" Here we go again.

Number one: Allowing same sex marriages does not up end civilization. People won't be marrying livestock. Your children are safe.

The rule in the USA is consenting adults. I would point out that in many places in the world, polygamy is OK and marriages are arranged between infants. I frankly don't care who marries who.

As for your 61% claim, some simple math. Only around 40% of eligable voters cast votes in that election. 61% of 40% equals 24% of eligable voters. This does not represent a majority of Californians. Even if it did, unconstitutional is unconstitutional regardless of what the majority votes.

So far it looks like prop 8 is going down to a landslide defeat.

GOOD! "

" Oh man, I agree with a teacher.

Equal protection for all of our citizens! Equal rights for all of our citizens!
Maintain Separation Church and State!

Stop implying (or stating outright) that our Homosexual brothers and sisters are somehow LESS than they really are. "

" latest polls show it being very very close "

" Ah, the obfuscation and double-talk abounds!
What difference does it make what percentage of eligible voters actually made it to the polls? It just means that the rest didn't care enough about the issue to exercise their right to vote. In this country, actual voters get to make the decisions, not those responding to phone surveys. Prop 8 may get defeated, but I think it will be much closer than what the surveys predict. "

" The CA Supreme court did interpret the law. It did not meet the current consitutional standard. They had no choice but to overturn it. They were not creating law.

Now we have a measure that wants to change the CA consitution. Since the 2000 election and the court battle, I think people have woken up, taken an interest and won't stand for this discrimination. I am confident 8 will go down in defeat.....as it should. "

" Because, JR, the author said "One more point worth noting: 61 percent of Californians agreed marriage should only be recognized between one man and one woman in the 2000 election.".

It is not true.

While you are correct in saying that voters decide the issue, that does not mean that the majority support an issue. However, I agree with you that if you care you'd better get out and vote.

I don't think it'll be that close. "

" an unconstitutional measure is unconstitutional, no matter how big the majority of voters approving it is; the court merely did it's job and struck it down.....now we have a battle not to define anything but to strip away the rights belonging to a segment of our citizens....a bad precedent in any form...becasue if one group can have it's rights stripped from it...any group can.. "

" While Mr. Daniel is entitled to his opinion, some of the "facts" he cites are just plain wrong.

1. California Law Family Code 297.5 does indeed provide the "same rights, protections and benefits as married persons, some privileges are not available at all, particularly any federally administered programs. Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married heterosexual couple has under federal law.

2. (Although 'a teacher' already covered this quite well, I will reiterate) In many places in the world several spouses are the norm. Arranged marriages between children and adults are also quite common in other cultures.

3. "I just don’t see the harm in safeguarding something that we all know is true: only a relationship between a man and a woman can produce children naturally" - Many gay couples have adopted the unwanted offspring that have resulted from some of these 'relationships' and given them loving homes. I don't understand what he wants to 'safeguard'? Over half of all straight marriages end up in the divorce!

4. As already pointed out, it was not a majority of Californians that supported the flawed 2000 initiative; it was 24% of the eligible CA voters. Based on current polls and my own experience, I feel most people have come to realize 8 years later that discrimination of any kind is intolerable. As Mr. Daniel himself admits in his final paragraph "I think you have been clouded with the POPULAR view on this issue." "

" Here we go again.... being a *straight* married man... I've beaten the odds of divorce thus far....why shouldn't gay people be accorded the same.. You really need to get over yourselves and sees what happens. Besides at the worst...gay people rarely bring progeny...so taking YOUR arguements....wouldn't that be a win win?



sheesh...wake up! "

" You're right, Eric, it does sound silly. "

" Would you people please rent "Caligula" and see what happens to a society where anything goes....

Good grief...This is just plain sick..... "

" Where "anything goes?" If giving two consenting adults who love another a right that's been given every other consenting adult in the country is letting "anything go," then I sure as hell want to live in a society where anything goes. "

" yeah dwayne one can tell right away the similarities between caligula and the current US...unless you mean Bush is a mad man? "

" Let's not forget that the court decision was a narrow 4-3 vote. One swing vote would have decided it the other way. Don't tell me what a clear constitutional decision it was. Read the arguments of the 3 dissenters; it's an eye opener! "

" onthetrail argues that Mr. Daniel's reasoning is faulty because in spite of California Family Code 297.5, benefits under the control of federal programs are not available to same-sex couples.

GUESS WHAT? Neither will those federal benefits be available if Prop 8 loses! This is certainly not a reason to defeat Prop 8. Talk about faulty logic! "

" JR, you do know that the decision to legalize interracial marriage was also a 4-3 vote, right? "

" What in the world does Caligula have to do with gay marriage? Geez Dwayne...you're joining some of those other folks from different blogs that are out in left field.
What exactly is "plain sick"? I would really love you to be specific....
Two people of the same sex getting married is not a slippery slope, or plain sick....as some seem to think. There are opposite sex couples who marry, who I am sure would shock me with the "Sick" practices they engage in if I had to watch....thank goodness what is private is private. "Sick" is not in the realm of homosexuality, as Dwayne seems to be claiming, anymore than it is in the realm of heterosexual couples. Sick is sick and crosses all lines of people. Two people loving each other and wanting to marry is not sick. It is a pretty healthy and well balanced expression of their love. It takes work to be successful, and anyone who wants to take it on, as long as they are consenting adults, and do not impose their beliefs on me is welcome to join the rest of us who have taken the plunge. "

" too many attorneys' here now.... "

" Looks like good dialogue, so thought I would join in as the author. a teacher wrote, "The rule in the USA is consenting adults" for marriage. I think we should be careful with that claim. You still have not addressed two of the four pillars of marriage in the US for 200+ years: can't marry close blood relative and more recent than 200 years, only one spouse at a time.
As for the comment about same sex couple adopting children - check the article - never said anything negative about them raising children only that they can't produce children naturally. I think this speaks to the issue of marriage being foundational to procreation. "

" Listening Napan,
You are now qualifying your original premise to within the U.S. borders....
Polygamy is alive and well whether it is leagal or not. Within the confines of that religious viewpoint, it is accepted by God. Has it destroyed the institution of marriage for the rest of us? If Polygamy was up for a vote...I would probably say that was OK also from a legal standpoint. Marriage should not just be about procreation. If that is what a certain individual believes, they do not have the right to impose that view on me, if I think differently. People are not asking for the right to marry their sister or brother. It is not a slippery slope. Lines can be drawn where ever we agree to draw them. "

" John Richards:
I never claimed that the defeat of Prop 8 would grant federal benefits to same-sex married couples (although, it's defeat may help in the progress of recognizing same-sex marriage through-out the U.S.) I was disputing his supposedly factual statement that they "have the same rights, protections and benefits as married persons ", which he claims is the "faulty main reason" that the Register cited to vote No on Prop 8. Logic has nothing to do with it ..... it was an incorrect statement.

Listening Napan:
SAFEGUARD = PROTECT. How does 2 consenting, loving, same-sex adults who want to marry each other, in any way jeopardize or prevent 2 opposite-sex adults from producing children? I was only pointing out that marriage is not required to procreate, (2005 U.S. Census - 37% of U.S. births were out of wedlock) and that the "sacred institution of marriage" between 1 man and 1 woman, which the author claims is "at stake if Prop 8 does not pass", seemingly is already in trouble as witnessed by the 50% divorce rate. I don’t understand why people are worried about how gay marriage will affect the “foundation” of this “institution”, as it seems to have major cracks already, which have nothing to do with same-sex couples.

Finally, - check my comment - I did not accuse nor imply that the author said "anything negative". "

" Lines have been drawn where ever we agree to draw them. The lines have been drawn in the past as heterosexual only. Some people are resistant to that change. I understand that, even if I personally don't think that allowing homosexuals to marry will change our society dramatically at this point. So what is the next line to be drawn? It seems that the line will indeed be changed again as society changes, as is evidenced in US history. My guess is polygamy, since it has gotten a lot of press and has been vilified previously, but in actual practice many people in polygamous situations are not in the cult-like situations that you see in the news. And the same arguments used for gay marriage apply to this situation.
I personally would rather the state get out of the marriage business and grant civil union licenses to everyone. I also would like to see way more support for lowering the divorce rate, which is a way higher threat to our society in my opinion. I think it is in our society's best interest to promote families. "

" Sandra we don't agree on much but I can say your last two posts hit the nail on the head.....

as for those promoting the procreation is the reason for marriage idea....well....lesbian couples have the same fertilization techniques available to them that heterosexual couples have so there is no barrier to them procreating....unless you say the only people that can marry are those who can have kids w/o the assistance of the medical world... which writes off many heterosexual couples....or are they just banning marriage for male homosexual couples....? "

" Arguing that prop 8 has anything to do with the other 3 "core" definitions of marriage is faulty - one has nothing to do with the other. Upholding the rights of gay persons to marry each other in no way suggests that it is okay or reasonable for a brother and sisiter to marry; it does not suggest that marriage should include more than two people; and it certainly does not suggest that minors should marry. The fact that your gay neighbors may or may not have the right to get a marriage certificate in no way affects your life, so get over yourself and stop trying to force your narrow-minded beliefs down everyone's throat... please. "

" " JR, you do know that the decision to legalize interracial marriage was also a 4-3 vote, right? "

I don't see the significance of that. There is little similarity between the gay marriage issue and the interracial marriage issue. For example, the church I belong to has never been opposed to interracial marriage, and there is nothing in the Bible that forbids it. "

" I am glad your church isn't opposed to interracial marriage JR ......but I have a hunch your church doesn't support same sex marriage and I don't want your church values or any church's values imposed upon me or this state.... "

" "Church values" is a red herring.
The fact that most opposition to gay marriage comes from deeply religious individuals is not the point. The overriding fact is that better than 50% of voters nationwide are opposed to redefining the meaning of 'marriage', as was California when last put to a vote here (March 2000). Why should such a large group of constituents have their values trampled upon? "

" the point is why should we adapt our state to meet your religious belief's JR, and let you and those who believe as you do trample the rights of more than 500,000 people... and those voting for prop 22 hardly constitute a majority of Californians....not to mention something that is unconstitutional is so despite how many people who voted for it "

" nothing in prop 8 says anything about supporting traditional marriage....it simple takes away a right that hundreds of thousands of Californians have ... nothing about education, nothing about churches....a bald-faced attempt to deny people their rights... "

" "Why should such a large group of constituents have their values trampled upon?"

For the same reason as every civil rights movement. You're forcing your belief in what's right and wrong about something that has absolutely no impact on you whatsoever. Plenty of people thought it was a "bad" idea for women to vote, too - "they're too hysterical" to understand the issues.

You're free to not be gay married allll day long, if you like. Why is it any of your business that someone else is? "

" Raven:
Do you even care to think to some of the implications are if gay marriage is sanctioned by the state ?
Long term? "

" In my opinion...
Marriage is not about the people in the marriage but the persons coming from the marriage.
Does a child have the human right to a biological mother and father.
If not which one matters less?
The mother or father? "

" ----------Latinos----------
Stand up for your tradition!
Dont succumb to the subversion

---VOTE YES ON 8----- "

" No public school sponsors of weddings

--VOTE YES ON 8-----Keep private weddings out of public schools.... "

" Raven: You stated previously that all people have the right to be happy!
I thought that was a little over the top!
Heres a quote a want to share:

The laws of mans may bind him in chains or even put him to death, but they can never make him wise, vituous, or happy. John Quincy Adams.

Vote yes on 8 "

" Raven; Ofcourse yes on gay marriage will have an impact in our schools. It will be pushed into churches as well.
As long as the church have a tax exempt status, the homosexual movement will sue if anything that contradicts their lifestyle is advocated.

How could you be so naive?
It is also very strange to me that someone so informed would omit these connections.

VOTE YES ON 8. VOTE FOR TRUTH "

" amigo its easy to copy and paste your posts from one thread to another but as I said in the other thread...never said anything any right to be happy.....

you're just repeating the same...well nonsense on each thread...so enjoy yourself... "