ....one is that many companies will not grant benefits to domestic partners, esp if they are same sex... "

pharper wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:04 PM:

" opiniagirl,

It is true that, at one point, the majority of Californians did not agree with the judges. That, however has changed. The majority changes; it's the nature of things, and while once California may have voted yes on this prop, Californians, it seems, won't do it again. It IS a judge's job to interpret the law. Not liking it because of your own personal beliefs does not make them activist judges. The majority has changed, now, too, so while several years ago these judges may have been going against the wishes of the people (had this ruling been made then), they aren't now, because the majority supports gay marriage.

Look at the polls: all the recent ones show a 50% or more majority is against this proposition (I think the one in the Chronicle—or the Register, can’t remember—said it was 52%?). You may not like it, but the judges didn't go against the majority. It apparently IS what the American public wants--or should want: equal rights for all, like our Constitution promises. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:10 PM:

" JR-first, your argument cuts both ways. If there is no practical difference between civil union and marriage, why call it something different?

Secondly, there are practical legal differences between marriage and civil unions. For one thing the state constitution specifically addresses marriage in relation to common property and taxes. Then there are differences in how domestic partnership is handled in hospitals, insurance, survivor benefits. Policies in some areas are changing to accommodate civil unions, but then I refer you back to my first point.

The court decision did not create a new right. They said that you can't deny marriage to gay couple based on the state's constitution. "

hawkins707 wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Vote YES
Vote YES
Vote YES
Vote YES
Vote YES

I'm glad to see so many supporters of prop 8. Napa scares me sometimes, we all can agree on this and that's terrific. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Opiniagirl,

Thank you for your support. I agree with your sentiments on the subject, especially with regard to San Francisco's criminal mayor. It is great to see that people like you understand the dangerous implications and ramifications of judicial activism in our democracy.

Teacher,

I commend you for responding and for offering a reference in support of your position. Nevertheless, it is necessary to read the opinions in order to have a complete understanding.

You stated, "...the California Constitution mentions marriage in two places, both of which involve property. At no point is the gender of the parties in a marriage addressed."

While that is correct, it is also true that the CA Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a "right to marry."
If we employ your method of reasoning, then there is no "right to marry" because at no point is the "right to marry" addressed in the CA Constitution.

To the contrary, case law has established that the right to marry is protected by the CA Constitution via the express right of privacy. Likewise, case law and CA statutes have made it abundantly clear that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Even the majority acknowledges this point in its opinion. It states, " From the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman."

The majority even provided historical context when it acknowledged that Article XI, section 14 of the CA Constitution of 1849 provided explicit constitutional protection for a "WIFE'S separate property." "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Teacher,

As far as "gender" is concerned, that was NOT even the basis for the majority's opinion. In fact, they rejected the notion that CA law discriminated against
same-sex couples based on gender or sex. The majority stated, "...we
do NOT agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of a suspect characteristic of sex or gender. So your point about "gender" not being addressed in the CA Constitution is inconsequential in the majority's view. This is precisely why it is important to read the opinion. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:18 PM:

" Raven and Teacher

Let's address your "Equal Protection" contentions.

First, just because classes of people are treated disparately or unequally does not necessitate the conclusion that their unequal treatment, under the law, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

How were homosexuals discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference under the marriage statutes? The marriage statutes are facially neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. As CA Supreme Court Justices Baxter and Chin stated, the statutes allow "all persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to enter into the relationship called marriage, and they do not, by their terms, prohibit any two persons from marrying each other on the ground that one or both of the partners is gay."

This case was an issue of first impression in California. In such instances a Court should rely on the precedents and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as other states which have considered the issue. This activist court ignored the doctrine of stare decisis, upon which our judicial system is based, and ruled precisely the OPPOSITE way. Also, they applied the incorrect standard when determining the constitutionality of the CA statutes. "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:25 PM:

" I love my dog. She loves me. She's part of the family. We sleep together. We take care of each other. We're happy. She can say, "I do"....Really.

I won't marry her though, because I wouldn't want anyone to think she's perverted. That would be wrong, wouldn't it.

I can leave my entire estate to her if I wish.

Pretty sick, eh...???...!!! Same thing..... "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:43 PM:

" Case law at one point was very clear about slavery, about women voting, about women as property, but case law evolves as the society evolves...one thing common to all case law, at some point, some judge set a precedent. "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:45 PM:

" The incorrect standard is always the one seen applied by the losers in a decision. "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:10 PM:

" The gay agenda is extremely obnoxious, and shouts everyone down because they want to be called 'normal'. Typical of whining minorities that are rejected by society.

You ain't gettin' it...!!! Vote YES...!!! (again)

California's already the laughing stock of the planet... "

savant wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:59 PM:

" MissNapaValley is obviously intellectually superior.

"The incorrect standard is always the one seen applied by the losers in a decision." Nice one, but just because you are the loser in a decision doesn't mean you are wrong.

I'd just give it up Raven, she is making you look bad. "

pharper wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:24 PM:

" How does wanting to be equal shoot others down? Isn't that sort of...I dunno, an oxymoron? Dwayne, come on. What's the agenda? Equal rights? I don't see how that's a bad thing. Homosexuals never wanted to be better than heterosexuals, or to have more rights, or "convert" anyone. There is no "gay lifestyle," just as there is no "straight lifestyle."

Using bestiality as example, by the way, is just ignorant. You're comparing human beings to animals. That's what's disgusting, not gay marriage. "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Looking bad has never stopped me....the main issue is the Prop will deprive a segment of their population of the right to marry...simple as that. "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:39 PM:

" a question for all you yes on prop 8 supporters, will you accept a no vote as a final word by the voters of this state on the subject? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:51 PM:

" MissNapaValley:I'm just a humble math teacher, I don't speak legalese. If you want to explain in plain English, I could probably follow.

My understanding is that the majority decided the case based on the rights that California already extends towards same sex couples. They reasoned that since civil unions amount to a marriage in everything but name, a law prohibiting marriage based on same sex status was a violation of the constitution (article 1, section 7). I believe that is the same argument in Massachusetts. I don't see how that amounts to judicial activism.

Five reasonable people can hear the same facts and reach different opinions. That is all this amounts to. "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:19 PM:

" Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:39 PM:
" a question for all you yes on prop 8 supporters, will you accept a no vote as a final word by the voters of this state on the subject? "

Did you accept the OJ Simpson verdict, even though you knew it was wrong...???

There are principles in life, and contrived excuses don't change the character of those principles. "

Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:46 PM:

" so, is that a no, Dwayne?....

and how is accepting the results of the election a contrived excuse? "

barefoot wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:10 PM:

" So what happens to the average number of "marriages" that end in divorce? Does it go up or down? How about domestic abuse calls to the police? Up or down? Who gets custody of any children born during said "marriage"? I don't have an opinion yet. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:34 PM:

" "So what happens to the average number of "marriages" that end in divorce? Does it go up or down?"

Probably little effect, the actual number of same sex marriages is pretty small compared to heterosexual marriage, so regardless of the average success of the marriages. Same with domestic abuse.

"Who gets custody of any children born during said "marriage"?"

In CA, courts do their best to establish 50/50 custody. I would imagine it would be the same for same sex marriages. "

Webster9 wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:46 PM:

" MissNapaValley,
Your protest seems to indicate your disgust with homosexuality itself more than any concrete evidence that gay marriage would take anything away from straight marriages.

Our Mayor Gavin Newsom is not a criminal, simply because he does not share your brand of hatred. And, as you have seen, our Supreme Court justices proved him correct.

Perhaps you have heard that Mayor Newsom, in all likelihood, will be our next Governor.

BTW, the polls in July showed the exact same results as they did back in May. So, it would seem that the voters' minds have been made up: 51% are in favor of gay marriage, and 42% are against it, with only 7% undecided.

Trust me. You'll get used to it. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:21 AM:

" To take a quote from an award winner at BM#1........

"If you're against gay marriage...then DONT have one"...nuff said. "

pharper wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:50 AM:

" Dwayne: principles in life? Maybe in your life. But in the lives of, apparently, 51% of Californians, the reigning principle here is equality for all. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:48 AM:

" Webbie- What do you think of Mr. Newsom making SF a sanctuary city? Wonder what you think of the felon the was let out of jail, not deported and murdered a man and his two sons in a road rage incident under Mr. Newsoms policies? Yeah he's a peach. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Webster9, don't be misled by the results of telephone polls. Those are hardly likely to reflect what voters choose in the privacy of the voting booth, especially on an issue as sensitive as this one. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:58 AM:

" Raven, if those companies are subject to California law, then they cannot discriminate with respect to things like health insurance. Even California's Supreme Court in its majority opinion admitted that gay civil unions in California had all the rights and privileges of traditional marriages, except for the rights and privileges under federal control. "

winemd wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:01 PM:

" I am not against gay marriage, but the argument "If you're against gay marriage...then DONT have one" bothers me, because it can be applied to many other things. For example, if you're against illegal fruit vendors, then don't buy their fruit. If you're against 33 year old men having sexual relationships with 15 and 16 year olds, then don't have one. If you are against seat belts then don't wear one. If you are against Napa Pipe, then don't live there. If you are against polygamy, then don't marry more than one person. There are many other examples, but the point is that is too simplistic an argument. These issues are more complex than that. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Actually, its not simplistic at all....well perhaps it is...How about this...If you do NOT feel that all humans should be treated equally, enjoy the SAME freedoms and Protections as anyone else, that the government SHOULD stay out of our bedrooms......then MOVE!......

Thats as simple as it gets.. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:19 PM:

" JR, private companies were not forced to offer any benefits to domestic partners, because they were able to cite federal exemptions. Only companies doing business with the state were required to offer the same benefits as were offered to married couples, and this was only done after an amendment to the original 1999 civil union law. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:31 PM:

" ADark1, since you want everyone treated equally, why don't we have a law that men should give birth to 50% of all babies? Why not have public nudity laws the same for women as for men?

Oh, by the way, those in favor of Prop 8 have no interest in legislating what goes on in the bedroom, so you can stuff that red herring. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:43 PM:

" Raven, if there is a federal law that overrides certain aspects of benefits for civil unions, then I doubt that California's approval of gay marriage changes that. Again, this is not a reason to either vote for or against Prop 8. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:05 PM:

" JR, hate to break it to you in some parts of the stat, the public nudity laws are the same for men and women...and as far as requiring men to give birth....got a big laugh in my household.....but what does either have to do with denying fellow citizens their rights...?

and I am sure the yes on Prop 8 people are going to burn...saw a story that the ballot description will describe the prop as taking away a right currently enjoyed some Californians. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:29 PM:

" Raven, in spite of your comment to the contrary, I don't see women routinely walking topless down Main Street, not in any city or in any state.
Why isn't our Supreme Court incensed about *that* discrimination?
My point is that gender differences *do* matter. "

winemd wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:39 PM:

" I don't find the argument to "if you don't like it, then leave" to be any more compelling, or contribute to constructive dialogue. Both sides in this debate have had arguments that take away from furthering their voice, in my opinion. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions for or against this measure, and they have their own reasons for their opinions. I don't agree with everyone's opinion, or their reasons, but that doesn't mean I can't "listen" respectfully. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:41 PM:

" California's ok of gay marriage will not gain anyone any federal benefits available to married couples...and you're right...not a reason to vote for or against....

The best reason is that by voting against you are working to prevent rights being stripped away from Californians who have committed no crime. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:42 PM:

" JR, I said some parts, not all....and courts do nothing until someone brings a case before them. "

savenapa wrote on Jul 26, 2008 7:06 PM:

" yes on 8...How many times do we have to vote on the same thing?

It's always entertaining to see people come in spitting venom about this topic. The people that pin the hate label on everyone are usually the ones that spew the most poison. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 8:56 PM:

" hmmm...the ones that don't want to take rights away are the ones spewing poison....interesting perspective.

still haven't heard anyone say they would abide by a vote where prop 8 was defeated. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:02 PM:

" Webster –

Gavin Newsom is notorious for willfully and knowingly disregarding the law to suit his own agenda. He acts as if he is above the law. In fact, Newsom and the city of S.F. may get sued in the very near future for breaking federal immigration laws. Even the most liberal of S.F. can agree that S.F. should not harbor or give sanctuary to CRIMINAL illegal immigrants.

In 2004, the CA Supreme Court concluded in Lockyer v. City and County of S.F. that the S.F. public officials, most notably Gavin Newsom, acted UNLAWFULLY by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That is a fact. With regard to the CA Supreme Court’s most recent decision, the Court did not decide whether it believes as a matter of public policy that the officially recognized relation of a same-sex couple SHOULD be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership.

I seriously DOUBT that Newsom will become Governor of CA, especially with his record of moral indecency and criminal behavior.

Now what’s all this talk about a “brand of hatred?” To accuse me, or at the very least, strongly imply, that I “hate” homosexuals, is inaccurate. Just because I believe in the traditional, age-old, universal definition of marriage, does not compel the conclusion that I harbor hatred for homosexuals. I do not subscribe to any “brand of hate.” Rather, I subscribe to the truth, which is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:04 PM:

" Web,

You consistently refer to an unscientific poll to bolster your support of same-sex marriage. I have a few questions… Who administered the poll? What is the margin of error? What is the confidence level? What was the method of sampling? How large was the sample? Did the pollsters accurately represent the entire state?

Interestingly enough, there was a statewide poll conducted (the Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll) which showed different results: 54% of registered voters said they would SUPPORT the initiative that would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. These pollsters triple-checked their numbers and said that everything in this poll was consistent internally. They telephoned 1,052 registered voters between May 17, 2008 and May 26, 2008 and the margin of error was + or – 3.2%.

Another point worthy of noting is that the support for Proposition 22 was much stronger on election day than was shown in the polls taken in the weeks and months prior to the election. Just remember, people might say one thing to a pollster and then vote entirely differently when they are alone in the voting booth. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:08 PM:

" This is not a matter of equal rights, but rather a matter of EXTRA rights.

The fact is that NONE of the majority's cited decisions hold, or remotely suggest, that any right to marry recognized by the Constitution extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage to include "same-sex marriage."

Civil marriage is an institution historically defined as the legal union of a man and woman, and the homosexuals could not succeed except by convincing the Court to INSERT in our Constitution an ALTERED AND EXPANDED DEFINITION of marriage - one that includes same-sex partnerships for the first time. The majority took it upon themselves to re-define marriage, ignore the doctrine of stare decisis, violate the separation of powers provision, create a new right, and substitute their personal societal views for that of the people.

It is far more disconcerting that 4 justices can overrule the will of the people (61.4%) without any proper constitutional basis, than for a simple majority of CA voters (50% +1) to amend the constitution to reflect the will of the people and overrule the 4 activist justices. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:26 PM:

" ...... Ok here we go...

John you said" Raven, in spite of your comment to the contrary, I don't see women routinely walking topless down Main Street, not in any city or in any state.".
I'd LOVE to see certain females walk down Main Street topless, Conversely I'd hate to see certain "gentleman wearing speedos down the same street.
Should we pass a law that says ONLY really "eye pleasing persons should be allowed the privilege? Then isn't it then a matter of interpretation?

John, there was a woman from Berkley who used to ride her bike wearing pasties and have you ever been to the Folsom Street Fair..I'm sure although I had a GREAT time it may give your sensibilities permanent, irrevocable damage. The Bike lady went to Oregon and she STILL wears her pasties..

2.Take a good honest look at American Law when it came to sex, EVERYTHING and ANYTHING EXCEPT for the "Missionary" Position was deemed immoral and Illegal at one time or the other. You couldn't even "shack up".

3.Here's a red herring for you...at least 40 years ago, my marriage would be considered Illegal and would most likely have me lynched.

4.Do you have ANY Idea what the gay community has contributed to society, culture and the world at large? How could you NOT allow them ALL the same protections we as "straights" have?

Dwayne brought up an Interesting point..
Did you accept the OJ Simpson verdict, even though you knew it was wrong...???"...Actually Dwayne LIKE the Prop 8 mess, the verdict, ticked off folks, they found a way around that. First they bled him dry in Civil Court, he's NOW sweating another case . SOS different case. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:43 PM:

" Furthermore JR, your comment...in part .."why don't we have a law that men should give birth to 50% of all babies?"

Bill Cosby once stated childbirth for women was akin to taking your bottom Lip and pulling it over your head.. Do you REALLY care to impose PAIN on someone who wants and deserves to be treated equally under the color of law?

You also stated..Oh, by the way, those in favor of Prop 8 have no interest in legislating what goes on in the bedroom, so you can stuff that red herring. "

Yes another red herring for you..Brown vs Board of education..the separate but equal stance in that case was shown to NOT only be subject to systematic abuses, but was a failed policy. I'd like to think, no believe.. this country learns from its mistakes..

Miss Napa Valley, YOUR statement.." This is not a matter of equal rights, but rather a matter of EXTRA rights. " Can you hear the buzzzer? WRONGGGGGGG!!

Actually it was that SAME type of thinking that has proven in the past to be legally, ethically and morally wrong!

I believe teacher said it best... Democracy can be messy....My point?...get over it..These people will NOT FORCE you to become gay..they MAY however serve you foods, books, music, philosophy , paint,teach you law, police your streets, make your laws,fix your cars and on and on and on. The ONLY major difference between you and them, would be sexual preferences.

Why and how can you decide that is ENOUGH to deny them ALL the SAME things we as straights take for granted? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Teacher,

Thank you for stating your understanding of the Court’s reasoning in reaching its decision. Here is the reason why their decision violated Article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause states that “the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that “persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution specifically provides.

Only the People can amend the Constitution. The Legislature has no unilateral power to do so (Cal. Const. art. XVIII.) Notwithstanding this, the effect of the majority’s reasoning is that the Legislature can accomplish such amendment indirectly, whether it intends to do so or not, by reflecting current community attitudes in the laws it enacts.

Additionally, the majority has given the Legislature, indirectly, a power it does not otherwise possess to thwart the People’s express legislative will. Under Article II, Section 10, subdivision (c) of the CA Constitution, the Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

Section 308.5 of the CA Family Code (Prop 22 initiative) limits marriage in CA to a man and a woman. It contains no provision allowing the Legislature to amend or repeal it without the voters’ approval. Yet, the majority allows the Legislature, through its decision, to circumvent this and consequently, violate Art. II, Section 10, sub. (c). "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:48 PM:

" The majority basically reasons that comprehensiveness of the Domestic Partnership Act, which gives substantial rights to homosexuals that are in practical parity with the rights of married couples, creates an “explicit official recognition” of equal treatment in EVERY RESPECT. Thus, it would compel the designation of same-sex domestic partnerships as “marriage” (even though this is prohibited by Prop 22 and even though the Court acknowledges CA has explicitly and implicitly defined marriage as a relationship between a man and woman). The effect is to invalidate Prop 22 without giving the voters their say, which is required by the CA Constitution. In other words, “the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute ( Prop 22) otherwise immune from legislative interference.”

In simple terms, the majority used statutory law to establish a constitutional right, which can only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. As the dissenting Justices correctly concur, the majority’s decision was unconstitutional.

Justices Baxter stated, and Justice Chin concurred, that the majority’s
“pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.” I emphasize the word “SERIOUSLY.” If ever there were a case of judicial activism and a court acting outside its constitutionally prescribed powers, this case would be a shining example. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:54 PM:

" Lets look at that majority who approved prop 22. shall we?..According to the sec of state's office, 61.4 of the 37 percent of eligible voters in the state approved, not quite the overwhelming majority of people that the supporters would have us believe. Even if you use the 53 percent of registered voters, no majority yet of Californians yet.

And speaking of polls, the field poll released on the 18 shows a solid 51 percent opposed to Prop 8. Thsi is the second poll to show a majority of people opposed to it. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:55 PM:

" cab e-girl wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:48 AM:
" Webbie- What do you think of Mr. Newsom making SF a sanctuary city? Wonder what you think of the felon the was let out of jail, not deported and murdered a man and his two sons in a road rage incident under Mr. Newsoms policies? Yeah he's a peach. "

Hmmmmm, sounds like sounds like...Hold it Hold it...YUP! Willie Horton Revisited! Come on cab e you CAN'T REALLY hold him responsible for that...Kinda like saying well nm..I do believe you get the point or you should.

Now back to you MISS Napa Valley..you stated in part.."It is far more disconcerting that 4 justices can overrule the will of the people (61.4%) without any proper constitutional basis, than for a simple majority of CA voters (50% +1) to amend the constitution to reflect the will of the people and overrule the 4 activist justices. "

To me what is REALLY disconcerting is that unless the judiciary RULES the way YOU and others want..then they are considered activist justices"

If you take an honest look at it..It's the epitome of hypocrisy. I promise, NONE of you will have to wear a tinfoil hat to keep the gay rays from making you then become gay should the voters do the RIGHT thing and allow them to have ALL the JOYS, SORROWS, and freedoms straight people have and take for granted. We as people need to PROGRESS and NOT REGRESS!

Think about it.. "

Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:56 PM:

" Regarding Baxter's and Chins opinions, they were in the minority, and majority decisions are, in and of themselves, no matter much we may not like them to be...constitutional. "

pharper wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:05 PM:

" You said it, ADark1.

I don't understand how the right to marry is just a right that heterosexuals have, and an EXTRA right for homosexuals. That implies that they have rights that heterosexuals don't have. Like what? Any specific examples? If anything, they have fewer rights, and allowing them to marry is another step towards EQUALITY. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:06 PM:

" Miss napa Valley...you state in part..Justices Baxter stated, and Justice Chin concurred, that the majority’s
“pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.” I emphasize the word “SERIOUSLY.” If ever there were a case of judicial activism and a court acting outside its constitutionally prescribed powers, this case would be a shining example. " Actually...were you to argue this in mock court, state court or US Supreme Court..You;d STILL Lose..Here's why..You're taking the point of the minority..THAT gives you NO legal standing when attempting to cite precedent vs. Case law.

Understand, IF you are going to build a truly valid argument for legality's sake, then by all means do so, however do so with case law SUPPORTING your stance NOT a minority op in a losing case. It carries no weight or water whatever the case may be. "

newmom wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:47 PM:

" We have civil unions to recognize partnerships and provide services. Marriage is a religious ceremony and we know what the Bible says. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:54 PM:

" Miss NapaValley: You seem to be claiming that the court amended the constitution. What new amendment did they add? Which did they delete? The fact is that no laws were added, so no rights were given.

Your beef seems to be that they overturned this law. It's the job of the judiciary, in a case like this, to see if a law passes constitutional muster. Two judges said yes, three judges said no. Majority wins. They each outlined their reasons. Both sides make good points, but in the end, I have to go with the majority.

There is nothing sinister or wrong here. It's how democracy works. I'm sorry you're bugged by it. Of course you have a remedy, amend he constitution. Be ready, however, for eventual defeat. The young are pretty much in favor of same sex marriage. Sooner or later, they will make it so. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:55 PM:

" Adark,

After reading my comments, could you perhaps elaborate on why, my reasoning is wrong. It would be nice to have some specifics and not generalizations so that I may respond accordingly.

Generalizations are dangerous and should not be applied indiscriminately to every case without first taking into account the specific facts of the case at hand. Therefore, you may want to reconsider your statement that it is "the SAME type of thinking that has proven in the past to be legally, ethically and morally wrong."

I appreciate all people who contribute to society in a positive way, whether heterosexual or homosexual. And I agree with you that they will not "force" us to be gay, but that goes without saying. Yes, there are many wonderful, talented people who happen to be homosexual. But that does not change the fact, that it is unacceptable for activist judges to redefine marriage to make it something it is not and to violate the constitution, i.e. the separation of powers clause. Activist judges should not be able to hijack the democratic process to overrule the People's will and impose their societal views on the People. "

Raven wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:09 AM:

" Marriage is this country is, whether you like it or not, a civil matter....it may or may not be celebrated religiously, that is left up to the individuals involved. "

Raven wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:16 AM:

" MsNV, there was no amending of anything here, as teacher and many others have stated, the justices ruled on the constitutionality of a statute and a majority of the court found it was not constitutional. Simple as that. and there is a simple remedy if you disagree with their ruling, get Prop 8 passed.

A majority of people currently feel that there is a right to marry that is enjoyed by all Californians. That may change in November but as of right now, that is the law of the land, well, California land anway. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:18 AM:

" There will be two YES votes and zero no votes from my household.

Are there gay bisexuals? Or, is someone just confused? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:54 AM:

" Adark,

I would like to say THANK YOU! Because in one very important sense you made my argument and that of the minority judges as well.

In your comment, you emphasized the importance of citing and following case law and precedent.

Tell that to the majority who handed down their opinion. That is exactly what the majority failed to do. In concluding that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" subject to strict scrutiny, the majority CONCEDES AND ADMITS (in its opinion) that its conclusion CONTRAVENES the great majority of decisions - indeed all but one cited by the majority. Guess they decided they didn't need or want to follow/use the available case law on the subject because it did not support the conclusion that the Court wanted to reach.

This was pointed out in the minority opinions. Thus, I am simply confirming what I know to be true with Supreme Court Justices who concur. BTW minority opinons are used as persuasive authority.

Also, the majority impermissibly used statutory law to establish a constitutional right. The majority was undeterred by "the strong weight of state and federal law authority."

Understand, just because the majority is the "majority", it does not compel the conclusion that the majority is right.

If you will recall, the Supreme Ct's 1857 Dred Scott decision overturned the anti-slavery portions in the Missouri Compromise and affirmed that slaves were indeed property. I'm sure you will agree the majority didn't have it right in that case. "

Raven wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:25 AM:

" MNV, there are times when a court establishes a precedent, and how does one establish a precedent of any kind if one hues strictly to established case law.?

Agian you may not like the reasoning behind it, but it has been done, and calling it impermissible ...well, only one higher court can determine anything the state supreme court did as impermissible....and as this is a case dealing with the state constitution only, it will never go there, so, therefore, the court did nothing impermissible.

If what the majority did was so outrageous, opponents can always pull a Rose Bird and vote them out as the time comes..... "

glenroy wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Go MissNapaValley….you’re not exactly dealing with a group of mainstreamers…objective thinkers or independent nonpartisans….but you’re doing just fine.

The courts still have no business being involved in a religious service….and not matter what is said otherwise, dating back to long before there were ‘governments’, ‘written laws,’ ‘courts’ and ‘public opinion‘, marriage was and remains the memorial commitment that binds a family together based on their religious faith…. Just that is well beyond comprehension by those whose faith in religion is big government. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:52 AM:

" MissNV: But they did look at precedent. They looked at the rights granted same sex couples and homosexuals in State law. They concluded that if the state grants the same rights to same sex couples as they do to married couples, then denying marriage because the couple is the same sex is discriminatory. They have a point.

We have two competing and contradictory ideas of marriage. One is the more traditional, the other is an evolving more modern one. Societies change and evolve and their laws reflect that change.

Aside from your legal arguments, which are debatable, you haven't made an argument about the State's interest in limiting marriage to hetero couples. In fact, no one who has argued for Prop. 8 has produced any evidence that same sex marriage harms the State. The only argument seems to be on moral grounds based on their religious practices (I'm being generous here).

Marriage, however, is a secular matter as far as the State is concerned. The States only concern should be the will of it's citizens, as expressed by the State's constitution and the good of the State.

MissNV, do you have any arguments about why same sex marriage is a bad idea? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 27, 2008 12:23 PM:

" Anybody who took Anthropology 101 would learn that the purpose of marriage has always been about alliances and property. The idea that it romance and love is involved is a recent and particularly western concept. The involvement of religion is not surprising, religion has something to say about every aspect of human life. However, marriage is not an inherently religious institution.

In modern society religions function, in so far as marriage is concerned, is to perform the ceremony(the minister would then be an officer of the state) and to sanctify the union with in the religion. However, religion is not necessary to perform a marriage. It is just a statement of legal obligations and rights of a married couple.

In a diverse society, one with many religions and points of view, how can ths state do any more than decide on age of consent, the credentials of officials doing the ceremony and the responsibilities of a married couple. Gender has nothing to do with that.

The mainstream is beginning to see it that way. "

Raven wrote on Jul 27, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Glenroy, no one has said, including the court, anything about changing anything about anyone's religious services. And nothing in the decision requires any church to do so.

Rightly or wrongly, marriage is civil matter, that is why government is involved at all.

Go on, enjoy a religion that refuses to allow same-sex couples to marry, but use that same religion to brow beat the state into refusing to allow them to marriage, but don't try and use your religion to tell my same -sex friends who they can marry. "

gatorhistory wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:45 AM:

" You cannot deny tax paying citizens of the same rights you enjoy, simply because you feel you have some sort of moral high ground. Gay people are here to stay...whether you agree with it or not. Separate but equal did not work with the civil rights movement, and it doesn't apply here. Civil Unions do not apply the same rights as marriages do...tax benefits, immigration benefits, etc...are all at stake. The other answer to this, if people don't want to allow gay marriages, is to remove ALL marriages from the law, and then everyone can be equal again...and no one is being treated with special benefits that others cannot enjoy. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:32 PM:

" You KNOW? I'm really startting to wonder how tight a leash some of the mods here are on..I do NOT believe I said ANYTHING offensive or derogatory. That being said I shall again attempt to post! "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:40 PM:

" MNV wrote in part f you will recall, the Supreme Ct's 1857 Dred Scott decision overturned the anti-slavery portions in the Missouri Compromise and affirmed that slaves were indeed property. I'm sure you will agree the majority didn't have it right in that case. "

Ok Takes a deep breath and here we go..

I'm wondering why you also didn't bring up Jim Crow laws or Brown vs Board of Education.

Taking that SAME tact in your arguments What about women''s right to vote or dictate what THEY ( YOU) do with your body? Would you prefer a back alley DNC?

Of COURSE you wouldn't!

Do you think I'd allow myself to become a SLAVE as my anscestors did? ~chuckles..I have a special recipe for mashed potatoes,glass and gravy on that one.

The POINT here is this..When the Courts see an action or mandated policy so egregious as to affect the well being and the RIGHTS of American Citizens, The court steps in and makes the proper changes. In this case although gay marriage will NOT harm non gay people...NOT ALLOWING them ALL the same protections and even the use of the word "marriage" makes them second class citizens, and as such do NOT give them all of the rights all other citizens are given.. I hope this is clear to you..If not? Think about it the next time you're doing the SAME job as a man and getting paid less. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:43 PM:

" Raven, "separate but equal" with respect to segregated schools was ruled illegal because in truth those schools were seldom 'equal'. In the case of gay civil unions, the issue of inequality is not that clearcut. You can think of marriage as a type of civil union, if you will. Since all couples in California can enjoy a version of civil union, there is no discrimination. Marriage is just a word definition for heterosexual civil unions, with no special privileges over and above those enjoyed by gay civil unions. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:50 PM:

" Raven, I will abide by the results of the vote if Prop 8 is defeated. Can you and others who support your position say the same if the opposite result occurs? "

Raven wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:54 PM:

" There is discrimination, JR, hence the ruling, if homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, then you cannot deny them the right to marry...if they cannot marry then they are being discriminated against. It is quite simple actually. "

Raven wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Attn, moderator, shouldn't you change the title for Prop 8 you have here to reflect the change the sec of state's office made last week? The new title is
"Eliminates right of same-sex couple to marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." "

John Richards wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:02 PM:

" ADark1, your anecdotal ramblings about "a woman from Berkley", etc., do nothing to disprove my basic premise that current laws *do* discriminate based on gender, and appropriately so. Much as you and I might enjoy seeing certain females walk topless down Main Street, it just isn't practical from the standpoint of maintaining order.
And it doesn't help this discussion to keep dragging up laws that existed 40 years ago. Let's just deal with the here and now. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Glenroy,

Thank you for your encouraging words and support. I absolutely agree with you.

Teacher,

Although there is no EXPRESS provision in the CA Constitution granting the “right to marry,” it is well-settled the CA Constitution IMPLICITLY grants the right to marry in its privacy clause. The scope of that constitutional right is necessarily dependent on the definition of marriage. The Court correctly concedes our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex. Statutes enacted at the State’s first legislative session confirmed this assumption, which has continued to the present day. Furthermore, in 1971, the Legislature made the assumption explicit and defined marriage as between a man and a woman in the CA Civil Code. The People themselves reaffirmed this definition in 2000 when they adopted Prop 22.

So, the definition of a marriage, for purposes of the constitutional right to marry was stated either expressly or implicitly by the drafters of the original CA Constitution, by the CA Legislature since statehood, and by the People themselves. Therefore, the constitutional right to marry necessarily meant that it was the right to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex because that is how marriage (a relationship between a man and a woman) was defined for purposes of delineating the constitutional right. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Raven, bringing up the fact that way less than 100% of eligible voters actually vote in an election does nothing to invalidate the result of Prop 22.
Also, any informed person knows that the results of a telephone poll are not comparable to actual voting booth results, especially for an issue as sensitive as Prop 8. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Teacher,

In this case, the Court redefines marriage in direct contravention of history, tradition, statutory law, case law, and the PEOPLE’S will. In expanding and changing the definition of marriage to include the union of two members of the same sex, the Court creates the NEW, EXTRA constitutional right of “same-sex marriage,” a right that never existed before. Ergo, the Constitution is, in essence, amended without first going through the constitutional amendment process and presenting the case to the PEOPLE to decide if the express definition of marriage should be redefined for purposes of changing the scope of the implicit constitutional right to marry.

Your comment implying that nothing was physically added or deleted in the CA Constitution is true. However, the right to marry is implied in the Constitution, so you would not see a physical addition to the Constitution of an “implied” right. The right to marry is still considered a part of our Constitution because its implicit presence is WELL-ESTABLISHED through case law via the privacy clause. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:18 PM:

" “Same-sex marriage” is NOT mainstream in the U.S. Currently, only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, and even that decision was considered very controversial.

As of January 2006, thirty-nine (39) states had either passed laws or amended their constitutions (or done both) to prohibit same-sex marriages, to deny recognition of
same-sex marriages, to deny recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions and/or to deny recognition to other types of same-sex relationships. See Stein, Symposium on Abolishing Civil Marriage: An Introduction (2006) 27 Cardozo L.Rev. 1155, 1157, fn. 12. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Raven,

While in certain exceptional, extraordinary circumstances overturning precedent is warranted, you can’t run afoul the Constitution when doing so. Judges should practice judicial restraint and should adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis. If all judges handed down activist decisions like this court, there would be NO predictability, NO stability, and NO order in the judicial branch. In administering their different versions of “justice,” they would be creating more injustice and total chaos. It would threaten democracy as we know it. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:24 PM:

" pharper, if it helps to focus the issue, just think of marriage as the heterosexual version of civil unions. Marriage bestows no extra privileges or rights over what California's civil union for gays provides. So, your quest for "EQUALITY" is misguided. As I proved elsewhere in this thread, our laws take into account gender differences for good reasons. If gender differences are fine for other laws, why can't we have gender differences for marriage laws, as long as no substantial harm is done thereby? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:29 PM:

" Actually, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Prop 8(unless it is soundly trounced), I imagine that this will go on for years to come. Both sides are pretty stubborn and have resources to carry on the fight win or lose.

However, it seems to me that same sex marriage is gaining in acceptance and eventually will prevail. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:31 PM:

" ADark1, citing the minority opinion from a narrow 4-3 court case may have no impact in the judicial arena, it has valid impact when appealing to one's sense of logical reasoning. The minority opinion arguments are very strong, and are not refuted in the majority's arguments. "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:53 PM:

" THIS time I give YOU a THANK YOU MNV,
You stated in part but MOST IMPORTANTLY,

The right to marry is still considered a part of our Constitution because its implicit presence is WELL-ESTABLISHED through case law via the privacy clause. "

So other then sexual preferences you are saying its OK to keep gay persons second class citizens? Doesn't that explicitly contradict the meat of YOUR argument?

John Richards, you state in part,

" ADark1, your anecdotal ramblings about "a woman from Berkley", etc., do nothing to disprove my basic premise that current laws *do* discriminate based on gender, and appropriately so. "

Again to the MEAT of this debate,

So you are saying its ok to make someone a second class citizen based on sexual preference? My argument about 40 years ago, and even further back with MNV's comment about the Dred Scott decision, means that its ok to discriminate and enslave some but NOT if they are slave owners,straight and white?

THAT is the tact and type of thinking the court in its wisdom is attempting to stop. Being a civil rights survivor, I vividly remember the march on Washington, the Black Panthers, and yes, even shooting BACK at the KKK.

To have a Democracy ALL must be given equal rights even if personally you may find it opposite to your moral and religious beliefs. Its the American way. THAT is a BEDROCK principal on what this country was founded on. You cannot have it BOTH ways...well unless of course you're bi-sexual!

~chuckles..sorry couldn't resist. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:56 PM:

" Okay, let's revisit the Equal Protection issue.

The first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause is a showing that the state has adopted a classification that affects 2 or more SIMILARLY SITUATED groups in an UNEQUAL manner. This initial inquiry is NOT whether persons are smiliarly situated for ALL purposes, but "whether they are similiarly situated for purposes of the law challeged." (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253; see also Cleburne v. Clebure Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 432, 439.)

This case involves only the names of legal unions. The constitutionality of a law which designates marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman is at issue here.

In this case, same-sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples. The fact that they enjoy equal SUBSTANTIVE rights does not situate them similarly with married couples in terms of the traditional designation of marriage.

Justice Corrigan makes a valid point that
"society may, if it chooses, recognize that some legally authorized familial relationships unite partners of the same gender while others join partners of the opposite sexes. There is nothing pernicious or constitutionally defefective in this approach."

I believe the people of California are entitled to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. This is a legitimate state interest. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:03 PM:

" MissNV: It is 2008, not 1848. The things that the framers of the California Constitution may have believed are certainly different than what Californians believe 160 years later. Constitutions are, properly, minimalistic documents designed to set the parameters of laws. If we stuck to the beliefs of the original Californians (the Americans), Indians could be hunted, Chinese would be virtual slaves, Blacks literal slaves and women little more than property.

The majority decision did not invent any new rights. The Constitution says clearly that you may not discriminate based on sexual preference (in more than place, I believe). Many State laws say the same thing. The law in California has established sexual preference as a protected category. The State Constitution says:"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."

I don't see how the court could rule any differently. To do so would directly contradict the State Constitution.

You are welcome to your opinion on this. The majority of Californians seem to be OK with same sex marriage.

Now aside from your legal spinning, I have yet to hear your thoughts on why same sex marriage is not good for California. Care to enlighten us on that? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Adark,

"The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights vindicated by the courts, were NOT altered by extending them to all races and both genders.

The institution of marriage was NOT fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. The homosexuals seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood, into something quite new. They could accomplish this through an initiative and then it would be up to the voters to decide if they want to redefine and change the meaning of marriage. That change is for the PEOPLE to adopt, NOT for judges to dictate. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:16 PM:

" Justice Corrigan is entitled to his opinion. That does not make those who share a different opinion activist judges. "

Raven wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Obviously, MNV, the majority felt this was one of those exceptional circumstances.

And there was no new right created, it merely defined the right already given to all Californians, to marry the legal adult of their choice. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:20 PM:

" Teacher,

The reference to the drafters was to illustrate that since the beginning of statehood, and continuing to the present, marrriage has been defined and understood as being a relationship between a man a woman.
In 2000, Californians passed Prop 22 that confirmed marriage was defined between a man and a woman.
The majority had no right to run afoul other provisions of the Constitution, i.e. the separation of powers clause, to substitute their notion of changing societal values for that of the People of CA (over 150+ years).

I would be happy to share my personal thoughts as to why it is undesirable for society. However, there is so much to respond to from a legal perspective.

Adark,

Your gratitude is definitely NOT warranted or deserved.
Unfortunately, you did NOT grasp the "meat of my argument." The SCOPE and constitutional MEANING of the "right to marry" is determined by the definition of marriage. A marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman as defined by case law, statutory law, intent of the people via Prop 22, legistlative history, constitutional history, tradition, etc.)

The law does not facially discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual preference.
Under the law which designated marriage as between a man and a woman, a lesbian is still free to marry a man. That man may be gay or straight. The right to gay marriage or to marry a person of the same-sex is a new and novel constitutional right that was never present before. The CA Constitution says NOTHING about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Again, MissNV, it is the JOB of the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of the laws in California. The court is not usurping any other branch f government by declaring that a law is not constitutional. I'm actually rather puzzled that you are making that argument.

Majority voters does not make a difference. If 90% of Californians voted to enslave any illegal immigrant found in it's borders, the law would be unconstitutional under the California Constitution and thus struck down. The judges making that ruling would not be activist judges.

I have to take back something I said. I don't think that the Constitution actually gives protection for sexual orientation. However, State law has an abundance of protections afforded to sexual preference, which I believe was the point the Majority made. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 28, 2008 4:04 PM:

" "The CA Constitution says NOTHING about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. "

Nor does it say anything about the rights of different sex couples to marry. In fact it says nothing at all about marriage except about property. The arguments made from a privacy argument would apply equally to a same-sex couple.

Your argument seems to be that same sex marriages are not traditional. The legislature is free to change the laws regarding marriage at their pleasure, as long as they are constitutional. Tradition is irrelevant. "

pharper wrote on Jul 28, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Marriage is NOT a "heterosexual version of a civil union." Marriage is a right that this ban proposes to extend ONLY to heterosexual couples. No matter how you look at marriage, from a secular standpoint, denying homosexuals the right to marry IS discrimination, because it's a right that heterosexuals have. Even if a civil union is similar to marriage, as long as gay people can't marry, they don't have the same rights as heterosexuals do. It IS a case of separate but equal, and much like segregation in schools, it's not equal when we're denying a right to the "others"--we've thrown the "equal" part out the window by denying homosexual couples the right to marry.

Actually, I don't think gender differences in laws are a good idea at all, but that's another argument, and something I recognize that I'm in the minority about. "

antipc wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:10 PM:

" MissNV

You go girl, the radical gay movement has been pushing for this fight for a long time. Now that the traditionalists have drawn the line in the sand they cry discrimination. WAAAAAAH!

Thank you for having the intellect to write what the majority of Americans believe. Progressives are destroying our long established values. "

Raven wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:36 PM:

" majority?....a nation wide poll released July 17 shows only 46 percent thinks states should ban gay marriage...49 percent think states should recognize them.....and 46 percent oppose a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. "

Raven wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:37 PM:

" btw...is there a difference between the radical gay movement and the gay movement in general? "

antipc wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:09 PM:

" Raven,

So much for your poll numbers, when 39 of 50 states have a ban on gay marriage.
Secondly there is a huge difference between radical gays & homosexuals. The gay pride parade in S.F. is a disgusting spectacle of the radical agenda. There are many homosexuals who live & let live & have no desire to change the laws to fit thier lifestyle. "

Raven wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:36 PM:

" Those bans were passed in an age of anti-gay hysteria, and whether you like them or not, the numbers are changing....more and more in the direction of acceptance, it will be slow and painful but change is coming.

None of those homosexuals wouldn't like to be able to marry their partner, I doubt that...I'll be blunt, I heard those same statements while growing up in the height of the civil rights movement when those opposed would say blacks didn't want change, they were happy like it is...

sure they are....just keep telling yourself that "

ADark1 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 2:07 AM:

" Nice slam dunk Raven....

One thing for sure, when the people of this state vote NO! I would bet that they will then go to the US supreme Court using the opposite arguement to overthrow the will of the people...Seems to me those that are intolerant will stop at NOTHING!

I'm putting in an order for those tin foil hats...

As for me? I'm intolorant of Intolorance! "

napabrat wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:22 PM:

" I will be voting no on Prop. 8. It baffles me how we can think we need to "define" marriage as a union between a man and a woman only. How does limiting the definition imply equality or fairness? What's the basic point of restricting homosexuals to "civil unions" and not allowing them to consider theirselves MARRIED? This is in fact largely an exercise in semantics. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:27 PM:

" So many Americans LOVE THEIR LIBERTY... they just don't want 'those other people' [ those icky agnostics, apatheists, christians, muslims, gays, lesbians, blacks, Indians (native or otherwise), gun-lovers, etc. ] to have the same liberty they are promised in the US Constitution. For "those other people" to want to be treated the same way before the law as "me, and mine" is JUST AWFUL. Liberty is for ALL of us! ~Ruff "

newmom wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:39 PM:

" Ahhhh... the fall of rome! Economically, international affairs and now our moral backbone. Remember that we are an infant country with little or no nationalistic tradition. We are like spoiled sophomores trying to impose our ideals on the world and we can't even get our act together at home. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 29, 2008 2:31 PM:

" YES ON 8! Hold on to the last vestiges of decency and morality.

RAVEN- your comments made me squirm and want to gargle: "...is there a difference between the radical gay movement and the gay movement in general?"

Gay movement is gay movement though bisexual movement would be diffence and I don't know what to think of transexual movement. "

Raven wrote on Jul 29, 2008 5:53 PM:

" sorry you're feeling ill.....

but exactly what does denying equal right have to do with morality?..seems to me that denying someone their rights is the very antithesis of decency and morality "

antipc wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:27 PM:

" Wow! Ravens rhetorical comments are a "slam dunk"? Repeating the mantra makes you super-human? NOT!

The fact is, libs allow the radical leftists to control their agenda, while the conservatives ignore the right wing extremists.

Validation & acceptance is for the weak. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 29, 2008 7:38 PM:

" So, how does expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples damage marriage, the State of California, or the USA? I'm presuming that since no one has answered this simple question that it means you don't have an answer. "

Webster9 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:00 PM:

" "A Teacher,"
You summed up the entire discussion, brilliantly !

The arguments against gay marriage are simply a heterosexual's disgust at the thought of two men (not two women) having sex with each other. That's it. Even the Republican United States Supreme Court ruled that that was legal.

Your straight marriage is completely unchanged in any way. "

Raven wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:07 AM:

" If conservatives have been ignoring the right wing extremists all these years, I would hate to think what would have happened had then be letting them control their agenda?...BTW, would I be one of those radical leftists? "

4gnapan wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:33 AM:

" I see 211 comments and think "wow, thats a busy commentary".. but its really just the same few people bantering back and forth for 50% or more of it..

Marriage is a Union between two people who Love each other.

It shouldnt matter who, what, why, where, when, straight, gay, bi, whatever.
Anyone who says otherwise needs to get off thier high horse, and take a good look in the mirror. "

pharper wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:22 AM:

" What is this agenda I keep reading about? What "agenda?" To the VER best of my knowledge, gay people have no agenda, and no "lifestyle." They live their lives just like everyone else, with the same trials and the same triumphs-- mortgage problems, family, raising their children, climbing the corporate ladder, buying a home--only they have to do it while facing all sorts of bigotry and discrimination simply because of the sexual preferences they can't change. In San Francisco, the Pride parade is just a chance to celebrate one's individuality, and the progression California has made towards equal rights for all by allowing gay people to marry. Your arguments, antpc, are precisely the ones used to keep women and African Americans from their rights as citizens and human beings, and luckily for us, those arguments are obsolete, no matter how many times the conservatives brandish them about.

And things change. While it's true that at some point, states have banned gay marriage, that doesn't mean this poll's numbers are incorrect--in means that maybe Americans have opened their minds and their hearts--which only goes to show how great our country is, that thinking can evolve that way. "

steph wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:07 PM:

" I just enjoyed a pleasant Sunday afternoon with my whole heterosexual family (mom, dad, husband, kids, great aunt, uncle, mom's cousins) at the home of a relative who is married to her female partner. It was my pleasure to introduce these women to my three children; they are both traditionally beautiful, well-educated, smart, funny, gracious. Just as I expected, my kids found the whole situation quite ordinary, except for the women's new puppy and the delicious food they served. The only agenda for the day was that we all have a nice time celebrating the visit of our octogenarian auntie. She is very proud of her daughter and her daughter's partner, as she should be.

I like to think I was able to reinforce what I have taught my children, that homosexuals are people, and we should judge them on the basis of their character--the same as we judge heterosexuals--and that homosexuals thusly deserve all the same rights (and responsibilities) as heterosexuals. Naturally.

My only complaint with my homosexual relative and her partner is that they are quite liberal--but I can't say I blame them.

I look forward to the day when conservatives don't make homosexuality such a divisive issue, and I can lock arms with my homosexual friends and family members to fight for the economic and military security of this great nation.

I'm optimistic about my children's generation.

That's my agenda. "

Claytonsd wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:05 PM:

" Want to DEFEND MARRIAGE?

I am amazed that people feel the connotation of the word MARRIAGE instead of accepting the denotation of it. Quite frankly, we should dispense with the institution of marriage since over 50% of all heterosexual marriages end up in divorce. It is this situation that makes a mockery of MARRIAGE (my parents have been married 61 years!). Many pro-hetero-marriage promoters keep talking about "the family" and "doing it for the family" and how "family is so important,"

Well, if marriage is for the procreation of children and/or the children's best interest, then there should be some rules for a marriage license just as there are for gun licenses, professional licenses and business licenses. Namely:
1) When a baby is born to unmarried parents, the parents are immediately married.
2) Couples who have had children are not allowed to divorce.
3) A marriage license should automatically expire in 10 years if no children have been produced.
4) Marriage licenses should not be issued to people over 40 or infertile.
5) In a child's best interest, those born into poverty should be removed from their home and given to wealthy or otherwise advantaged married couples who are approaching their 10-year mark and still have not had a child.

I wonder how many pro-hetero-marriage people would accept the above rules if we REALLY wanted to make MARRIAGE mean something for "the family" ??????? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:43 PM:

" Antipc,

Thanks for the moral support. Apparently, these libs are good at making slam dunks - in the "political toilet," that is.

Teacher,

Please allow me to clarify. The CA Constitution does not EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY (through case law, i.e. common law) mention, or even remotely suggest, anything about the right to “same-sex marriage.” As we have established and as we both agree, the CA Constitution does not explicitly grant the “right to marry.”. However, as I have explained before, it is well-settled through case-law (common law) that there is an IMPLICIT right to marry a person of the opposite sex (which comports with the constitutional definition of marriage as it has been established and as it has always been understood and as it was confirmed by the CA voters when they passed Prop 22) via the privacy clause. In fact, the majority ADMITS in its opinion that California law has ALWAYS assumed that marriage itself is between a man a woman. The majority also ADMITS that both the Legislature and the People themselves have enacted measures to make that assumption explicit.

A judge, when reviewing a statute to see if it passes constitutional muster, cannot simply decide something is unconstitutional because he or she personally believes it is unconstitutional or because it offends his or her notion of equality and justice. Rather, the judge has to have a legitimate LEGAL basis/foundation for concluding that a statute is unconstitutional. Constitutional jurisprudence has established various judicial tools for testing and determining constitutionality. “Judicial tools” include judicial doctrines, presumptions, tests, standards, rules of statutory construction, rules of interpretation, common law, etc. (This is “judicial protocol,” if you will) "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:49 PM:

" In this case, the majority did not follow “judicial protocol” and had no legitimate LEGAL basis for concluding that the statutes at issue were unconstitutional. The majority ignored the doctrine of judicial restraint, stare decisis, as well as the presumption accorded to statutes when determining their constitutionality. Following judicial protocol, the majority, in this case, should have presumed the constitutional validity of legislative acts and resolved doubts in favor of the statute.” (see, Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 939.)

As Justice Baxter stated, there is no “convincing basis in federal or California jurisprudence for the majority’s claim that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marry.” Fundamental rights entitled to the Constitution’s protection are those “which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this [society’s] history and tradition.” (Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702, 720-721; see, e.g., Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 940.) It is beyond dispute, that there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in California. Precisely the OPPOSITE is true.

The majority “amended” the CA Constitution by changing the express and implicit definition of marriage (for purposes of the implicit Constitutional right to marry) and this violated the CA Constitution. Only the People have the power to amend the Constitution, whether the "right" to be amended is implicit or express.

Now I could elaborate on how the majority violated the separation of powers clause, but in light of the above, is that really necessary? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:05 PM:

" Webster,

I believe you are refering to the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas which struck down a state law prohibiting same-sex sodomy.

The majority in that case made clear that the case "did NOT involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." In fact, one of the Justices stated that this case did NOT mean that all distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual persons would similarly fail. In the case at hand, the Justice noted, "Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest [in such a classification], such as ... PRESERVING THE TRADITIONAL INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE." See concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S 558, 585. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:25 PM:

" MissNV-

"A judge, when reviewing a statute to see if it passes constitutional muster, cannot simply decide something is unconstitutional because he or she personally believes it is unconstitutional or because it offends his or her notion of equality and justice."

And there in lies my problem with your argument. You keep on saying that this is a matter of three judges inserting their personal views on the matter into their decision. Yet, the only evidence you have for that is the fact that they ruled the law unconstitutional. I don't know the political leanings of the majority, but I know that some of them were appointed by conservative republicans and are by no means wild eyed liberals. Can it be that they saw the case in a different light than the minority.

Now, really, this is tiresome. your arguments are debatable and moot. The discision has been made. Tell me why same sex marriage is wrong for California? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:37 PM:

" MissNV-
"The majority “amended” the CA Constitution by changing the express and implicit definition of marriage (for purposes of the implicit Constitutional right to marry) and this violated the CA Constitution. Only the People have the power to amend the Constitution, whether the "right" to be amended is implicit or express."

Nice try, but no. You don't change the definition of marriage by saying a law is unconstitutional. Nor is the constitution changed by making a ruling about a a right that is not in the constitution.

Sorry.

Now stop tap dancing and hiding behind dubious legal theories. Explain your objections to same sex marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:42 PM:

" ADark1, gays in civil unions are not second class citizens, nor would a victory for Prop 8 make them second class citizens.
There are no substantial rights or privileges involved. Charges of discrimination should be based on practical and real criteria, such as blacks not being allowed to sit in the front of the bus. Tell me, where is the 'bus' scenario equivalent for gays in civil unions? " "

John Richards wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:58 PM:

" You wrote: "How does expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples damage marriage, the State of California, or the USA? I'm presuming that since no one has answered this simple question that it means you don't have an answer. "

The simple answer is that a majority of voters in this country believe that same sex marriage is morally wrong. They believe that changing the definition of marriage cheapens and demeans the real meaning of marriage. They don't want this change to be crammed down their throats, especially not by activist judges. "

Raven wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:04 PM:

" again MNV, while most jurists will follow the doctrine of judicial restraint, stare decisis, there have been and will be times when they, upon consideration of the subject, will not and will establish a new precedent...and no matter how many times you cite opinions from the minority, you seem to have trouble realizing that they were the minority in this decision and the reasoning of the majority is the reasoning that really matters. "

Raven wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:08 PM:

" A victory in Prop 8 will, as the new language rightfully explains, deny homosexuals a right given to other Californians.

That is the only criteria needed for discrimination. "

Raven wrote on Jul 30, 2008 10:13 PM:

" actually JR, the polling now shows that more people in this country approve of homosexual marriage than disapprove...

and as has been asked, how does homosexual marriage damage a heterosexual marriage?.....give me something concrete.... "

a teacher wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:28 PM:

" JR-you punted. My question was:""How does expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples damage marriage, the State of California, or the USA?"

Your answer is: the majority doesn't support same sex marriage, which didn't answer my question. Also, if you read the numerous polls you'll notice a few things.
a) Support of same sex marriage is increasing.
b) the younger you are the more likely you are to support it.
c) Americans are very much divided on whether the laws should out right ban same sex marriage. Mostly it's close, with a slight edge to opposing laws against.

Opinion is swinging towards same sex marriage.

At any rate opinion is only part of the story. I'm sure the majority of Americans opposed inter-racial marriages over the years. However, equal rights are equal rights, regardless of the majority's opinion. That's what a constitution and bill of rights is for. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Raven,

I'm not sure what poll you are referring to, but according to the Quinnipiac Univerisity National Poll, Americans OPPOSE same-sex marriage 55% to 36%.
That poll was taken on July 17, 2008.

According to a Gallup poll conducted in May 2008, 56% of Americans say that same-sex marriage should NOT be legal, whereas 40% say it should.

According to Gallup, for the past 4 years public support for same-sex marriage has FAILED to grow in a linear fashion; rather it has fluctuated and has been as low as 37% and never above 46% .

In response to your comment on setting a precedent .... that does not mean that a judge can just throw over 200 hundred years of judicial protocol out the window exceed their power as judges, and violate other provisions of the Constitution when doing so. They have no right to legislate from the bench, and the doctrine of judicial restraint was put in place to prevent judges from abusing their power. In this case, the court ignored the doctrine.

I understand the majority's ruling prevails, irrespective of the fact they violated the CA Constitution. However, it still not does make it "right." "

Raven wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:52 PM:

" and precedent means exactly that, that a judge does something new, breaks with established tradition.

as for the poll, same university, July 17...
fifth paragraph...
"By a narrow 49 - 45 percent margin, voters nationwide say their states should not attempt to ban same-sex marriage. " "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Teacher,

In the majority's opinion, you will find that the definition of marriage was redefined. The majority declared unconsistutional the statute that limited the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and woman" and declared that such language must be stricken. Further, the Court said that the revised statute must be understood as making the designation of "marriage" available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In striking the language "between a man and a woman" and allowing two members of the same sex to call their union "marriage," the court changed the meaning/definition of marriage as we know it in California.

The majority abandoned judicial protocol and had no legal basis for its decision. That's how I conclude it was an activist court. My conclusion is independent of my opposition to same-sex marriage.

There seems to be a myth out there that if you call this court "activist," it's only because you oppose same-sex marriage. Justice Corrigan, agrees with me that the majority exceeded their judicial power and violated the Constitution. However, she agrees with YOU that same-sex couples should be able to call their union "marriage." (I fundamentally disagree with her on this point.) Putting her PERSONAL view aside, she agrees with ME that it is up to the People to make that change, and not activist judges. Unlike the majority, she gave a LEGAL basis to support her conclusion and did NOT run afoul other provisions of the Constitution in doing so. "

a teacher wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:03 PM:

" MissNV: Still tap dancing I see. In my experience in courts, simple, direct arguments are usually the most persuasive. The majority's argument can be summed up in three sentencec:

1) Homosexuals are a protected class under California Law.

2) Article 2, section 7 of the State Constitution says that rights may not be granted one class of people in exclusion to other classes of people.

3) Defining marriage as between a man and a woman would exclude same sex marriages and is there for unconstitutional.

The only argument you can make is that homosexuals are not a protected class and I notice that you are not making that argument. Everything else is smoke and mirrors designed to avoid talking about your real problem which is:

Is homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality ?

or

Is homosexuality a deviance in normal behavior, making homosexuality a mental defect of sorts.

If you believe the former statement then you should have little trouble with same sex marriage. Marriage is then just the legal acknowledgment of a life long commitment between people.

If you believe the later statement, then I understand your objections, even if I don't agree with them. But at least then we'd know what we are really talking about. "

Carol Whichard wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Quick question: Why would the citizens of the great state of California allow discrimination to be built into our Constitution?

No matter how you slice it; separate but equal is not OK.

I would strongly encourage a NO vote on Prop.8 in November. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Here's the law prior to the Supreme Court's decison on same-sex marriage.

"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon SPOUSES" Family Code Section 297.5, subd. (a)

Quick question - Does that sound like the homosexual citizens of the great state of CA are being discriminated against?

No, of course not...they have all the same substantive rights, i.e. equal rights as "spouses."

As Justice Corrigan stated, "Domestic partnerships and marriages have the SAME LEGAL STANDING, granting to both heterosexual and homosexual couples a societal recognition of their lifelong commitment. This parity does NOT violate the Constitution, it is in keeping with it. But this does NOT mean that the TRADITIONAL definition of marriage is unconsitutional.

The solgan "separate is never equal" does NOT apply here. Homo couples are NOT "similiarly situated" as heterosexual couples with respect to the statute at issue (a necessay prerequisite). This is a constitutional nuance that is foreign to the lay person.

Just because something is unequal, i.e. not the same in name, does NOT compel the legal conclusion that it is unconstitutional.

PRESERVE THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. YES ON MEASURE 8!! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:10 PM:

" Teacher,

Here are some of my personal thoughts on why I oppose same-sex marriage.

I believe that same-sex marriage undermines and denigrates the institution of marriage. Whether the homosexual proponents want to acknowledge it or not, redefining the meaning of marriage opens the floodgates from a legal perspective. Who is to say that 10 years from now an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?

It is my belief that marriage is sanctioned by God and to equate it with homosexual unions, something I regard as immoral, is just plain wrong.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage just does not make sense for practical reasons. The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. Now CA will have to find a way to distinguish same-sex marriage from heterosexual marriage for purposes of administering federal-state benefits.

In the wake of the Court’s decision, schools will be obligated to teach children that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Basically, our public schools will teach that homosexual marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own beliefs and values. It should not be forced upon them aganist their will.

We need only look to the precedent of the European countries that have established a right to same-sex marriage to see that it has had deleterious sociological effects on their society. "

Raven wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:57 PM:

" so,.....you are basing your objections to homosexual marriage on your own religious beliefs...and you nothing wrong with imposing your religious beliefs on others who may not share them and in asking the state to do so...in what would appear to be a breach of the wall separating church and state.

And give me a concrete example of the deleterious sociological effects....pick a country....and outline how homosexual marriage has injured the people of the country.. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:05 PM:

" For someone to say that my dom. partnership is the same as being married... in a way, is SO far from the truth. Please live a day in my shoes.

People don't educate themselves on dom. partner rights. They JUST DON'T. I didn't have health insurance for 7 MONTHS because of my partner's work's definition of "DP". To quickly give you a summary: Like a person just married, you have up to a month to be put on your spouse's healthcare (without having to wait until open enrollment), so, when I left my job, and my partner and I (of 10 years) registered as domestic partners here in CA, (a big move), they told us that we were not eligible, because their DEFINITION was a same sex couple who moved in with each other and have lived together for under one month. Yeah, so I had to wait 7 months.

And filing taxes.... My partner and I have to pay MORE than you to file. We have to file federally separately, file through the state separately and THEN file through the state AGAIN as married.

Car Insurance? I have a very well known company. I had to fight with them that we could even file together like we were married, and it took a couple people to work with to make that happen. They didn't offer it. If we don't keep educated on our rights we lose out.
The list can go on and on.

I worry... I worry when we are out of state about hospitalization. And for our kids when we have them. We need an equal family unit.

Lemme go on... :) "

a teacher wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:09 PM:

" If there is no difference between civil unions and marriage, then to differentiate based on sex preference is discrimination. There is no such thing as separate, but equal. That is discrimination with a smilely face.

The "slippery slope" argument does nothing for me. Polygamy? So what? I lived in Kenya for some time and many of my neighbors had several wives. I thought they were nuts, but it works for them. Incestuous marriages? Not something that's going to happen too often.

You are entitled to follow your religion, but you are not entitled to impose them on me. That's what the first amendment of the US Constitution says.

What "deleterious sociological effects on their society." do you refer to? "

a teacher wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:15 PM:

" "In the wake of the Court’s decision, schools will be obligated to teach children that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Basically, our public schools will teach that homosexual marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own beliefs and values. It should not be forced upon them aganist their will."

That is true, but in light of the decision of the court, Same sex marriages IS the same and OK. That is a "red herring". Parents are faced with that kind of situation daily. It could be an opportunity to teach tolerance, an essential quality in a very diverse democracy. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:14 PM:

" thank you a teacher "

pharper wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:14 PM:

" So, MNV, we should teach our children intolerance? We should teach our children that same-sex couples are NOT normal, are immoral, and to reject them? If we take that stance, we'll raise a generation full of hatred for others and without open minds.

It's really very simple: homosexuals are people. They're not only people, they're citizens of the United States, where our creed is that all people are created equal. Denying them a right afforded to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional and un-American. We live in a nation where religious beliefs have no place in our laws, and where every person is free to worship (or not) as they please.

Prop 8 is discrimination. That's all there is to it, and America isn't a country that, if you read its constitution, puts up with discrimination. "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:14 PM:

" Again,.......... if your're against gay marriage then don't have one...But please don't think you have the right to deny others the SAME rights as non-gays simply because you're against it. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:17 PM:

" Pharper,

By no means am I advocating that we teach our children to hate homosexuals or to be intolerant of the beliefs of others. I simply don’t think that children should be taught that homosexuality is normal behavior because, quite frankly, it’s not. I advocate that we respect everyone’s freedom to make lifestyle choices and to exercise their free will. However, I draw the line at re-defining marriage for the rest of society. This is not to say that we should treat homosexuals poorly or reject them. Have you ever heard the expression love the sinner but reject the sin? I subscribe to that.

Measure 8 is NOT advocating discrimination against homosexuals. A homosexual still has the right to enter into a domestic partnership as well as the right to enter into a marriage (as defined as a relationship between a man and a woman), if he or she so chooses. Heterosexuals of the same sex have the right to enter domestic partnerships, if they so choose. There is complete parity UNDER CA LAW between domestic partners and spouses. Again, domestic partners have the SAME RIGHTS as spouses. This is not an issue of discrimination. This is merely an issue of nomenclature. What “right” do homosexuals want? The right to change an age-old definition to fit their lifestyle? Why should Californians be forced to redefine a word and change its meaning completely? "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:19 PM:

" Marriage, as reaffirmed by the PEOPLE of CA when they passed Prop 22, is a relationship between a man and a woman. In the language of a math teacher, this is a “given.” This is the age-old, traditional, universal definition of marriage. Why should we change what we’ve known to be true and recast and reshape it to accommodate a small minority of people?

Under your reasoning, Pharper, we should re-define marriage to include polygamy and incestuous relationships and adult-child unions lest we “discriminate” and show “intolerance” for the sexual preferences of these minorities. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Raven,

I am not imposing my religious beliefs on anyone. If you read my comment, you will see that I oppose same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons, not all of which are based on religion.

A person does not have to be affiliated with a religion to object to homosexuality or to believe it is wrong or not good for society. BTW, since when is it against the law to vote according to your beliefs and values? Isn’t that really what every person does when he or she votes?

And where does the U.S. Constitution use the term “separation of church and state? I’ll save you the time … it doesn’t. If we adopt your approach to constitutional law, then the U.S. Supreme Court can throw out the judicial doctrine and common law establishing “separation of church and state” and then defend its action by calling it “precedent.” If we adopt your approach to constitutional law and your support of activist judges, who’s to say that a judge can’t re-define “separation of church and state” to mean only that there can be no particular religion that is the official religion of the U.S. or a state?

Granted, this is far from a perfect analogy, but it illustrates my general point about the importance of leaving policy decisions up to the PEOPLE and not to ACTIVIST judges. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Teacher,

First, how is keeping the traditional definition of marriage an imposition of one's religious beliefs? Civil marriage, in both the federal and state context, have defined it as between a man and a woman. The definition of civil marriage does NOT violate the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

There are instances, where it is constitutionally permissible to "discriminate" in favor of one group over another. For instance, a state can discriminate in favor of it's citizens over the citizens of a sister state when awarding state contracts.

There are instances where it is constitutionally permissible to maintain distinctions.

Further, as I have stated before, just because something is "unequal" does not compel the conclusion that it is unconstitutional.

Preserving the traditional definition of marriage is a legitimate state interest.
This was specifically mentioned by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice when deciding the Lawrence case.

So teacher, are you saying that you would NOT object to giving the same rights as spouses and domestic partners to POLYGAMISTS as well? "

Raven wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:30 PM:

" It doesnt really matter what Prop 22 said because the court delcared it unconstitutional....no matter how much you dislike their reasoning for doing so, it has been done.

>

You state your belief about God and marriage and want the state to enforce that belief....while the phrase separation of church and state is not explicitly stated, it seems to me the asking the state to enforce your beliefs is damn close to state sanction of a religion.

and yes, the court could set new precedents, but if they followed your reasoning brown v the board of education would have gone the other way, the Miranda decision would have gone the other way, your right to an attorney would not have been established...all were considered major precedent setting decisions in their time. "

Raven wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:34 PM:

" polygamy?...must be okay with a lot of people, I see no rush for a constitutional amendment to ban it... "

John Richards wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:52 PM:

" imyourneighbor, most of your complaints about discrimination against gay civil unions are due to federal laws. Proposition 8 has absolutely no effect on that. So why keep bringing up things to confuse the issue? "

John Richards wrote on Aug 1, 2008 11:56 PM:

" Gays have exactly the same right as heterosexuals: to marry a person of the opposite sex. So where is the discrimination? Oh, you say you should be able to marry the one you love? Perhaps I love my sister, but they won't let me marry her either. Should I scream "discrimination"? "

a teacher wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:34 AM:

" "First, how is keeping the traditional definition of marriage an imposition of one's religious beliefs?"

It is when you give this explanation: "It is my belief that marriage is sanctioned by God and to equate it with homosexual unions, something I regard as immoral, is just plain wrong."

The rest of what you are writing is basically arguing about why we can discriminate, using inappropriate analogies. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:44 AM:

" I don't care if groups of people want to marry, Brother and sister, it's not my business(so John go ahead, I'm not judging). The only real criteria, as far as I'm concerned is consenting adults. "

Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 1:52 AM:

" such a tired argument JR, and irrelevant....why is it that no one has answered the question as to what harm is caused heterosexual marriage by allowing a homosexual couple to marry? answer, none.... "

Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 1:55 AM:

" and the case is not whether they can marry someone of the opposite sex....it's being able to marry the person they love....

we have seen the reappearance of the incest argument...how long before the bestiality argument reappears... "

pharper wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Homosexuality is normal behavior, or people wouldn't be born that way. Homosexuality is even seen in the animal kingdom--and I can't imagine you would argue that they sit around debating homosexuality versus heterosexuality. Homosexuality is clearly normal; that's not the issue: children shouldn't be taught that's it's ABnormal. Gay and lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to commit suicide than heterosexual teenagers. Telling kids that their peers who like people of the same sex are abnormal just gives them more fodder to say cruel things-and let's face it, kids can be beyond cruel. You want to protect children? How about starting by not discriminating against those who may want to grow up and marry their same-sex partner? How about not calling one of the things that makes them who they are a sin? Instead, we should be teaching tolerance and acceptance, not that homosexuals are "weird" or "not normal." Besides, who says they're sinning? That, again, is YOUR religious belief. It's not a lifestyle. It's not a choice, either.
Would you enter into a relationship with another woman? Would you have a civil union with a person of the same sex? My guess is that the answer is no, so why would a homosexual person enter into marriage with someone of the opposite sex? Just like you can't become homosexual, a homosexual can't become heterosexual--no matter how many camps or programs or churches have claimed to be capable of making it happen. "

pharper wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:50 PM:

" Polygamy and incestuous relationships are not, by the way, sexual preferences. Polygamy is typically a religious thing (and if we’re bringing religion into the argument against same-sex marriage, doesn’t that mean that polygamous marriages are okay, as long as they’re backed up by religious beliefs?) and incest isn’t a sexual preference. For the same reason that interracial marriages are now legal, gay marriage should be—it’s not something a person chooses to be. They are born that way, like a white person is born white, and a black person is born black (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson). Polygamists are not born polygamists, and people committing incest are not born with a predisposition towards liking a blood relative. Those are choices people make, and homosexuality is not a choice. Why would ten per cent of the population choose to be something they know will cause them to be discriminated against, and figuratively persecuted? I’m sure there are those who claim to have chosen to be gay or straight, but ninety-nine point nine per cent of gay people were born that way—probably a hundred per cent, really, except that point one per cent won’t admit it. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 2, 2008 2:27 PM:

" Raven, you know as well as I do that our laws will continue to discriminate (and perhaps for good reason) against marriages involving close relatives (incest) and multiple partners (polygamy). My point was to illustrate that it is not sufficient to claim that banning gay marriage is wrong because it discriminates against a class of people, and doesn't allow gays to marry the ones they love. Both of those points apply to incest and polygamy. Although you as a person may be fine with those latter types of marriage, a very overwhelming majority of Americans are not. "

Raven wrote on Aug 2, 2008 5:59 PM:

" well if you look at my post I never said I was fine with either.....both seem to be tossed out frequently in the argument regarding why it is 'necessary' to bar same sex marriage....and neither has any bearing on the argument.

Anti-incest laws have a solid basis in genetics....too much inbreeding is a terrible thing to see...

and as for polygamy, there seems to be no rush to have it legalized right now..but culturally it has been a feature of many civilizations and religions throughout the world...even here in the US....anyway....polygamy is irrelevant to the argument here....and there has been no answer to the question-

namely, how does a same-sex marriage actually harm a heterosexual marriage? "

ProudAmerican wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:08 AM:

" I will again be voting YES to ban same sex marriage. If I recall correctly, WE did vote on this, and WE did vote against same sex marriage, then the California Supreme Court decided that we were too stupid to be making decisions so they went and fixed our stupid mistake by overturning the will of the people. "

Raven wrote on Aug 3, 2008 11:14 AM:

" and again, proud american, how does a same-sex marriage harm a heterosexual marriage? "

winemd wrote on Aug 3, 2008 1:20 PM:

" The risk of genetic abnormalities rises for women above the age of 35. Should we ban marriages for older women based on genetics? How does an incestuous marriage harm non-incestuous marriages? "

Raven wrote on Aug 3, 2008 1:35 PM:

" a specious argument winemd...the question is how does a same-sex marriage harm a heterosexual marriage "

John Richards wrote on Aug 3, 2008 5:20 PM:

" Raven, perhaps no one has attempted to answer your question "How does a same-sex marriage actually harm a heterosexual marriage?" because it is a loaded question.

By the same token I could ask "Why do gays insist on wanting to call their civil unions 'marriage' when it brings no actual increased benefits?" All it will do is anger the 50% of Californians who are more conservative-minded and who consider 'marriage' to be reserved to its historical meaning. "

Raven wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:25 PM:

" and if the situation were reversed, how would you feel if told you could never use the phrase marriage?...Would you feel discriminated against, denied something?

and maybe the reason no one has answered the question is that there is no harm done to any heterosexual marriage "

a teacher wrote on Aug 3, 2008 9:22 PM:

" "By the same token I could ask "Why do gays insist on wanting to call their civil unions 'marriage' when it brings no actual increased benefits?" All it will do is anger the 50% of Californians who are more conservative-minded and who consider 'marriage' to be reserved to its historical meaning. "

Because civil union is NOT the same thing. Homosexuals want to be recognized as equals to everyone else. That would include marriage to one's life partner.

That is what this boils down to: are homosexuals equals or not. "

ProudAmerican wrote on Aug 3, 2008 10:14 PM:

" ...Raven... I don't feel that heterosexual marriage is harmed by homosexual marriage. I thought that my point was clear, but I will restate it... My point was that the California Supreme Court decided that the Majority of Californians were wrong and overturned lawful legislation. WE THE PEOPLE spoke and the California Supreme Court felt that THEIR WILL was more important than the Majority of Californians.

Had WE voted to allow same sex marriage, and the ballot iniative passed by the will of the people, just like most of our elections, I would not be typing here today. "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:08 AM:

" and one of the points we have been trying to make is that it doesn't matter if 99.9 percent of the people vote for something that is unconstitutional, it is still unconstitutional...and denying same-sex couple the right to marry is....

on of the purposes of a constitution is to protect a minority from a tyranny of the majority....what other rights shouldn't homosexual's have? "

a teacher wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:17 AM:

" ProudAmerican: The majority of voters and the majority of Californians are two different things. 39% of voters turned out, 61% voted for prop 22. 61% of 39% is 24%. I'm not crying foul, that's how elections work in the country, majority wins.

However, the State can't keep a law that is unconstitutional. The state does provide that citizens can change the State Constitution by voter initiative, and so you get another chance. That's democracy in action.

Currently, it looks like a pretty close vote. The majority seems to favor same sex marriage, but will that translate into a vote of no on Prop 8? It's a complicated issue, you don't change the constitution lightly. And, unless it's a shut out, you can expect the losers to try again next chance they get. "

mominapa wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:22 AM:

" I definitely oppose the ban on gay marriage. Who cares what gays do? Is that going to change anything for me? No. Everyone should have the chance to love and show that love for whomever they love, man or woman. The perverted ones are the people who try to make everything dirty. Is all marriage about sex. Don't think so, so why should gay marriage or any issue dealing with gays be about sex. I don't care. Let them marry if they want. What I don't understand is why anyone wants to marry anyway. I sure don't, but my opinion isn't any better than any of yours. Gays or anyone else will marry or they won't and it won't affect anyone one way or the other except the two people entering into that contract. If you are happy being married, go for it, gay or straight. Couldn't care less one way or the other except that I hope you are doing it for the right reasons and that every one is happy. I don't know why there should even be a question about it. "

ProudAmerican wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:43 AM:

" ...raven... Please explain how it is unconstitutional… We have Marriage for the Heterosexuals and Legal Unions for the Homosexuals. Both are legally recognized and both have rights under the law. For some reason Homosexuals are trying to make their cause mainstream by having it referred to as the norm. All that I see is that if they can call their union a Marriage then they will feel like they fit in better? Personally, I don’t care one way or another, I just simply don’t understand why we have to pretend that Homosexual is the norm. "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:43 PM:

" Proud American, the majority cannot remove the rights of a minority, no matter how lopsided the vote is through a simple statute if that statute violates the state constitution.....only an amendment to the constitution can do that...and prop 22 was a statute, not a constitutional amendment....

there was a old proverb, "you can call an ox a steer..while he may be grateful for the honor, he really wants what is rightfully his."

Homosexuals want what is rightfully theirs...to be able marry a person of the same sex. They are not asking for more rights, or special treatment, they want what is their right to have.

Saying they aren't the norm doesnt wash..personally I think left-handed people aren't the norm but I would never deny them the right to marry "

sweetgrape14 wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:28 PM:

" I support gay marriage 100%! And will be voting against making it illegal for them to marry. People should be able to marry who they love, no matter what gender that person happens to be! "

pharper wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:14 PM:

" I don't see why poeple are syaing that homosexuality isn't normal. If people are born that way (and it doesn't harm others/isn't a defect) isn't that normal? It occurs in the animal kingdom as well, so it's clearly not something unique to human beings. Like raven said, we don't deny the minority (left-handed people) the right to marry, even though they're "not normal." "

steph wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:57 PM:

" I'm against heterosexual marriage for people over the reproductive age.

Why do they need to get married, anyway? They can just get a domestic partnership and enjoy all the same benefits.

Besides. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that all heterosexuals have the right to marry. "

winemd wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:47 PM:

" The point that I am trying to make is that the argument that homosexuals are a minority protected by the constitution from the tyranny of the majority applies to all adults, no matter who they fall in love with. If you feel that homosexuals are okay, but polygamists are not, then are you any different from the people who you say are wrong? The same argument that you are using can be used to justify allowing polygamy, or any other union between consenting adults. Is there a really good reason to stop with allowing homosexual marriage? This is just a question to ponder, not an argument for the amendment. Can you really say that homosexual marriage is okay because it does not hurt others' marriages, but incestuous or polygamous marriage is not okay, even though it does not hurt others' marriages? Most people do draw a line somewhere, based on their own reasons, which may or may not be valid in your opinion, but they are entitled to them. They are not just "wrong." You are right that it is not the question you asked and it is not intended to be an answer, but it is worth thinking about, so as not to unconsciously be hypocritical on this issue. "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:40 PM:

" sigh.....I have never said polygamists weren't okay...though I do notice that most people in polygamist cults seem to be men wanting multiple wives, I mean, when was the last time you heard of a polyandry cult where women wanted multiple husbands.......polygamy has a long history in most cultures in world, and a storied history here in the United States, being legal in Utah until Utah wanted to join the Union and the president of the LDS had a revelation......and the biological arguments against incest are numerous.

But we aren't talking about legalizing polygamy or incest......and the only people who consistently bring those subjects up are those opposed to same sex marriage...which the state supreme court has said is a right homosexuals enjoy in California....a right which supporters of prop 8 want to take away....and still....no examples of how same-sex marriages harm a heterosexual marriage, just more smoke and mirrors. "

winemd wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:38 PM:

" According to this thread (or possibly the last one), biological/reproductive arguments are not valid ones, as procreation and marriage are separate issues. Should a woman past reproductive age be allowed to marry her brother, or her son? I confess, I have an automatic ICK about that, as I suspect most do, even though their marriage would not affect mine. People who are against gay marriage probably have an automatic reaction also, whether that is right or not. I also don't have a problem with people holding to their own religious beliefs. I wonder if it would be better for the state to issue only civil union licences and stay out of the marriage business. I have to laugh, though, when I think of the announcement: Mom and Dad, I am going to get "civilly unionized." "

John Richards wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:40 PM:

" " and if the situation were reversed, how would you feel if told you could never use the phrase marriage?...Would you feel discriminated against, denied something?"

Not if that was the historical norm. There are lots of areas in which I feel discriminated against. To name a trivial one, I can't go into public restrooms marked "Ladies".

" and maybe the reason no one has answered the question is that there is no harm done to any heterosexual marriage "
The 'harm' is a radical change to the meaning of 'marriage'. Marriage for me included conceiving, raising and supporting several children. Yes, there are heterosexual marriages that don't produce offspring, but that is not the norm. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Those of you who cite the recent Field poll which indicates that Prop 8 will fail, let me remind you that polls are not the same thing as actual votes. For example, assisted suicide was on the ballot in 1992 as Prop 161. In polls, it was supported by about 64 percent of Californians, yet at ballot box it failed 46-54. So much for the accuracy of polls, especially on sensitive issues. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:43 PM:

" What are some of the practical reasons to vote yes on Prop 8?
Mark my words, if Prop 8 is defeated, those who continue to believe and express that marriage is meant to be between a man and woman only, will be labeled as bigots and homophobes. This can only increase discord and strife in our society, resulting in further polarization.

What will happen to churches like Mormon, Roman Catholic, and Evangelicals who will continue to teach that gay marriage is wrong? Will pulpit statements like “Children need a mother and a father” be deemed hate speech? Will churches be sued for refusing to rent out the local parish hall for a gay wedding? Will the state revoke their tax exempt status?

What will the public schools teach about gay marriage? Won't this result in further exodus of kids as their parents enroll them in private schools? More polarization!

This is just the tip of the iceberg... "

John Richards wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:54 PM:

" "I think left-handed people aren't the norm but I would never deny them the right to marry ".
Being left-handed has nothing to do with marriage. Being gay has a lot to do with marriage. That is the difference.

For the last 500 years or so, one of the main purposes of marriage was to provide a stable environment in which to conceive and raise children, the basic building blocks of society. Heterosexuals AS A CLASS qualified for that arduous assignment. Gays don't. That is why marriage is not appropriate for gays. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:44 PM:

" Two comments JR, your comment :"For the last 500 years or so, one of the main purposes of marriage was to provide a stable environment in which to conceive and raise children" is a recent invention of modern people. In fact, marriage has been about property (who inherits what when the old folks kick off) and alliances (marrying into a situation that will give you the best chance at prosperity).

As to your fear about the imminent collapse of society: "This can only increase discord and strife in our society, resulting in further polarization.

What will happen to churches like Mormon, Roman Catholic, and Evangelicals who will continue to teach that gay marriage is wrong? Will pulpit statements like “Children need a mother and a father” be deemed hate speech? yada, yada, yada..."

Perhaps the more likely outcome will be that we teach our kids that in a democratic and diverse society we have to learn to be tolerant of people with whom we disagree. That wouldn't be a terrible message, would it? "

Raven wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:50 PM:

" There is nothing that will happen to any church that who believes same-sex marriage is wrong? Except maybe a loss of some church members.....no pulpit will be censored, and churchs are currently allowed to choose to whom they rent their church facilities to so that won't change....never has been threat to any church regarding this....

as for the schools, what they will teach is set by either the state in its requirements for curriculum.....

As far as being labeled homophobes or bigots....I don't think anyone is waiting to the November election to determine if anyone fits that description.

And here goes the raising children issue again. By your standard, JR, non-child-bearing couples should not be allowed to marry? I mean if the primary reason has been to conceive and raise children , that is what it sounds like to me. By that standard my girlfriend and I can never marry as we have had our share of kids and never plan on having any more. "

barefoot wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:09 PM:

" Everybody into the pool!!!! Homosexual females on the left. Homesexual males on the right. Now put them on individual islands. Dang, nature doesn't play nice. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:37 PM:

" I can't tell you how many families out there that are gay and lesbian and have children. Lots and lots... and as a school teacher, I have been amazed at how frequent it really is.

I enjoy going to the pride parade every year to see the families and their children. It has grown 10 fold over the past few years.

We gays are having children, having families, meaningful relationships and want the rights to protect us. We want to raise our children with compassion, confidence and a be a role model for what America is and means.

It is the children that will hurt more by prop 8 if it passes. In the language of it... our family will not be as "cohesive" or "valid" as the boy next door.. aside from legally also .

and... at the last wedding I was at...

For the children of the gay couple who went to a wedding, and the priest denounced gay marriage for at least 5 minutes of the ceremony, I pray that they can find the strength in them to rise above, because THEIR family is just as important, normal, valid and healthy. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 6, 2008 2:18 PM:

" I am sure that a large majority of child psychologists would agree, the best environment for a child to grow up in is a heterosexual family unit with both a father and a mother. That's not to say that gays can't be loving parents. It just isn't the best model. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 6, 2008 2:55 PM:

" Actually, JR, I doubt that. Studies are showing that same sex parents do pretty much the same when raising kids. The key is a stable, loving home, not sexuality.

Keep trying, though. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 6, 2008 3:14 PM:

" "Perhaps the more likely outcome will be that we teach our kids that in a democratic and diverse society we have to learn to be tolerant of people with whom we disagree. That wouldn't be a terrible message, would it? "

Tolerance is one thing. Acceptance of gay marriage is something entirely different. You know those Mormons, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews who continue to believe that their sacred text teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Well, they'll continue to believe that. "

TrickleDown wrote on Aug 6, 2008 4:51 PM:

" John Richards: Teacher is right that studies are showing same development, etc. for children of same sex parents vs. opposite sex. If you are going to poll child psychologists for detrimental parenting, my money says that psychologists would agree that they see a great many cases of psychological damage done to children coming from the religious households (two parents or not). Arbitrary, irrational life rules coupled with heavy guilt for lack of adherence go a long way toward messing up a child's mind. Yet you think that having two parents of the same gender who love each other and the child is the problem??? "

Raven wrote on Aug 6, 2008 5:41 PM:

" Tolerance is a pretty good place to start...with time, acceptance can come if you start from a place of tolerance.....there are still a number of people who think interracial marriage is 'wrong'...but as long as they show tolerance, it can be a place to start from... "

a teacher wrote on Aug 6, 2008 6:02 PM:

" "Mormons, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews who continue to believe that their sacred text teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Well, they'll continue to believe that. "

Which is fine. All of those groups have had to live in situations where they have had to except that the people around them don't believe in their brand of religion. They have learned to get along without much trouble(after some conflict in some cases). That is what tolerance is about. "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:41 PM:

" The issue is not whether we are tolerant of homosexuality. Rather, it is whether we want to preserve the meaning and status of marriage in our state. Homosexuals do not have the right to change an established social institution to accommodate their lifestyle.

I can be tolerant of homosexuals and still vote YES on Measure 8. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Allowing "same-sex marriage" would be a great mistake. Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90s—and just 2 percent of same-sex couples in these countries ever bother to marry, while there has been a 46 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births. Same-sex couples simply do not marry in significant number when given the legal right to do so. Since legalizing same sex marriage, more heterosexual couples have had children out of wedlock. In these nations, 70 percent of all births now take place outside of marriage, and among first-time mothers, 80 percent are unmarried. Same-sex marriage will result in fewer total marriages and more children born out of wedlock. There is an undeniable, statistically significant correlation here.
"Same-sex marriage" demeans and defiles traditional marriage. "

pharper wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:52 AM:

" I hardly think, MNV, that heterosexual couples have children out of wedlock because homosexuals have the right to get married. The number of people having children out of wedlock has been steadily increasing for a while, and it's got nothing to do with gay marriage. Giving the right to marry to homosexuals didn't cause women to give birth without getting a ring put on their finger first. It's a completely unrelated issue. It's simply the fact that the rules of society are changing. Slavery used to be an 'established social institution,' but it's a darn good thing we abolished that, isn't it? I'm not saying we should 'abolish' marriage, of course; however, we should abolish the notion that only heterosexuals have the right to it. What the church decides is their business, but the government can't deny a right as huge as marriage to homosexual couples. A civil union is NOT the same, no matter how close in wording it is to being a legal marriage--many workplaces don't offer the same benefits to those with domestic partnerships or civil unions that they'd offer to married couples--and that's just one difference. "

Raven wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:48 AM:

" I can also show you that those countries have had an increase in the average temperature since same sex marriages have been allowed.....but that does not mean there is any connection between the two....and just because there is any increase in out-of-wedlock births doesn't mean same sex marriages are the cause.

The trend toward fewer marriages in has been going on for a number of years and even in the US, where most states don't allow same sex marriages according to the census bureau.

and the argument that homosexuals don't have a right to change a social institution, they have a right to fully enjoy their rights just as you do and you don't have the right to deny that to them....same thing was said when black started to demand their civil right 50 years ago.

Nice try MNV. and I hate to shatter your dream world, but, voting to take someone's rights away from them is not showing tolerance. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:58 AM:

" MissNV-I taught statistics, and you'd fail if this was your argument.

First off, only six countries in the world allow same sex marriage. Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and South Africa. Only four of those are in Europe.

Out of wedlock births have been on the rise since the 60's. France has a rate of 50.5%, Britain is 44%, Spain is 27%. The USA is 37% and rising. The reason? Civil Unions. Marriage is being supplanted by "marriage substitutes". Look it up -"French out-of-wedlock birthrate shows impact of marriage substitute".

One of the primary rules in statistics is that correlation does not imply causality. Your argument that same-sex marriage causes marriage to be somehow devalued is specious (having the ring of truth or plausibility, but false). "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:02 PM:

" Teacher,

The nine European countries include those that have legalized civil unions/partnerhsips between homosexuals as well. I should have specifed that in my previous comment. However, it does not change my point.
Afterall, a civil union is really the EQUIVALENT of "same sex marriage." Referring to a homosexual civil union as "marriage" in name just accelerates the erosion of the traditional meaning of marriage.

I agree with you that marriage substitutes impact out-of-wedlock birthrate. A civil union is a "marriage substitute." Likewise, "same-sex marriage" is a "marriage substitute" with a dubious, misleading name.

Ironically, there is no true substitute for marriage, as the intangible benefits of traditional marriage between a man and a woman can never be replicated or duplicated in a same-sex relationship. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Civil unions are not the same as marriages, that is the whole point of this discussion. It is obvious from the data you pointed out that same-sex marriages have no impact on hetero marriages. It is the change in people's attitudes about what marriage is. That was happening before the issue of same sex marriage and is happening in countries that don't recognize same-sex marriages. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:43 PM:

" I think the jury is still out on whether, on average, a child brought up by a same sex couple is just as well-adjusted as a child brought up by heterosexual parents. Looking at it logically, it makes sense that for optimum results, children need both a male role model and a female role model present in the home during their formative years. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:01 AM:

" The primary purpose of Prop 8 is not to take anyone's rights away, but simply to restore (once and for all) the status quo that existed prior to May 15th. After the California Supreme Court ruled, gays were duly advised that any 'rights' bestowed thereby would be temporary and short-lived. The Court was petitioned to do the right thing and stay its decision until November, but the Court refused to consider the confusion that would result if its decision was overturned by the November ballot. What would it have hurt to maintain the status quo a little while longer?
So don't talk to me about "taking rights away". This is an artificial crisis created by an arrogant Court. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:23 AM:

" JR: The jury has made it's verdict and has gone home. You're just waiting for verdict you want to hear. It's not coming.

It's not logical that kids need a mother and a father. That is what you want to believe, in other words, wishful thinking. What they need is a stable loving family. Who makes up that family is not that relevant. "

Raven wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:26 AM:

" JR, the court has said same -sex couples have a right to marry. Prop 8 will take that right away, therefore, you are taking away rights from same-sex couple if Prop 8 passes. Simple as that. That is why the ballot description was changed.

The idea that the court on the one hand will say, you have a right, but then say you can't exercise it for months is ,well, ridiculous.

As for the marriages performed between now and November, nothing in Prop 8 says it would be retroactive so the marriages would remain valid. "

Gay in Galifornia wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:01 AM:

" If "the people" were allowed to vote directly on a civil rights issue, we might still have slavery or segregation would still exist in the South. Also, if we really want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, what we should do is make divorce illegal--but I am sure all of the heterosexual couples would not want that. That is just my two cents. "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 8, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Announcement!!!!!!!!!

Looking at 300 posts on this topic! THe awards committee has come up with a new award. After all this back and forth on the same issue I am hereby awarding everyone who's posted on this topic, the
"MULE - HEADED" Award.. Ever hear the saying more stubborn then a mule? Well looks like the lines are drawn in the sand on this one so no matter the outcome, the opinion will NOT be changed. The Academy salutes all of you MULE - Headed WInners! :)!

Spin doctor of the month Award goes to MNV for attempting to show 1 and 1 equals 11!

Thats all for now! "

Raven wrote on Aug 8, 2008 2:34 PM:

" aw, shucks...I just want to thank all the lil people I walked over and pushed out of the way to get here....;-) "

a teacher wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I finally won something... "

Webster9 wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:55 PM:

" Here's 10 reason's why gays should not marry.

*Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, silicone implants and air conditioning.

* Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

* Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

* Straight marriage has been around long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

* Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

* Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

* Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

* Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

* Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

* Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. "

pharper wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:22 AM:

" I could not possible have said it better, Webster. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Webster, your little essay should be made the defining example of what the "straw man" fallacy is. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:28 AM:

" "As for the marriages performed between now and November, nothing in Prop 8 says it would be retroactive so the marriages would remain valid."

I beg to differ. Prop 8 says very plainly "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It doesn't have a qualifying phrase like "From now on..." or "Except for..."

As I read it, even existing legally maried gays from Massachusetts who move here would not be recognized here if Prop 8 passes. "

Raven wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:08 PM:

" ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10, so our Atty. general says those marriages would remain valid.....and most legal scholars say the full faith clause would make any marriage legal in Mass legal here in California if Prop 8 were defeated. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:33 PM:

" Raven, ex post facto protections generally apply to criminal laws only. For example, there is nothing that prohibits the legislature from passing a law that affects the income tax rate paid on income earned since January 1st.

Regarding gay marriage, only a few states recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. There is no mandate to do so. To name another example, if you are licensed to practice law in California, that is no guarantee that you can do so in another state. "

Raven wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:38 PM:

" JR, generally yes, but some civil laws will fall under it but again, there is nothing in the Prop that says retroactive or any same sex marriages performed before this act are null and void.

Never said there was a mandate forcing other states to recognize ...in fact federal defense of marriage act gives them a way out of having to recognize them.....and I would expect to be challenged soon and being a statutory impediment to exercise of the full faith clause.

By the reasoning of the act, a state shouldn't have to recognize a divorce granted in another state as being valid if it doesn't want to. Or recognize any number of other legal transactions, like having the title to your car issued in California and not be recognized by Ohio, or a debt entered into in Oregon, not being able to be collected in Nevada. "

MarkMiwords wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:24 PM:

" No! Government should stay out of our bedrooms! "

John Richards wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:58 PM:

" MarkMiwords, what does Prop 8 have to do with our bedrooms? No one is legislating anything you want to do in your bedroom. Try to stay focused on what the issue is. "

napan007 wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:40 AM:

" No on the ban! "

MissNapaValley wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:15 AM:

" By redefining the meaning of marriage and creating a new constitutional right for homosexuals, there is a real and present danger that our consitutional right to freedom of religion will be severely impinged upon, and consequently, greatly diminished. This is yet another reason why I will be voting YES on Measure 8. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:20 PM:

" "By redefining the meaning of marriage and creating a new constitutional right for homosexuals, there is a real and present danger that our consitutional right to freedom of religion will be severely impinged upon, and consequently, greatly diminished."

How so? Will you be unable to get married in a church if there can be same sex marriages?

The Catholic church doesn't recognize divorce. Does that stop you from practicing your religion?

Local gov't allows stores to be open on Sundays, a clear violation of the Bible's command to keep the Sabbath holy and redefining the meaning of the Sabbath. Does that prevent you from parcticing your religion? "

John Richards wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Teacher, in case you didn't know, Christians take their 'marching orders' from the New Testament. Nothing in the NT forbids having stores open on Sunday. Jesus himself was criticized for allowing his disciples to thresh wheat on the Sabbath. The concept of 'Sabbath' is an anachronism except to orthodox Jews and a few sects. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:30 PM:

" " Teacher, in case you didn't know, Christians take their 'marching orders' from the New Testament. "

Oh? So what part of the new testament addresses homosexuality? Same sex marriage? Since it doesn't, there can be no religious objections to Same sex marriage from Christians. "

Raven wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:34 PM:

" MNV, there is no 'new; right, the court recognized a right already there.....and there is nothing in the decision that prevents any church from setting conditions for marriages to be performed in their churches...so how is the freedom of religion being impinged....you can still believe whatever you want about same-sex marriages....

JR, there are quite a few states that still have blue laws regarding what can and can not be open on Sundays....not as much as an anachronism as you may think. "

outinlife wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:19 PM:

" For all of you that say, Homosexuality is a choice" answer this: When did you "decide" you were straight?

If you don't support gay marriage blame the straight people. They're the ones that keep making gays and lesbians. "

DavB wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:01 PM:

" Well, I've been a hetero my whole life and kind of like it that way, but I just don't see what problem there'd be in accepting fully in our society same sex marriages. Further, I wonder what could have been achieved with the resources that have been put into campaigns to limit the ability of gays to make legally binding commitments to one another. "

Farmgirl wrote on Aug 15, 2008 7:37 PM:

" I will definitely vote YES! Adults are thinking only of themselves. If this fails how can a conservative family who believes homosexuality is wrong (and they have the freedom to teach their children that!) send their children to school and one kid says he has 2 mommies or daddies and the conservatively taught kid says his family thinks that is wrong - what are they going to do - send a 1st grader for diversity training when he is only relaying the values taught in a conservative home - kick him out of school - make him write 2 daddies are good a thousand times. If this fails, children from conservative home will be the ones taking the brunt of the criticism and conservative families should have a right to their views as much as the "how does this affect me" crowd. "

Raven wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:02 PM:

" maybe the conservative parents should work on teaching their children tolerance.... "

imyourneighbor wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Regardless of whether or not the prop passes doesn't stop my family from having children. We will still have children. I know my partner and I will be quite soon. And I hope that they will be able to live out their "American dream"... and start their lives here in the town that I started mine in.

If it doesn't pass, there will be many families like ours out there NOT EQUAL. And it will be my child when they are older to look back and say... why wasn't my family as important to yous. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:30 PM:

" I mean yours. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:25 PM:

" and.... I mean... If it does pass :) "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:21 AM:

" " maybe the conservative parents should work on teaching their children tolerance.... "
Your idea of 'tolerance' is teaching our kids that gay marriage and traditional marriage are equal. That sort of teaching will never happen in conservative homes. You can't change a society's mores overnight. The current attempt to do so will only create more resentment and hostility. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:44 AM:

" Teacher wrote: "So what part of the new testament addresses homosexuality?"

Are you serious? Take a look at Romans 1:26-27, and also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
No, there is nothing in the New Testament about gay marriage, but it is also silent on topics like pedophilia. There was no need to spell out every possible sin. The apostle Paul in his NT writings clearly talks about marriage being between a man and a woman. "

pharper wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:56 AM:

" Farmgirl, I sincerely doubt they would kick a third-grader out of school for his families beliefs. At most, they will tell him that everyone has a different sort of family, and leave it at that. If you don't like it, try teaching your child tolerance, or at least manners--it would be very rude for a child to tell another child that having two daddies or mommies is wrong. Better yet, send your child to a religious school. "

Raven wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:54 AM:

" My idea of tolerance is respecting other people and their rights, JR, something many here seemed to have forgotten in their insistence that it is 'my way or no other".....many have decided that their rights trump all others....again, no one is asking you to change your beliefs, merely to respect the rights of others.....

No one has ever said changing people's attitudes would happen overnight, JR, I fully expect people to keep on demonstrating the antipathy I have seen in this discussion to continue after the defeat of Prop 8.....but the amazing thing about children is that if their parents show respect for others in the home, that respect is translated in behavior outside the home...and that is all anyone is asking, respect for their rights.

and while Paul may have written that in the New Testament, Paul wasn't Jesus, and I wonder what he would have said...I tend to think he covered in Matthew, love thy neighbor as thyself.......one more thing JR, last time I checked, not all people in the United States were Christian.....are you saying that the laws of the United States should be based upon the Bible? "

a teacher wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:26 AM:

" I stand corrected JR. I'll have to go with the original thoughts I had with your comments.

1) Saying that "Christians take their 'marching orders' from the New Testament." is nonsense. The correct statement would be that Old Testament holds sway unless contradicted by the new testament.

2) The notion that "there is a real and present danger that our constitutional right to freedom of religion will be severely impinged upon" because someone's behavior runs counter to someone else's religious belief is ridiculous. Consider all the behavior that would have to be prohibited basedon that argument.

The 1st amendment protects your freedom to practice your religion. No one is forced into a same sex marriage. It is a secular matter, not a religious one. No church could be forced to preform a same sex marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:09 PM:

" Teacher wrote: "Saying that "Christians take their 'marching orders' from the New Testament." is nonsense. The correct statement would be that Old Testament holds sway unless contradicted by the new testament."

You are really nitpicking now. Your statement about the relative standings of the OT versus the NT is correct, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. The NT is the prime authority for Christians. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Raven wrote: ".....are you saying that the laws of the United States should be based upon the Bible? "

Not at all. All I'm doing is pointing out that there is a large group of conservatives in this country, many of whom happen to belong to faiths which teach that homosexuality is wrong. Such a large group of constituents should be accommodated, and not forced to junk their core values.

You are right, Jesus taught us to love the sinner, but (and this is frequently overlooked), also to hate the sin and to strive mightily against that sin. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:30 PM:

" Raven, you say that all that is needed is to teach children to show respect for others. That's very lofty sounding and noble, but that doesn't translate to where the rubber meets the road. If I teach my kids that gay marriage is wrong, they will take that message to their classmates, and next thing you know there is a big uproar on the campus, and I get charged with promoting "hate" speech. Mark my words, these types of scenarios will start happening more and more if Prop 8 loses. "

Raven wrote on Aug 16, 2008 6:53 PM:

" And what about the large number of people who are homosexual or believe same sex marriage is not only acceptable but a right, why shouldn't they be accommodated....you don't get to have it both ways...asking for accommodation without being accommodating.

JR, you know as well as I do, that the hate crime scenario, well, is crap. As it stands right now, any child who is making comments about another child, belittling them because of their parents or any other reason, should be called to account. Maybe the gospel according to Thumper's mother should be the rule for school kids....if you cant say something nice, don't say anything at all. Personally I think any parent who would allow their children to behave that way needs to reexamine their style of parenting.

And the phrase I used has nothing to do with being a sinner....you have no way of knowing whether your neighbor is a sinner or not, by his belief system you may be the sinner...Jesus was asking you to treat your neighbor as you would expect to be treated. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:38 PM:

" No, JR, I spent 7 years in sermons in Baptist churches in the south and you are wrong (or not being truthful). Christians use the entire Bible for guidance and justifying what they believe in.

AND... the garbage you and your cohorts are spreading about 3rd graders being hauled up "hate speech" is just made up nonsense to scare people. In all my years of teaching I've never heard of that. "

John Richards wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:14 AM:

" "And what about the large number of people who are homosexual or believe same sex marriage is not only acceptable but a right, why shouldn't they be accommodated"

They WERE accommodated, by civil unions. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) "

John Richards wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Well, I've said my piece. There is no point in arguing this any longer because we're just going around in circles, and the level of discourse has degraded to nitpicking at semantics.

I've put my money where my mouth is, and just made a large donation to the ProtectMarriage organization. See you all after November 3rd. "

Raven wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:34 PM:

" JR you still wont see that civil unions were not an accomodations, there were a delegation to second class citizenship...and the court said so. "

imyourneighbor wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:01 PM:

" I'm getting married in October... YAY!!!! Over 10 years... YAY!! "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:03 AM:

" CONGRATS!

Send us an INVITE ( brat and I) We'd do it up in style! "

John Richards wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:21 PM:

" Hmmm, why not schedule it for November 5, or later? ;-) "

pharper wrote on Aug 24, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Congratulations, imyourneighbor!! Don't listen to the naysayers; they'll be the ones crying come November. "

entity wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:50 PM:

" Equal rights for all. No constitutional amendments. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:41 AM:

" Gosh! Is this old dog still messing on the carpet?

My, my, some people sure worry far too much about what other people do with their own lives.

Mind? Meet... your own beeswax!

~Ruff "

Webster9 wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:06 PM:

" The latest poll shows that now, 54% of voters in California are against Proposition 8, and only 41% are for it, with 5% still undecided.

That's very encouraging for those who are in favor of keeping gay marriage legal in California.

The polls in May and in July both showed 52% against Proposition 8, and 41% for it, with 7% undecided. "

levelheaded wrote on Aug 29, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Myself, family and virtually all my friends up and down this great state of ours will all vote NO. The momentum to defeat Prop 8 is substantial.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, Proposition 8 is an attempt to constitutionalize discrimination. The subject matter really doesn't matter. WE DO NOT SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: