Any religion can define marriage as they want. The California Supreme Court’s decision upholding the rights of all people to enter into a civil marriage does not change this. It simply ensured that all people are treated equally under the law. My marriage, and the meaning that it holds for me, is not threatened by gay or lesbians who choose to marry. My religion is not threatened. The social fabric around me is not threatened.

Proposition 8 does not preserve traditional marriage. Churches will continue to decide which marriages are sanctified. Traditional marriage will happen regardless of the rights of others to enjoy the civil protections inherent in how the government treats marriage.

Proposition 8 is not about religious liberty. It is just the opposite. As a California resident, I am voting against it.

It’s not tolerance if you want to designate a specific group of people - whose consensual, monogamous marriages won’t hurt you, families, or society (unlike allowing incest, polygamy, etc.) - to have a lesser status than everyone else. That’s actually intolerance, thinly masked: “I’m okay with (group), but I’d rather not have to share a bus seat or pew with them.” Regardless of personal beliefs on marriage and sexual orientation, state and the US constitutions, and our highest principles as democratic citizens, demand equal justice for ALL. All doesn’t mean everyone except Group X. All means all. No to hate, no to 8.

First, marriage *is* in fact a Constitutional right in the US. Please see Supreme Court ruling: Loving vs. Virginia.

Second, it is vital to distinguish between the religious ceremony or covenant aspect of marriage and the civil, legal “rights” aspects of civil marriage. An atheist couple can obtain a marriage license from the state and be married by a judge, and it’s just as valid, from a civil point of view, as a marriage performed by a minister, pastor, rabbi, etc.

Furthermore, a priest, rabbi, etc. may not marry a couple in the eyes of civil authority unless they have obtained a marriage license from their state.

So I think it’s vital to distinguish between the “covenant”/commitment aspects and religious meaning of a church marriage, with the parallel and independent civil aspects.

At any rate, the Founders clearly understood the peril of subjecting the rights of individuals or groups to the popular whim, having experienced persecution for their religious minority status in England. They created the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, to make these rights “inalienable” and not subject to the popular vote.

They also set a high bar for amending the Constitution with an involved process to accomplish this, to safeguard against the “tyranny of the majority”.

The California constitution should NOT be amended in any way by any majority of citizens, except through a similarly high standard

Proposition 8 is an ABUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION and the Constitutional process. All right-thinking Americans will oppose this discriminatory, and illegal, law.

I agree that tolerance does not involve abandoning one’s standards. But intolerance and tyranny occurs when you force your standards on mine. Under the current state supreme court decision, California does not require your church to recognize same-sex marriage. Yet, your church wants to force its beliefs upon my state.

I am not gay, but when close friends got married it did not affect your religious beliefs. It did not cause any harm to society. In fact, their family and their children are a model of a stable, loving home.

Not that long ago, the majority — including the Mormon church — opposed interracial marriage. Brigham Young said it was worthy of death. LDS President George Smith called it repugnant. LDS Apostle Mark Peterson called it cursed. Yet, when the civil sanctions against interracial marriage fell, society advanced.

James Madison (author of the bill of rights) warned against the “tyranny of the majority.” That warning should be heeded.

A few things strike me here.

If allowing same-sex marriage will destroy society by encouraging homosexuality, how exactly does banning it cause people to stop being homosexual?

The argument is made that “defending marriage” is for keeping children in homes with both a mother and a father. Does this mean that we should also remove children from homes that don’t have this situation?

The Divine Institution article also leaves me seeing a certain degree of sexism here. It would imply that there are certain roles only a woman can teach to children and certain roles only a man can teach. Apparently, there is no way that in a same-sex marriage that it is possible for members of the couple to have complementary personalities. Also, what about hetero-sexual couples where both people have similar personalities?

I think it’s well and good if churches want to be against same-sex marriages, but to push legislation clearly crosses the separation of church and state. Granted, I also believe that the state should not be able to force churches to recognize same-sex marriage, but I agree with previous postings that religious marriage should be separate from civil union which should be the mechanism for legal rights. That would be similar to European countries that require separate ceremonies for the two aspects of marriage - one for the civil/legal rights, and another for religious purposes if the couple chooses.

I respect the rights of private institutions to have their ceremonies that they may call marriage. I oppose having the courts create new definitions of marriage as part of public law, particularly where the people have voted for the traditional definition. Prop 8 is only needed because activist judges are going beyond their proper authority.

Given the financial strains of the day, I would also note that a radical change in the definition of marriage may greatly expand government obligations. If any two people in a committed relationship can claim the benefits of marriage, then where would that lead? You could not restrict those relationships to sexual ones. You could not exclude blood relations as suggested above in one post and allow other relations. I care for an aged parent in a long-term committed relationship. Should I claim Social Security survivor benefits and other government benefits traditionally held for married couples?

If we need to revise laws for married couples or domestic partners, we should do so by popular vote and not by courts making a radical change in the definition of marriage and overturning existing laws.

Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.

I have gay friends and gay family members and I can completely understand on a legal standpoint, why they would want to get married. However, if they have those rights already in terms of benefits and being recongnized as a “union,’ then there is no reason to change marriage to now include with it the idea that being gay is right when it is not,whether it is “our business” or not.. Legalizing gay “marriage” will legitimize the idea that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Don’t confuse that comment. I do not think anything bad of gay people but..there is something wrong with it and this law will make it even harder than it is already to teach our children that being gay is “wrong.”
Do I believe, withun the law that they should have all the rights with regard to the beneficial factors of marriage, also “within the law”? Absolutely. But it is definately wrong to try to impose the idea that being gay is “normal”, when it is not.

Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.

I have gay friends and gay family members and I can completely understand on a legal standpoint, why they would want to get married. However, if they have those rights already in terms of benefits and being recongnized as a “union,’ then there is no reason to change marriage to now include with it the idea that being gay is right when it is not,whether it is “our business” or not.. Legalizing gay “marriage” will legitimize the idea that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Don’t confuse that comment. I do not think anything bad of gay people but..there is something wrong with it and this law will make it even harder than it is already to teach our children that being gay is “wrong.”
Do I believe, withun the law that they should have all the rights with regard to the beneficial factors of marriage, also “within the law”? Absolutely. But it is definately wrong to try to impose the idea that being gay is “normal”, when it is not.

Just a problem with this whole discussion: Years ago I remember the gay rights movement had 3 basic arguments, two of which were that (1) being gay is “normal,” and (2) they were not about “recruiting” others to their lifestyle. Society has gone a long ways since those days. Of course, I understand why they would want to be considered normal, anyone would. And about the only means they have to accomplish it is via legislative means.

But, its the 2nd item that bothers me… that they don’t and won’t “recruit” others to their lifestyle. They even continue to put out TV ads that “it won’t be taught in the schools”!

Just so I get this straight, if a 14-year-old boy is attracted to a 14-year-old girl in junior high school, he’s going to initiate something friendly-romantic, and get her to respond in kind, isn’t he? So, how is it that, if a 14-year-old gay boy is attracted to a 14-year-old straight boy, he isn’t going to initiate something friendly-romantic to get him to respond in kind? Gimme a break. Is this “recruiting” or not?

Same with adults to children. As one who was subjected to gross pedophile abuse as a 3-7 year old child, and has had to deal with it ever since, I know what it does to a child when proper boundaries are ignored, and adult-to-child or child-to-child sexual abuse occurs. It is living hell. Do people think the suicides will stop if Prop 8 is defeated? No. So, please excuse me if I don’t feel much empathy with those that are “attracted” to those of the same sex and therefore feel justified in “taking their liberties,” as they rationalize their entitlement to destroy another life under the guise of “well, its only normal.”

(And please don’t weary me with the “born that way” argument foisted on us by pseudo-social scientists intent on proving their agenda. An unbiased study by L.C.S.W.s 20 years ago showed that 97% of gays were abused as children. Of course, I’m sure that percent has changed since then as more have experimented with it, & since society has foisted it on the American public.)

Why are we doing more of the same? And “setting-up” even more children for this abuse? When I was a child there were 17 gays, pedophiles, or both within 1 block of my home, branching out in 4 directions. Yes, gays deserve love and acceptance as individuals, as did I when I was an un-understanding child. But, the lifestyle should not be accepted as normal, because then we perpetuate into future generations, our children and grandchildren, the very abuse done to those past.

And, please don’t tell me it isn’t abuse when a child, that cannot understand such things, is force-fed that something is “normal” and “non-harmful” by educators and society. The judges making such rulings deserve the same treatment as the pedophiles they are legalizing. (Do they think that mental-emotional pedophilia in the school classroom under the guise of “education” won’t lead to acting out? And the physical/sexual abuse of children?) It’s like giving a child pornography- he/she won’t know what to do with it, and yes, society will raise generations of homosexuals. I weary of all the “pseudo-intellectual” talk back-and-forth that refuses to discern sense from non-sense.

You could drive a Mac Truck through the holes of the arguments if they’d accept the responsibility of intellectual honesty.

And, all those concerned about “being careful with this hot potato,” … the only reason anyone must be concerned about saying things today that they could have easily said 40 years ago is because so many have allowed themselves to be silenced over the years by the Tyranny of InTolerance as practiced by those that preach tolerance. Tolerance as long as you agree with them, but tyrannical, homophobic and a “hate crime” if you dare to disagree.

I disagree, and a parent has a moral right AND DUTY to protect his children, by whatever means necessary, from those that would sexually abuse and exploit them, be they schools, judges, or whomever. Our children are not the property of the state.

It’s the children that matter in all this selfish discourse, because they are the ones that can’t fend for themselves. And, it is the minds of the children that this is ALL about, not the adults. It is about freedom vs force. It is about the power of the homosexuals, exercised though the states as their agent, to force the rising generations to grow-up like themselves. It is about forcing others to be like them, and because they can’t force adults, they will force children by law at the exclusion of their parents.

Why do they take such a stand, to want to force the homosexual agenda upon the un-consenting parents of children not their own? Why should they care about children not their own? And fight so vociferously for this power over other’s children? Because they know they can’t have their own, and those that choose such a lifestyle cannot stand that other children might grow-up truly normal, with all the powers intact to pro-create posterity of their own.

Though they forfeit this power of their own choosing, having made the choice, they can’t stand the thought that others should have it either. It’s called jealousy and envy, power and control. The more they know they can’t have children of their own, the more they want to force and control children not of their own. It’s no different than human nature is often observed: the more we can’t have something, the more we miss it and want it.

That’s why they’re not content to be satisfied within their own adult-adult relationships, and must expand their sphere to exert control over others’ children.

If homosexuals would keep to themselves, and just live and let-live, and not keep forcing their agenda down our throats, and telling us what we must teach our children, then we wouldn’t need laws to protect ourselves against their efforts to redefine marriage. We could all live happily and amiably next-door and do just fine. We could have bar-b-ques together, work together, car pool together, go to the ballgames together. But, they want to force their beliefs on our children, they won’t leave us alone, they can’t stand exercising tolerance for others, our rights are invalid, and we must be relabeled as “hate” to their satisfaction.

It’s about the children. The children are the pawns in this debate, and they are the ones that will be hurt.

Tyranny of Tolerance is a clever juxtaposition of contradictory ideas, but I see a more rational view of tolerance. Tolerance is recognizing that differences do exist among people and that we as individuals do not have God’s perfection to judge wisely. Still we may find things in people we don’t like. It would indeed be better if we could love one another as Jesus loves us, but lacking that, we can tolerate others as an affirmation of simple decency and civility. The one pure test of religion is does it increase my wisdom and compassion? If we oppose same gender marriage, does that make us hateful? If we say no, then why does the accusation sting so much? Calling it something else, saying, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” is blatant self deception and does not diminish our guilt in the eyes of God who has commanded us to truly love one another as He loves us. We know better! If you can’t love your gay neighbor, then turn your head away, tend to your own affairs, and pray, “God forgive me.”