While I am personally opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, the real reason this passed in CA is that 61% of black Americans oppose gay marriage. The huge “get out the vote” effort for Obama was enough to tip the vote in favor of Prop 8. Great societies fail when there is a breakdown of the social order of families as the basis of society. Gays still have civil unions to protect their rights.This is not about discrimination. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. In Islamic countries gays are put to death.  Talk about persecution.

It is easy to see that ordinary everday citizens decided to step up and speak their mind with their vote for Prop 8. What is alarming is to see a group of our society who see themselves as so special that they insist that we must adhere to their beliefs without reservation. Well, we the Americian people who voted for Prop 8 have reservations about observing Gay and Lesbian marriage cool. We the American people have not forgotten that if history repeats itself we will have lost our way as a society, just like the great Roman society did when it lost it’s way with regards to it’s moral decay. The foundation of any society is its resolve to withstand anytype of moral decay from within.

I think that the California voters were correct in voting for prop 8. The same thing happened in Florida, amendment 2 was passed and it was basically the same as Prop 8, only difference is it passed with 72% of the vote.

49% of the people voted PROP 8 down it seems a LARGE percent of the population is for marriage for all. Being almost 50/50 should say we need to look at this a bit closer.

Let me pose this thought. I resided in California when the first vote took place for Prop. 22. That prop passed by majority vote then…and it was overturned….it went to vote again and prop 8 passed. I have no hatred for gays or lesbians..none. I do not condone the behavior, but when al is said and done I am not going to turn away from a friend, colleague, or family member, because of their orientation. Were I to live in California I would have voted for Yes on Prop. 8, not because I hate gays or lesbians but because it sets a precedent for other social contracts to be accepted as well.

The thought was posed that “marriage is about love, people should be able to marry who they love, man/man, woman/woman”

Thats fine except waht denies a man the option to marry two women because he loves them. Should he be granted the right to commit bigamy? Or the woman who marrys three men, should she be able to advnce in polygyny because she loves them? It is not about gays and lesbians, unfortuanetly for those who believe it is.

The fact is the Prop 8 simply guards our society from perversions beyond our wildest. TO allow different social unions would leave the gate for otherS open, UNCHALLENGED. How can we deny a ploygamist a legal union when he “loves” his three potential wives.

Sorry all you supporters of “NO on Prop 8”, Love is not defense enough for the safety of the OVERALL, common good of our society,
P.S. A government does not EVER HAVE to provide a license for a man and a woman either. If they don’t meet the standard, even they can be denied.

Sorry for being a realist. The debate is that the majority vote has decided that they don’t want to condone polygamy, bigamy, polygyny, legally in the state of CA!

Think about that!?

Hate to break it to all of you supporters of gay marriage. It is not discrimination in any way shape or form to forbid same sex marriage. The logic is simple: I, a heterosexual, am not allowed to marry another man, therefore forbidding you, a homosexual, from marrying another man cannot by definition be discrimination. No where in the constitution is there a right to marry whomever you wish. If you look back upon our history, we have had marriages for financial reasons, political reasons, all dictated by familes rather than individuals involved in the marriage. Not fair you say? Perhaps. But discrimination? Not by any legal definition. The judges on the Supreme Court of Cali. who found it to be discrimination were legislating from the bench and had no law to support their decision and should be disbarred.

I thought we lived in a democracy where the majority rules. If the majority of Californians do not want same sex marriage, then it’s out. Plain and simple. But I’m sure it will go to the liberal supreme court and get over turned and once again, the majority loses.

Children are an absolute necessity for the preservation of any society; therefore, in addition to acknowledging commitment between two people, the institution of marriage was created for the purpose of preserving society by _promoting_ the bearing and rearing of children in a broad-based stable and loving environment.  Society created legal contracts and gave benefits to a man and woman because they have the _assumed potential_ to bear children who will be a benefit to society.  In return for these legal benefits, the couple agree to bear the physical, mental, and emotional burden of bringing a child into the society and raising them to be good citizens.  Of course there will be infertility or other things that may prevent child-bearing, but those are unhappy exceptions and they do not lessen marriage’s definition, because the assumed potential was still valid—it just was not realized.

We must conclude, therefore, that the current gay-marriage movement seeks to redefine marriage by eliminating the idea of having children as an inherent part of the social contract.  Why?  Because society cannot assume a gay couple will bear children; therefore, if the “marriage” contract is going to be equally applied to all, then it can no longer assume children will be born of any marriage.  By eliminating the assumption of children, gay-marriage and all marriages are defined _only_ as a social acknowledgement of love between two people regardless of gender. If marriage is defined in such a narrow way, then “marriage” no longer has any meaning to society’s preservation since it is _only_ about the couple themselves and not about the couple and their potential children (likewise, heterosexuals who marry but _choose_ not to have any children in essence are backing out of their social contract and thus contribute to this same narrow definition).

By redefining marriage so narrowly and eliminating the social benefits that having children used to have under the traditional definition of marriage, we promote a society that appears on the surface “sophisticated” (because we are so open-minded to all kinds of “marriages”) and more tolerant and “loving” (because, after all, “it is _only_ about love between two people”) but at the same time we downplay the unique potential of a heterosexual couple to preserve society and also cheapen/lessen/ignore/do-not-promote the sacrifice that is required to have children.  The more our society diminishes the importance of having children (whether by excluding childbearing from the definition of marriage, promoting “married” lifestyles without children, aborting them for mere convenience, etc.), then more and more people will choose not to have children as the world is already doing.  This in turn will wreak havoc on societies, for shrinking populations cannot sustain economies, defend liberties, take care of the elderly, etc. 

I do not choose to “hate” or to exclude any one, but I must choose to promote, not devalue, the bearing and rearing of children for society’s sake; consequently, I must oppose the gay-marriage movement which, by definition, eliminates the assumption of children in a marriage contract.  You can either choose the definition of marriage with children or you choose the definition without children.  It is one or the other, you cannot have both, because then it will no longer be one equal social contract that the gay-marriage movement is demanding.

Just a perspective from someone who lives in the “hinterland” of civilization….People in Oklahoma watched and hoped for a beacon of hope from our California brothers. Unfortunately, the light never came. We watched the debate, and formed our opinions. We were so sure Californians would come to the aid of their fellow American citizens because California always errs on the side of liberty and individual rights. Such was not the case, at least this time around. Since we have now decided that Constitutional and human rights are subject to plebiscite and the christian hate ethic is how we must conduct ourselves, then I suggest it is time that we did away with the tax break to churches. They have imposed their religious will on the American people through the political process and have divested themselves of any special status. Christian churches are now just another Political Action Committee and should be treated as such.
  For those of you who call this a “matter of a difference of opinion”, I respectfully submit a person is not an opinion and a citizen should not have to fear the majority in a Constitutional democracy. Some rights, like the pursuit of happiness, is not, and should never be, vulnerable to attack by the majority. That is tyranny, not freedom.

PROP 8 WON FAIR AND SQUARE. LIVE WITH IT!

And just when I had begun to think this country was on its way up; Obama won by a landslide, the REPs are out, and we’re ready to start over, and yet this thing just can’t help but pop out of the air.

I was talking to a friend today and he told me, “Now that Obama’s to be president, the most prominent issue in America may finally be coming to an end - race. Who knows what the next will be?” and now I think I know; the next issue is going to be the genders of both parties in relationships…

Does that even sound right to anyone? Relationships are about love - you marry someone that you (Hopefully) feel so strongly for that you can’t put it into words exactly. Do you think people should sit down, watching others pass them by and say, “Okay…looking for a nice girl here…” or something of the sort? Do you think that that’s the way to true love? If you do, I disagree; people who are happiest with their husbands and wives don’t choose by setting silly rules like gender first; they live their lives and see who comes to them that makes them feel special, and they won’t know what the gender will be until they know it’s the right person.

And all this about children? Utterly terrifying, I believe! How can they be allowed to even speak of “corrupting children’s minds” when they are trying to do the very same thing and corrupt them so that they will stand against same-sex couples? Personally, I find these people who make too prominant an example of their religious faith or person opinions aremuch more dangerous to our children; should I have a son, they are the people I would pull him away from on the street, and tell him gently, “Don’t look to them, my dear, for they are the worst of all - they are the sinners that think themselves saints.”

If you opposed Prop. 8, don’t presume you know what motivated its supporters. 52% of us voted for Prop. 8, so make sure you have plenty of hate for all of us. I don’t hate you. I may even be your friend. If you can’t accept that, then you shouldn’t live in a democracy.

I cannot believe that any state could permit majority rule to reverse the rights of individuals as found by the highest state court.  SHAME SHAME SHAME.  What a strange thing to have Obama elected on the same day as this transparent xenophobic majority measure is adopted in California, along with other states.  I remain forever happy that I live in a country that actually respects and upholds the central dignity of ALL individuals and not just those in power.

Clifton, did you really just use a fox news link to back up your comment?

The children were required to get signed permission slips by their parents before taking the field trip to their teachers wedding. You think they could have been taken off campus without any parents knowing?

Heaven forbid we teach these children about love, commitment and devotion. Just a guess, but 50% of those children probably come from “straight” homes that are either broken or on their way to being there. We have grown into a society that assumes marriages will fail before we ever give them a chance, yet we deny people a simple right that would have no effect on anyone but themselves.

I’m not sure if this means that our Christian Leaders think our younger Gay brethren should practice abstinence before marriage like the rest of us, or just party, party, party, because marriage is now not going to happen for them? In the latter case, are the younger Christians not going to feel cheated?

I asked the preacher who rang my doorbell last week how he could justify worshipping the same entity that caused the Tsanuami and wiped out 250,000 innocents. He said it was just Physics. So then I asked him how the Red Sea got parted . . and he left.

I am so surprised at how everyone is jumping on this bandwagon that just because a majority of Californians voted to add this to the state constitution, that they are somehow bigots and haters.  In this country, everyone has an opinion, and just because it’s not the same as yours, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.  I mean, I could say “Anyone supporting homosexuals are sinners”, but you would say you are entitled to your opinion, and so am I, and the majority of voters in California.
And, as far as it being taught in school, actually, it was already tried.  A teacher took a class of first-graders on a field trip to a gay wedding in San Francisco.  The parents were not notified.  So, I guess it is a good thing the Yes on Prop 8 people created this informative commercial!...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html

I thought our most basic right was the will of the people?  Agree or disagree with Prop 8, it was voted on and passed with a majority.  It is easy to be critical when your side loses.  But just like all the southerners who are complaining about a black man as president, the people have decided and that is what this country and democracy are about.  Sometimes the rights of some are sacrificed for the right of society to rule itself.  People have the right to their opinions, just because you don’t agree, does not make them wrong.

If you care about equality, write the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).  Please ask her to insure ALL votes are counted and that she is aware of the misleading wording of the Proposition.  Many people voted yes thinking it was to support gay marriage.  Also, if churches can no amend the state constitution, they should be taxed!!!!

First of all major kudos to Obama on a win!!

But, what were we thinking on Pro 8? if the US is suppose to be the country of freedom of speech, a place where someones individuality is encouraged, a place where a man can officially be judge by the content of his character and not the color of his skin…then why are we sooo unable to grant thar freedom to EVERYONE!? When it comes to school, i was told that i could not pray before lunch and certanily not before school started… but now i have the right to make the decision on what people that i don’t even know can do?.. that is stupidty at its best. For those whom are not as open minded at most… i recommened the movie- For the Bible tells me so- it explains where gays and lesbians fit as far as the bible is concerned. So for those whom are suppose to be doing this for the “saftey” of your children as well as for the “sanctity of your faith.. you have clearly missed the mark.

This issue will not go away!..and as long as there are people like myself that believe that if you can choose what you will do with your body, than i can choose whom to love!...and the funny part is that most of the kids that they are trying to “protect” will go through this same ordeal..when they are not accepted in school.

My marriage is a symbol of my love for my wife..not some means of “attacking” children. how old are we now? if you are old enough to vote.. you are old enough to get a clue.

Now that we know that the state constitution can be amended to interfere with marriage, we have an obligation to take this as far as we can.  Divorced people shouldn’t be allowed to remarry, because it teaches children that marriage is disposable.  People from California shouldn’t be allowed to marry non-Californians, because they might come from a state that allows same-sex marriage.  English speakers and non-English speakers shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because it will be confusing for the children. 

In fact, if we work at the science, the state constitution ought to be amended to require genetic testing for couples that apply for licenses and only people who are a proper match will be granted the license, because marriage is all about the children.  In particular, people who are unable or unwilling, to have children should certainly never be allowed to marry. 

Thanks to the “Yes on 8” people, the way is clear.  There is a precedent.  We need to get these amendments on the ballot in the next election, strike while the iron is hot, stop those “childfree” people from ruining marriage.  This is the clear, logical extension of Proposition 8 passing, and we really ought to accept that future.  It’s obviously what California wants.

Californians really dropped the ball yesterday. First we let hate and fear cloud our judgement and fell for the lies and propoganda promulgated by the Prop 8 campaign. The idea that WE can use the word “marry” and YOU can’t is extremely childish and people who think they are protecting their kids are still subconsciously (or consciously) living in a world where homosexuals are trying to influence and “recruit” our children.

Not only Prop 8 passed, but so did Prop 1a (yes, a multi-billion dollar high speed rail that we can’t even afford is just what we need). Prop 5 lost (because apparently letting non-violent drug offenders rot in jail is a useful way of spending our money).

I suppose there was SOME good news. Animals who are being raised to be killed and eaten can now stretch their legs and sit down before they are slaughtered (Prop 2) and two badly written energy policies were dropped (Prop 7 and 10). And I suppose Obama one. Whoopee.

But the fight against hate, fear and ignorance is not over. The battle over these issues will continue and off in the distance there is still HOPE.

In the words of Peter Griffin:

“What’s wrong with gay marriage? I say let them get married and be miserable like the rest of us!”

Yet again another sign of just how repulsively sick this society is!
While I am not gay, I also read prop 8 cover to cover and dug around on it and I came up with an absolute “no” vote on my part. The “Pro prop8” people had and have NO CLUE as to what the bill is about other than feeding their own bigotry.
Gay marriage is NOT taught in school, never has been and never will be. In fact, marriage period is not taught in schools. There was also NO danger of it starting to be taught. My personal take on it is that marriage should never be taught in school, that should be left to the home. The hate-filled zealots that put together and funded this prop 8 sickness were whipped into a frenzy because some bible-thumping asshole found out that some teacher in some backwoods one room schoolhouse mentioned gay marriage.
What 99% of people don’t realize is that this will also have a far reaching effect on “hetro marriage”. The bill is so open-ended that it allows for discrimination of nationality as well. Example, a guy has a fiance’ say a girl with a background from China or Russia, but fully a US citizen and westernized (or visa versa) and they go down to get their “marriage license” and are told “sorry you can’t marry her or him because the U.S. is not in very good realtions with that person’s country of orgin”. Or another example: “Only christian wedding ceremonies are recognized”. (That will be the first thing to raise its ugly head).
The other thing that the stupid people refuse to see is that when a couple get married it has NOTHING to do with religion! A couple is legally and officialy married when the license is signed and recorded which happens long before the marriage ceremony!!!!
I HATE IDIOTS!!!!