Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kettle, Pot, Black...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, PangZhu

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

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

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

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

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

pangzhu:

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

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

Whoa, let me get this straight...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grow up

jasonmcd101:

"Marriage implies the propagation of the species."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, PangZhu

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

Love, PangZhu

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

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

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

pangzhu - Wow. Try reading jasonmcd101 again. Carefully.

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

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

Marriage = church

Civil union = state

Seperated!

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

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

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

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

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

Love, PangZhu

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

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

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

Since you missed it the first time...

A man cannot file a fiance visa for another man.

(nor can a woman for another woman)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on you who voted YES!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never knew that California is a theocracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, PangZhu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you heard of the Kinsey scale?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, PangZhu

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

This article is what sucks.

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

A few points in support of Starshine and her article:

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

2. The majority vote cannot always rule. Here's what Jefferson wrote: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

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

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

*sigh*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Starshine, for your insightful and honest article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loveforall,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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