How can it be that a religious group of people can have so much say in what Americans can and cannot do? I can understand if you have a personal problem imagining two men or two women together, but I always thought one’s personal dislikes should not infringe on personal right. There’s so many things that people do that I dislike, but I believe that I have the right to do my own share of weird things, that they should be allowed too. To be allowed your freedom, you must allow others the freedom too.

My personal religion (member of one) actually forbids marriage between a man and a woman. Maybe I should start gathering signatures for a Prop 8.2 for 2009 to ban marriage between heterosexual couples because it’s “un-natural” in my religion. Why not? Then no one will have the right to get married, and maybe then, equal rights would mean something.

To Erika above: Amen.

Unlike Juan, I actually can speak from having experienced both heterosexual and homosexual marriage- with the same partner. Proof both of God’s sense of humor and her infinite providence, I am a woman born male. This cosmic error allowed me to meet the woman of my dreams, marry legally, and produce with her two adorable children before fulfilling my destiny by correcting my body to fit my soul. Even though I may have the magic piece of paper (for now), I still fear someday the prejudice still pervasive in America will somehow try and sunder a marriage now 20 years strong, clearly consumated, but quite clearly gay. I was married at 19 and remain married 20 years later- something less than 10% of all heterosexual teenage marriages can claim. I have two healthy and intelligent children working hard to become productive members of society. I am a gainfully employed professional, single wage-earner supporting my wife and family, and paid over $10,000 in federal income taxes last year even with my married filing jointly status and all the child deductions/credits. Explain to me again exactly how I am a threat to the fabric of American society and why marriage must be “defended” from me and those like me? I present a very traditional marriage profile viewed objectively. Heck, I’m downright 1950′s. Does the absence of a penis from the picture really change it?

I am a lesbian and I am engaged. I also spent several years in relationships with men. I can tell you from experience, the similiarities FAR outweigh the differences.

You should research further the history of discrimination and rights and how closely your argument matches those that argued for segregation and insisted that integration would cause a huge collapse in our country. AND If marriage isn’t a right, or priviledge, then I am sure that all men and women are happy to give theirs up willingly, with the defeat of Prop 8. I hope they are also willing claim single on their federal and state tax returns, and are happy to burn hundreds of pictures celebrating the signing of their marriage license.

I am not a second class citizen and my “union” is not infringing on any “union” between a man and woman. Further more, the next 60-70 years that I spend with my wife will not infringe on the 60% of born again christians that will divorce in the first 10 years of theirs.

The only difference between me and the average committed heterosexual is that I will pay more in taxes, healthcare, property fees, contract fees, adoption fees, and a myriad of other rights that they may simply get to enjoy by taking a weekend trip to Vegas and saying a few things with Elvis.

We must truly look at the responsibilities of the state, and its need to promote the well being of it’s systems ability to provide freedoms and liberties for its constituents and to avoid creating inconsistencies for them that leads to moral dilemnas.

If we are to be true liberterians, and propose a state of anarchy, we must therefore not ask the state to consider our contracts, agreements, rhetoric etc. in its decision making process. For example, absolutely free trade and economy. However, because we request help (Welfare, police, defence, social security), recognition (race, profession, sexual orientation, business, sexual orientation, single or married), and action (money, punishments, reimbursements, domicile, visitation rights) from the system, and beg often for its interference for its constituents, we therefore grant it a power. And this is it: discernment.

It must have the power to categorize. Who is poor, guilty, friend, enemy, retirement aged, hispanic, white, black, architect, school teacher, lawyer, president, soldier, pilot, gay, straight, neither, both, single, married, owed to, owes, guilty, not guilty, afflicted, afflicting, is in georgia, is in texas, is in california, related, unrelated, etc. This is key to our system of law. We give it this power because of the complexity it has due to our requests of it. No one is exempt in this request by virtue of living here. Therefore, we cannot claim infinite equality from the law.

This is fine. It’s ok. Anyone against it or that says it is not true is simply not looking hard enough.

Proposition 8 proponents, and anyone who comes against it, are fighting over a power of discernment of the law, and that is the relational status that the law categorizes two people as “marriage”. The category has already existed for a long time, and the law has helped, recognized, and acted on this category. And therefore it has interfered. Once again this is ok. Because we expect this of the government. And if we do not consider this fair, than that person does not belong here, and probably not in any other government.

They are absolute anarchists.

Now, this is the danger that our modern day is putting before our government: regulating on popular basis what the different categories are, and furthermore, what their individual responsibilities, benefits, demerits, restrictions and other qualities are.

So, the marriage contract, homosexual relationships, heterosexual relationships, polygamist relationships, incest relationships, and others are all recognized by the law and assigned a status, legal or illegal. This too is ok. They are each individual categories. However, the marriage contract is a far more formal category. The real differences between the different relationships are all implied by the different titles we give them, however the differences occur in reality. They are obvious. And no one can deny them. Any straight person who would say that their relationship is the same as that as any other relationship, gay or plural and so on, and believes it, is in serious trouble.

Now, this is the problem of not supporting a measure such as prop 8. You force the law to take two VERY different relationships, with very REAL differences, make it dishonor those differences, and force them into a category that will provide the EXACT same qualities to both relationships. We do not need the law to do this, because it is already done. It’s called a union.

Furthermore, we are forcing the law to take a category, called a contract, and force it into one of our most fundamental categories: a Right. We are confusing it with a real right: the right to hold a contract. Therefore, we remove a serious right: the right to exclusivity in any contract. And we will take it to the supreme court to do this.

All in the name of equality. This is perhaps the biggest challenges this country will face. Are we going to force the government to hand over its power of discernment to our will and whim. And then, force it to close its eyes to real differences because of the word of the day, Tolerance and Equality, in this case, and then make it act irrelevant of those differences.

The psychological impact that this will have on the future of this nation is unknown and could not be calculated. Because we will begin the eroding of value and difference for the law, we may affect the very nature of this culture in the future. And in no good way, because we may begin to affect the categories of the general culture and social structure because of its interdependence of with government in a negative manner, for example the many court cases already being held as well as their rulings show this. This is not a direct attack human rights and decency, and neither are people calculating to do this great harm to our nation. It is simply our inability to see past the real issues, and handle them as required.

That there are ways to protect different groups from discrimination and that we can, with the law, is true. And we should definitely have them in play. But granting the formal homosexual union the same as the formal heterosexual union is not the way. This will unnecessarily inhibit the rights of heterosexual union.

We should avoid this precedent at all costs. Because it is a precedent for lying at the fundamental levels of the government, not just at decision making and bureaucratic levels.

Forget the problems for the two groups for and against gay marriage, we are entering a discussion of this nation’s government’s future, it’s quality, and possible eventual demise.

to say the least, picture ralph wiggum getting thrown through a glass window and saying: “I’m a brick”

So tell me, brandon, in the context of marriage what should we do about all these couples who don’t want kids? And why would/should there be any difference between one being a male and one being female? Why should we care at all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3A-LKL9Z1k

their stated positions are more accurately characterized as political rather than principled.

Yes, there are probably politicians who just support same-sex marriage to get the gay vote, or who just don’t want to be labeled bigots.

I am disgusted by all the dishonest TV ads against Prop 8.

Voting yes on Prop 8 is not discriminating gays. By saying that yes to Prop 8 goes “against” gay marriage, it doesn’t mean that it discriminates against gay people, hate them, attack them in public or private, or think that they are evil. It merely means that they are against supporting these behaviors, and not doing so is the same thing as supporting those behaviors.

When people say things like this, I tend to conclude that they really don’t understand that they are bigots. It’s hard to put myself in their shoes, but I figure that they don’t want to be bigots, and that they probably don’t feel like they imagine a bigot feels. After all, would you actually expect to hear one of these people admit “yes, I hate gay people, and I want to discriminate against them and take away their rights.” ? I’d be surprised to hear such an admission, even though that is exactly what prop. 8 would do.

I think it may be more persuasive in arguing with these people to point out that their behavior is bigotry, is discriminatory, is wrong, and is unamerican — whether they want it to be or not.

Claiming “I am not a bigot” doesn’t make it true. You’ve got to actualy not be a bigot

Do you really want to start going down this path? The only reason proposition 8 has any chance of passing is the enormous and disproportionate amount of out-of-state money its supporters have taken in to run dishonest ads for the measure…

This is probably a bad time to ask, but what are propositions 1 to 7?

Assuming you’re serious: 1. Build a bullet train from SF to LA 2. Require livestock be kept in humane conditions 3. Issue a bond to fund children’s hospitals 4. Require parental notification for abortions by minors 5. Shift drug law enforcement from incarceration to rehabilitation 6. Harsher sentencing for some crimes, particularly gang-related offenses 7. Breaks the kneecaps of California alternative energy under the guise of promoting it.

The state issues a voter information guide with text of all 13 propositions plus arguments for and against, if you’re a California voter you should have received this in the mail already.

If pr0p. 8 does not pass it WILL be to late to turn things around and we will continue to be stripped of our faith.

Go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and ask for political asylum there on the grounds that you are have to tolerate gay marriage in your home country.

Furthermore, it’s unclear if any of the politicians you cite would oppose same-sex marriage in circumstances where they didn’t feel that they needed to get the votes of a substantial portion of voters who oppose same-sex marriage. In other words, their stated positions are more accurately characterized as political rather than principled.

You don’t like gay marriage? Then by all means, don’t enter into one. But if the states can be in the business of granting or withholding marriage licenses on the basis of whether the marriages conform to some particular religious definition of marriage, then look forward to the petition drive to put a measure on the ballot banning LDS Temple marriages.

And brandon, regarding your comments, I hope by your logic you’ve never had sex where the end goal wasn’t a baby. We should probably stop letting infertile couples get married too.