http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

It doesn’t really undo “In Re:Marriage” nor, obviously, does it undo the California constitutional provisions that that decision rests on.

What it does do is – with the full force of constitutional law – set the legal contract of “marriage” in stone as only being between opposite sex partners.

But by the reasoning of the California Supreme Court, the Ca. Constitution protects the rights of all persons without reference to gender or gender orientation.

Without trying to write a full legal or philosophical defense, the only logical conclusion, in order to keep one part of the state constitution from contradicting another part of the constitution, is that what Prop. 8 has done is outlaw the legal contract known as “marriage” for everyone in California.

Someone needs to sue to stop anyone from getting married.

I would like to let everyone here know that I do not support either party. the 2 party system is designed to divide populations. As long as people are fighting each other, it is easy for politicians to have something to settle and build bigger government. So I am neither left, nor right, dem or repub.

Next, I have devoted the last 15 years of my life to following the person that is known as Jesus, I follow his teaching in a spirit of love as defined by the scriptures.

This post may look scattered at first, but bear with me and I will lay out the concerns of the religious, the political, the gay right’s activist and basically all concerned with many areas of this campaign.

The first point is the psycological tatics used by the “no” crowd on this prop. Name calling is something that is a basic of peer pressure, and the activating part is that someone does not want to be associated with being labeled as a bigot, hater, intolerant and the many other “titles” given to the ones who are against using the term “marriage”. This is a calculated campaign by social psychologist to get as many as possible to hop the fence because they do not want to be identified with these titles. Even the vote “yes” or “No” is reversed from past prop’s by the way it was written so that many would make the mistake when voted on.

The Bush Admin makes a great example with the agenda since we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 by insinuating that if you did not support the policy that you were either a terrorist, un-patriotic, or stupid, retarded, and a host of other names, and it worked like a charm until reality set in. So this tactic is setting up for another battle if this is won by the “no” crowd

It has been an obvious attack as far as the people who hold their religious teachings and traditions close to heart. Now, that being said, I know that God is pro choice (free will), and the religious community is out in left field if they were to try to oppose civil unions with full rights, but to call it “marriage” is a direct attack on the institution of marriage as it was founded and known for thousands of years. Now, to me it is “another” personal attack on me as a person, it is an attack on my religion and my Lord and his doctrine.

Now let’s look at the argument that it is a “right” for gay’s to be married and that it is “wrong” for us (yes crowd) to oppose it.

Let’s say a 15 year old want’s to be a Doctor, because he a high school dropout and does not have the required schooling he is denied a license, if he calls everyone haters, bigots and other names, should we cave in and allow him the license?

What about the girl scout that wants to be a boy scout? There are, and have always been things that are not possible because of the structure or laws of a land, people, religion ect.

There are already hundreds of lawsuits against churches for refusing to “Marry” gay couples. And this is a step the gay community has taken to gain equal access to the churches as equals and able to obtain salvation contrar6y to what the bible says. So it is an attempt to rewrite our core beliefs, and that is denying my rights that are directly protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

As stated above in another comment, it is a hate crime to say gay marriage is wrong in Canada already, and punishable by criminal courts, and I for one, as millions of others do not want to be persecuted for our religious beliefs at anytime in a “free country”!

If you want to be part of the Church, conform to it’s rules. It is that simple, not change the rules to fit a few and destroy the many in the process.

The bible defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman, and the standard has been set for many thousands of years, not just 2 k years, it was just compiled 2 k years ago, and for the one asking Who Says, Go look it up yourself, study some biblical history and get the answer yourself. You just may learn why we oppose Gay marriage in the process.

Politicians love this issue because it causes a division and allows them to attempt to be the “Hero” to solve the issue, which is a fable also, Government has never solved problems, but rather generate crisis to justify their existence.

I pray that this issue can be settled in the right way, but seriously doubt it.

The original post by GPW and several other bloggers on here is an interesting take on this situation. What we forget as a state is that after Nov 4th passes, we have to unify these two groups of people the “Yes’ers” and the “No’ers”.

Take the presidential election for example. One party has concentrated on attacking the opposing candidate so much so that it is no longer about the issues. At the rallies supporters shout out about his opponent, “kill him” “he’s a terrorist” “I don’t trust blacks” “he’s muslim” “he’s an arab”. *i’m sure you can figure out which side this is =)

Once these phrases become a normal rebuttle; when the negative campaigning becomes the norm, not the exception, the voters on either side of the ticket get aggressive and biased. Compare this to this prop and the responses of “bigot” “nazi” “homophobe” “8 = hate” …things like this are similar. The negative takes over the whole point of the actual topic being voted on.

We forget that there will be life after Nov 4th, and whether or not Prop 8 passes or otherwise, we are going to need to unify this state together again. This will be even harder if the negative campaiging continues.

Like most Yes’ers, I am able to “love my neighbor as I would like to be loved” but that doesn’t mean I condone their sexual behavior. I agree for equal rights for gays, which I believe exists per the California Family Code 297-297.5 (google it.) But I also believe that traditional marriage should be upheld. I believe in a child having a nurturing mother, and a spirited father. I don’t promote hate, I don’t discriminate others, and I am not a homophobe, my gay friends can attest to that.

So thanks again for this post GPW. I think the negative tones of this campaigning on both sides needs to stop so that people can truly think about the issue and vote accordingly.

Addition: the marriage presumption is based on the shared sexual behavior of husband and wife. it is a presumption of paternity, not maternity, and cannot apply to an all-female arrangement. It does not presume that a man can impregnate another man.

If an alternative presumption is to be consented to, by all unions of husband and wife as wella s those lacking either husbands or wives, then, it would not be based on shared sexual behavior. it would not be based on whatever sexual conduct might occur among an all-male or an all-female combination. It would remove from marraige the unity of motherhood and fatherhood, in the eys of the law and of the government.

What is so awful about the cor eof marriage that it must now be abolished? Try to explain without resort to gay identity politics and the axiom that to disagree with SSM is an act of bigotry or hatred. Be rational and avoid emotivism. Stick to the facts instead of doctrinaire talking points.

Does not society need to promote sex integration — (which is not merely a role in the haystack, btw) — and the integration of motherhood and fatherhood? if not, why not? If yes, then, how to do so if we gut the core of marriage that provides this?

Remember we are not talking about any and all kinds of procreation, but Responsible procreation, the first principle of which is that each of us, as part of a procreatieve duo, is responsible for the children we create, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. Are we going to do away with one of the strongest laws in our legal tradition? Why?

>> The issue is simple – inclusivity over exclusivity; Two committed adults – one simple ceremony of commitment. There’s no reason to exclude; there’s no reason to differentiate. There’s no reason to attempt to prevent two loving adults from unifying their relationship!

* * *

First, would the marriage presumption of paternity apply to arrangements that lacked either husbands or wives?

Nope. Big difference there.

Second, if this marriage presumption is no longer something to which people consent when they marry, then, the relationship type, as recognized by the law, becomes nonsexual.

The boundaries that exclude some people are based on the core of the conjugal relationship type. That core is 1) sex integration, 2) responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole (a social institution). But “gay marriage” excludes and indeed rejects this core.

The marriage presumption and the man-woman criterion are definitive legal requirements and yet no one-sexed arrangement can meet these requirements. Whatever does nto fit the one-sexed arrangement must be an unacceptable difference — according to Jeff Gagnon’s declaration above. So these definitive legal requirements which are vigorously enforced must be dropped.

More than that, no differences are to be permitted, no one is to be excluded.

That means you’d abolish the distinguishing features of marriage and equate it with nonmarriage.

The category of nonmarital arrangements is far broader than just those which identify as gay or lesbian. And, as just discussed, the merger of the one-sexed idea and the marriage idea would gut marriage of its core. It would no longer be a sexualized type of relationship, at law.

So forget about excluding some related people due to concerns about responsible procreation and sex integration. Likewise with people who are already married. For starters, there is no equality of the sexes within an arrangement that likes one of the sexes. It is absurd to point to the use of “donors’ and “surrogates” for such practice is extramarital, even when married people partake. And such pointing does not counter the presumption of paternity that would still apply to polygamous unions. Nor even to procreative incestuous unions. Family diversity means not excluding families in need — families with commitment and love and so on.

SSM proponents need to justify the boundaries, if any, they’d maintain to exclude some people while including the one-sexed variation of nonmarriage.

Propositon 8 affirms the both-sexed nature of marriage, a social institution that is foundational of civil society. The government does not own civil society. Yet the gay identity politics of the SSM campaign seeks to impose the falsehood that government owns the people.

The truth is the People have a government, not the other way around. The gay identity filter is far too much like the racist identity filter that also segregated the sexes and also undermined responsible procreation.

Say no to identity politics being pressed into marriage law.

Say YES to propositon 8 and the affirmation of marriage’s special place in our culture, traditions, customs, and laws.

Well, let’s take a look here

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:

“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]

“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]

For more, follow the link.

The issue is simple – inclusivity over exclusivity; Two committed adults – one simple ceremony of commitment. There’s no reason to exclude; there’s no reason to differentiate. There’s no reason to attempt to prevent two loving adults from unifying their relationship!

** If you do not believe in same-sex marriage; don’t marry anyone of the same-sex!

** Gay Marriage is not the biggest threat to marriage – Divorce is! If you want to “protect marriage” then you should be attempting to BAN DIVORCE!

** Polygamists don’t care about gay marriage and it will never affect what they do / want;

** Gays and Lesbians do not want to attend any church that doesn’t support their union;

** Gays and Lesbians aren’t attemping to shove gay marriage down anyone’s throat;

** Gay Marriage will NOT be taught in public schools;

** Priests are not subject to law suits for failing to marry gays / lesbians and Prop 8 does not address this.

So, the ‘narrative’ that we need is one that shows people why gay marriage is good for society.

You are entirely correct.

Has anyone here done that? Or is ti simply the case that SSM isn’t “good for society”, and therefore they can’t make that case?

Because I’ve been following this for the last 8 – 10 years, and I’ve never seen anyone actually try to make that case. And until it’s made, I will be an opponent of SSM.

Andrew, I don’t think it’s same sex marriage as much as it’s the fact that we are even allowed to debate and vote on this issue (and many other issues) sticks in the craw of Islamists.

V the K, I guess you mean same sex marriage, and not all marriages. Anyway, that’s a possible approach. I just think it would be better for all if we take all the steps to normalize homosexual relationships, in the sense that they become no more of an issue than heterosexual relationships. Having same sex marriage is just one step. It’s not just about having a piece of paper (even though that piece of paper seems to be quite necessary for most heterosexual couples and their parents). Most of us here went through the mill, and no longer need government or anyone else’s approval for our relationships now. But it will be a big help when we get to the point where a gay child has the same confidence as a straight child in being accepted for what they are and the relationships they enter.

So perhaps most of America will need to wait. Wait until there is sufficient societal acceptance of gay folks. Until children are no longer are excoriated by their parents, other family members, peers, schools, and churches for being gay. In the meantime, yes, gay people have to get their act together as well.

May I ask a question that I am unlikely to get a civilized response to? If it were really only a teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy fraction of the gay community that supported and tolerated that kind of depravity, would there even be a Folsom Street Fair?

I’ll give it a shot. First of all, I’m not from California, and never been to FSF, so I don’t know exactly how bad it is. I think I know enough that children should not be allowed to enter the fair, and I don’t know what kind of parents would think of bringing their children there. Also, is the fair exclusively homosexual? Further, how much of the fair is that depraved and outwardly sexual? In other words, by simply attending this fair, does that mean that person automatically endorses the depravity that occurs there. Just like a lot of people attend Mardi Gras, but don’t partipate and do not necessarily condone the shenanigans that goes on there.

I did not mean to imply that a comparison between the Islamists and your average everyday American who opposes SSM, but I still think the fact that this kind of thing sticks in the craw of the Islamists.

The freak shows in the gay community, which includes the Folsom Street freaks and those who would treat marriage as trivially as many heterosexuals seem to, need to be ostracized by gays. You are to me what pimps, hoes and pushers are to many blacks. I’m sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings, but that’s too f—ing bad. It is they who have held back the cause of gay rights and driven otherwise reasonable people into the arms of the opposition.