If the "No on 8" people had started these marches and vigils a month ago, they would have easily won the election. Why didn't they? Too lazy? Too disorganized? They let the Christian right-wingers walk all over them. There were a lot of undecided and moderate people who just voted for the side that generated the most publicity.

YAWN--- The people have spoken -- move on


Any violence by gay activists like that seen in LA, San Diego etc

should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law

Enough is enough

Mob rule and bigotry have spoken. But they won't silence those whose rights have been trampled.

Enough will not be enough until Prop 8 is reversed.

MOVE ON! Anyone can love whoever they want to. But there is a [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff] good reason that every child should be given a fair chance of being being raised by two heterosexual parents...PERIOD!

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

You are clearly exaggerating--yes there have been some unfortunate incidents involving no on 8 supporters, but please do not try to tell us that everyone on the yes on 8 side is an angel and above reproach.
Civil rights should not be decided at the ballot box.
Please do not paint all gays with the same brush

I am beginning to have a REAL problem with the gay activists. I foted for Prop 8. I did not see it as much as a gay rights thing as I saw it as a referrendum on the definition of marriage. The question was how I defined marriage, and I answered the question. i see marriage as being in line with the traditional definition, and I am sorry if some people don't like how I see it. But I was being asked if we could call this dog a pony, and my answer was "No, it is a dog."

Since then I have been called hateful, homophobic, bigoted, and a myriad of other negative, hurtful, and untrue things, all because I expressed my opinion and views. I am beginning to take offense at that.

Furthermore, now the gay activists are trying to identify those who might bave voted in favor of prop 8 and target them with protests and punishments for the way they voted. They also seem to be targeting society in general for having passed prop 8. I didn't know that in America we punished people for the way they voted. Somehow it seems very un-American to me. I also resent that behavior, people should be able to vote the way they feel without fear of retribution from the radical fringe. It's supposed to be a free election, right? Saddam is dead, not here, right? This is not Zimbabwe or Burma, right?

Well Said Kathy :-)

Punish in what way? Protests are legal here, aren't they? Boycotts are legal here, aren't they?
These are tools used by many groups--religious and non-religious to try to make a point or get what they want.
As long as violence is not involved people have the right to protest.
So what punishment are you referring to? How do they know to target you personally?

The people may have spoken but it doesn't mean the people are right. The constitution was written and remains the law of the land today to prevent this very thing from happening. Democracy does not equate to "mob rule".

Religious groups of all sorts pushed their membership hard to equate marriage as something sanctified by God. Why are they not equally outraged by any civil ceremony. There is a very good reason why there is a separation of church and state.

Guaranteed in our Constitution is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Think about what that means and then try to justify how some people can be denied the same rights that others take for granted.

What if there was a proposition on the ballot that said that a white man could not marry a black woman? Or a black man could not marry an Asian woman? What if the "people spoke" and passed such and amendment to the State Constitution?

Just something to think about.

The No on 8 activists are publishing the names and addresses of contributors to Yes on 8.
They are stirring up hatred, calling for boycotts and, in fact, encouraging violence.

Remember the criminal violence by gay ACTUP thugs.
This weekend they disrupted Christian worship in SF and Oakland.

This is a democracy, not a banana republic.

No one in the gay community has deplored these actions, therefor they are complicit.
I have to tell you, last week I lost all sympathy for their cause, There will be a firm backlash to restore law and order

No one would hold a referendum over a word definition. It's pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention that the issue involves fundamental human rights.

The No on 8 organizations did not counter the Prop 8 proponents very effectively, but I guess it's because they did not believe that Prop 8 had a chance of passing. And until the Yes people pulled out the steps and filled the media with outright lies, it seemed as though Prop 8 would be defeated. But anyone who's read this forum (and others)can see just how intolerant and close-minded many people -- even those privileged to live in this allegedly open-minded part of the world -- can be.

I look to the day that gay marriage will be a non-issue, just as we no longer challenge the rights of women to vote or enter into contracts under their own names. Until then, all of us who believe that no majority can legitimately trample on the rights of any minority will continue to fight.

Anne, whenever you make a contribution to an election, your information is public and readily available. Don't blame gays for that.

Anne-speaking of stirring up hatred--your post does that.

You say:

"The No on 8 activists are publishing the names and addresses of contributors to Yes on 8."

--The names of pro-8 contributors were published in the local papers, as per California law--nothing wrong with that.

"They are stirring up hatred, calling for boycotts and, in fact, encouraging violence."

--Is boycotting against the law? Or only for gay people and no on 8 supporter? What hatred are they stirring up? What violence is being encouraged? Please provide details.

"Remember the criminal violence by gay ACTUP thugs."

--When did this happen?

"This weekend they disrupted Christian worship in SF and Oakland."

--please provide details about this claim also

"This is a democracy, not a banana republic."

--Exactly--civil rights should not be decided by a popular vote.

"No one in the gay community has deplored these actions, therefor they are complicit."

--which actions are you referring to? are you sure that no one has deplored any violence that may have occurred?

"I have to tell you, last week I lost all sympathy for their cause, There will be a firm backlash to restore law and order"

--I am shocked to hear, based on your posts, that you ever had any sympathy for the gay cause. What law and order needs to be restored?
Please stop exaggerating what is happening.

Marc D. Stern, whose many years handling religious freedom cases for the American Jewish Congress have made him an expert in the area, can hardly be identified as a conservative agitator. Yet he firmly believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty “inevitable.”

“No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them,” Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have “substantial impact.”

He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

One example, which he did not anticipate when first undertaking his analysis, was the Boston Catholic Charities’ decision to withdraw from providing adoption services because the state license required placing children with gay married couples on the same basis as heterosexual married couples.

Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage, agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.

"How come they pester Mormons and Catholic but dare not march into EPA.?"

Being a bit racist here, Paul? anyway to answer your question--the Mormon and Catholic church (in other words the church itself) came out in favor of Prop 8 and spent church funds on it--no black organization came out in favor of Prop 8.

Paul--
"The gays should clean their own house and deal with the epidemic of domestic violence, STDs and substance abuse in the gay community."

Really--would you care to provide any numbers to back up your infammatory comments?
What about the epidemic of divorce in the heterosexual community?

Why are they targeting the Mormons? It is a small group. How did the pope react tot he idea of same-sex marriages? How many hispanics who tend to be predominantly catholic tend to vote? Why are the activists targeting them? Or is it just that the smaller group of Mormons tend to get less public sympathy and is earier to intimidate?

50% of Black gay and bisexual males are HIV/AIDS positive.
The gays wasted $40M on No on Prop 8.
Ask yourself, what could $40m have done to help them?
Your allegation re LDS Church funds is false.
Members may have contributed, no Church funds were used.
Same with Catholics and Orthodox Jews.

Paul--you are getting caught up in semantics--the mormon church gave money and told it's members to give money--the church orders the followers obey in the mormon faith.
6 of one, half dozen of another
Web Link

Please provide some proof for your claim about black gay males--previously you stated that there was epidemic of STDs in the gay community-are you backing up from that claim--what percentage of gays are black?

I am not worried about my credibility in your eyes.


What about the epidemic of divorce, substance abuse and domestic violence in the heterosexual community?

Recent preliminary data from a CDC investigation found that a staggering 46% of three groups of black MSM tested were infected with HIV.3
This suggests that nearly half of black men who have sex with men are infected.Web Link

Sara Brown--and this has to do with gay marriage how???

This is beginning to get really out of hand.

I love my children dearly, I give them all the things in life that I think best for them, and sometimes I have to say "no" to them. It isn't always about money, it isn't always what they think "fair", it isn't because I don't love them, and it isn't even because I am punishing them or being mean. When I say "no" to my children it is because I have spent time thinking through the issue and after due thought and consideration I have decided that in this particular case it is better for our family as a whole to do the opposite to what they want.

They think such decisions are mean and start a temper tantrum. They think I must hate them, or don't treat them fairly. They are upset and act up and sometimes then they get punished for acting up. They don't understand, sometimes because they are the selfish ones and have not thought the thing through properly. They think that because they want it so badly and it is very easy for me to give, or it won't affect me very much, that there is no reason for them to have it. I am able to look at the bigger picture and I can decide what I think is right for my whole family, not just the screaming child that is demanding something.

I see big similarities here.

The people voted, then the courts ignored them. The people voted again and this time it is a small section of the people who want both votes to be ignored. It doesn't work that way.

I am not bigoted, or hateful, or unfair, but I believe marriage is defined by a union between one man and one woman. My religion or my lifestyle has nothing to do with it. It is just what makes sense to me.

No on 8

You asked for evidence, gays are 2% of the population yet have 64% of the syphilis case, it goes across the board. The $40M the threw away on No on 8 should have spent on this, no?

The rates of early syphilis had been going down since 1991, but began increasing in 2001.
In five years, the rate jumped from 2.1 new cases to 3.3 cases per 100,000 people.

Gay and bisexual men made up 64% of new cases of primary and secondary syphilis in 2006.Web Link

Unfortunately, the LGBT community ran a poor campaign against Prop 8 and underestimated the financing and organization of the pro Prop 8 side. There's nothing wrong with mobilizing, protesting and boycotting. The evangelicals have been doing the same for years.

I still find it strange that a simple majority can modify the constitution but it requires a 2/3rd majority to impose new taxes or pass a budget.

It was not so long ago that blacks were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains as whites. Persons of color (hispanic, black, Asian) were not served at restaurants all across the south.

When we bought our house in Menlo Park fourteen years ago there were still CCR's that showed up on the title search that stipulated that you could not sell your house to blacks, hispanics or Jews.

The political upheavals that we went through for civil rights issues were every bit as vitriolic as the debate going on today with gay rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This was written July 4, 1776 but yet slavery was not abolished until
1865.

“If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a
restaurant open to the public, if he can not send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would be content with the counsels of patience and delay? One hundred years have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.”

John F. Kennedy said this June 11, 1963 with the signing of the civil rights acts.

The parallels are real -- and relevant.

Sara Brown--your 2% is not a number based on any factual evidence--but it makes it sound like gays are a smaller majority than they are.
What about the millions thrown away on the yes on 8 campaign--couldn;t this money have been used for aiding both gay and heterosexual sick people?
While the numbers are interesting, the question still remains--what does it have to do with gay marriage???
You (and your alter ego Paul) comments regarding numbers and STDs etc, have nothing to do with the question at hand--they are just being thrown out to muddy the waters and inflame passions against gay people.
this is a civil rights issues--while the issue of HIV needs to be dealt with in an intelligent manner, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of gay people to marry.

No on 8

You asked quote
"Please provide some proof for your claim about black gay males--previously you stated that there was epidemic of STDs in the gay community-are you backing up from that claim--what percentage of gays are black?"


The facts were provided,
1/re Black MSM and HIV/AIDS,
2/ the explosion of STDs among gays.

Now you want to change the topic back to civil rights. That argument has been discredited many, many times.

I find it impossible to believe that you have any link with Stanford.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

TJ--thanks for your input. I work at Stanford, FYI.
I wanted some proof of the numbers, since I felt that Paul aka Sara bronwn's comments were inflammatory and they still are. The issue of HIV and STDs need to be dealt with, but are irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage and civil rights. the only reason to bring them up is to cast aspersions on gay people, which is clearly what Paul aka Sara brown are trying to do.
This is an issue about civil rights--it may be discredited in your mind, but that is what it is--you do not decide on civil rights by a majority vote at the ballot box.
Clealry TJ, for some reason, you oppose gay marriage. How will a gay couple being married affect you? It won't. Get over that and get over your inherent hatred of gays.
This has still to go through the courts--we will see who wins in the end.

What does the incidence of disease among gays have to do with Prop 8? Zero, or less? If you are truly concerned about diseases (somehow, I doubt this) then you should support gay marriage, as it's likely to minimize promiscuity and hence the spread of diseases.

The court whose decision last spring allowed gays to marry made it abundantly clear that churches' rights would not be affected. (Separation of church and state, remember?) So no church would be required to marry gays. End of fallacious argument. Too bad that one got so much press; any legal scholar could tell that you that the Prop 8 supporters had to resort to scare tactics because they had no legal basis for their accusations.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The people have voted--Get over it.

Government should get out of the business of providing "marriage" licenses. They should just call them civil unions and let the marriages become a religious event.

Lulu--thanks for your interesting and well thought out comments.
Peter S---have you no shame posing as an orthodox jew??? Aren't you ashamed of yourself for trying to cast aspersions on gay people with accuastions of disease, domestic violence and substance abuse which are totally irrelevant to the issue.
Shame on you, Peter S.

I am shocked and stunned at the comments in this thread. The passage of Prop 8 has energized the community...manage of which who were silent leading up to the vote last Tuesday.
The fact that comments about a peaceful, candlelight vigil have come to this is really disturbing. I encourage every single person who cares about fairness and equality to keep speaking out and standing up for what you believe in.
It's only a matter of time before Prop 8 is overturned...whether through the courts or the next time it appears on the ballot.
Shame on all of you who have made such horrible remarks on this page.

Should interracial marriage be allowed? Virginia didn't think so until 1967.

How about between Christians and Muslims?

Or perhaps between Catholics and Protestants? What about the constant parental tension witnessed by the children? Don't children deserve to have parents with a "normal" marriage?

How long until your own marriage is not considered "normal"? Prop 8's passage has demonstrated that all it takes is money and motivation.

A vigil to stop the health crisis in the gay community makes more sense.

The general tax payer ends up having to pay the costs of health risk behavior by a tiny fraction of the population-- those cost are enormous. The gay community needs to take full responsibility for dealing with the vectors and putting a stop to behavior that ultimately threatens us all.

It is time to get the priorities straight, the Black vote on 8 shows us the way forward.

Threats of litigation and statements like " it is coming whether you like it or not" are counter productive

It is time to deal with reality not propaganda.

Enough is enough

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff].
Last week America elected its first black president. But while racism in America is enormously diminished, it is not dead. Blogger Rod McCullom relays a report of postelection bigotry at a rally in Los Angeles, described by a reader named Gregory (quoting verbatim):

"It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff], one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff], I will call you a [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff]. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff] better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them."

At issue, of course, was Proposition 8, a ballot measure that makes the traditional definition of marriage part of the California Constitution. Earlier the state Supreme Court had held that definition unconstitutional and ordered that localities issue marriage licenses to couples consisting of two men or two women.

California voters approved Proposition 8, 52% to 48%, even as they were giving President-elect Obama an overwhelming 61% of the vote. But exit polls showed a striking divergence in voting patterns between racial and ethnic groups:

* White Californians backed Obama, 52% to 46%. But they voted against Proposition 8, 49% to 51%.
* Blacks supported Obama by 94% to 5%. They supported Proposition 8, 70% to 30%. That is what prompted the Gay KK to come out in the streets of Los Angeles.
* Hispanics and Asians alike were more pro-Obama than whites, giving him 74% and 64% respectively. Meanwhile 53% of Hispanics voted for Proposition 8, while Asians' vote was the same as whites, with 51% opposed.
* Overall, however, Obama voters were against Proposition 8, 32% to 68%.

what "yes on 8" people don't understand YET, it's that it was found unconstitutional to discriminate gay marriage. PERIOD. Prop 8 is like creating a proposition in one of the Southern states to reverse the ban on slavery. I bet you that such proposition would pass in one of those states,.... does it mean that they have to reverse the law based on popular vote and allow slavery again? Well, that sounds as ridiculous as Prop 8.
52% is NOT a majority, it's basically half of the VOTERS, which accounts for about 15% of people in CA. That's why we have laws and a Constitution so that the 15% of intolerat and ignorant people of CA don't come telling us how to live.
People that say "move on" are complete ignorants too. This is a civil rights movement. Did African-American ever stop fighting for the rights? Did women stop fighting for their right to vote? NO. This will NEVER EVER be over until equality is reached. And unfortunately this will go in the books as another black period as slavery was. But equal rights always wins, ALWAYS! :)
NO on PROP 8, FOREVER!

I am upset. Measure N passed. Now I will have to pay more taxes. I feel as if my civil rights have been taken away. I will have to pay more taxes while some on my street pay almost nothing. It isn't fair, it isn't American. Maybe I should arrange a candlelit vigil. Maybe I should protest against all those who put money into the "yes on N' campaign. Maybe I should get over it.

Familiar? Depends which side of the issue you are on.

Paul, in a time of global economic crises, it does seem ridiculous to spend a combined $70M+ on proposition 8, however to place blame on the opponents to the measure is misplaced. In a time when Americans are losing their jobs and homes, our educational systems are struggling for funding, it seems incredibly irresponsible to put Californians in a position to spend $70M on a proposition to revise the state constitution to specifically remove rights from a minority group. Worse, to do it in the name of "protecting" an institution (so-called "traditional" marriage) that was not under attack to begin with. Separate but equal is discrimination, back when it referred to race and gender, and certainly still today with sexual orientation. I can understand and certainly do not fault individual contributors donating money to preserve and defend their existing civil rights (or to protect those for a minority group in general). What baffles me is understanding what would drive people to donate a large portion of their personal savings to support a cause to remove SOMEONE ELSE'S civil rights. $70M IS a lot of money that could've helped a lot people in real need. Instead we wasted it to write discrimination into our laws.

I understand from friends in Utah that the church was exerting substantial pressure on people to donate their life savings to Prop 8. Pretty crazy, especially when you realize that many Mormons would love to change the definition of marriage so that it encompasses polygamy, a practice that is accepted and encouraged in parts of the state, even though it often includes forcing minors to become the 3rd or 4th wives of men old enough to be their fathers!

A huge percentage of pro Prop 8 money came from out-of-state, and that's the mindset that drove it here.

A huge amount of No on 8 money came from out of state more than the pro 8 numbers.

The people of California have amended the constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The court cannot therefore declare that this is unconstitutional, check mate as it were.

Ultimately activists could appeal to the US Supreme Court, but the refuse to take such cases, set and match.

The activists have stirred a hornets nest with their unhinged sore looser behavior since the verdict.

Next time it comes to vote the people will vote like the blacks and hispanics.

I was not happy that N passed either, boo hoo, are we going to have a vigil about that?

The gay activists have set their program back 20+ years by their behavior, try again in 2028, by which time the population will be overwhelmingly Mormon, Catholic and Black, look at the demographics by that time Europe will be under Sharia law, so the experiment in Holland will end.

Gays have the exact same rights as normal couples when it comes to marriage. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm not gay and I can't marry someone of the same sex, or my sister, or more than one person at the same time, or someone underage. There have always been restrictions on marriage and they pretty much apply equally across our country.

Gays want special rights, and they have been denied them. I'm looking forward to hearing from all the polygamists, incest worshippers and child molesters as well on how their rights have been stepped on when it comes to marriage.

Good luck : ).

I just passed the corner, no body there apart from the usual peace and justice few and a couple of freezing Stanford students, oh I see 3 raging grannies, where is code pink and peta? we can do better than this, no?

Love transcends gender. If we look at this like DiFi suggested removing the "gay" title and consider this an issue that a minority is being treated 'less-than' not having equal rights it's so obvious the law needs to embrace all is equal. Isn't that what the constitution guarantees? It just-so-happens to be a lively, colorful minority that challenges acceptance because some believe it is WRONG to love somebody you share the same sex-organs with. That's sad because I can testify that the love between these same-sex couples who are only wanting the same rights the heteros have is just as authentic. I'm a wedding photographer and I have photographic evidence that that kiss between them has the same dynamic sparkle blessed in God's light.

I think it's bigotry to not accept this gay equality movement. To condemn a love between them when you know nothing about them because you think it is a sin or wrong or whatever.

I have a theory that people against the gay movement are worried their children will not be with them in heaven if they have genetic stirrings to that same-sex urge. I also think it is interesting that the Mormons and Catholics banded together on this "Save Traditional Marriage" issue and put aside their differences in charter. Some traditions are wrong if hatred is it's foundation.

What would Jesus do? Jesus taught to always put love first and this is precisely what will prevail because ultimately, even if we don't agree with a minority, they have the same rights as we do because the answer is in our country's name: The "UNITED" States of America.

michael pee


Could you put that in plain English or would you like your Worlds Smallest Violin Award by FedX right now

Man + Woman = Marriage
Man + Man = Marriage
Woman + Woman = Marriage

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Very underwhelming turnout, what does this portend for the cause? as I stood there by Town and Country, I cried and looked up at the sign, and fell deeply in my pain, what has our Town and Country come to that they would caste us alone into the cold and loneliness like this?
I felt the brutality, it was an act of violation.

thank you, thank you, for allowing me to share my pain

Right on Mike wee wee. I agree completely with your comments and arguments.

Prop 8 applies equally to the entire population of California. None of us are allowed to marry underage children, more than one person at a time or someone of the same sex. That is not at all hard to understand.

We do not allow pedophiles to marry underage children. We do not allow polygamists to marry numerous women and we do not allow same sex marriage in California. This applies to everyone, straight, gay, pedaphile and polygamist alike. Equal rights for everyone. Special rights for no one when it comes to marriage.

I also passed by El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto today and noted with satisfaction there were less than ten people there.

Paul, not everyone voting No on Proposition 8 is a member of the LGBT community. It seems that this issue has become one of gay vs straight or LGBT vs everyone else. Lets put an end to your ignorant comments like these "The gays wasted $40M on No on Prop 8".

Paul, Thank you for your wonderful work as a doctor helping AIDS patients in Uganda. I'm sorry but you seem to have a terrible problem GENERALIZING PEOPLE into groups! In case you are unaware of the implications your words have, you have basically said that WHITE GAY PEOPLE are not compassionate because they are not in Africa helping people with AIDS. You have also implied that most Gay males spend their time at hair salons in large cities. Way to play into stereotypes. Let me tell you something, I personally know many white gay males and females who work for AIDS organizations both in the US and abroad. I don't know where you get your facts but in any case you need to stop placing people in definitive groups and categories. It is unhealthy, unproductive and leads to ignorance.

This thread is about MARRIAGE EQUALITY. That means that every Californian receives the same LEGAL rights and benefits under the law. REGARDLESS OF your views on homosexuality or marriage, every person in the state of California deserves the same marriage benefits with the person that they love. Civil Unions are not equal to Heterosexual marriages. When a person gets married to another person in the state of California, both members receive 1400 marriage rights. 400 of those rights are granted by the state. The other 1000 plus rights are granted by the federal government including social security benefits, tax breaks, and spousal privileges to health care plans. These 1000 federal marriage rights are denied to members engaged in a CIVIL UNION! THIS IS LEGAL INEQUALITY!

J Roe, Marriage should be between TWO consenting and mature ADULTS. NOT TWO underage ADULTS and not more than two people. TWO Consenting Men or Women or One Man and One Woman. If you didn't know you are categorizing LGBT people into a group of pedophiles and polygomists which they are not. The LGBT community and many Straight Alies are asking that TWO CONSENTING AND LEGAL AGED ADULTS OF THE SAME SEX be married. In these situations every man and woman should receive the VERY SAME Legal Benefits and right now that is not the case. There is a difference between LEGAL/CIVIL Marriage and RELIGIOUS Marriage. OPEN your minds up people and understand that there is and needs to be a Separation between Church and State. Every person has their own particular beliefs and morals and this is protected under the first amendment- This has nothing to do with your religious faith whatsoever. There needs to be equal treatment under the law for all people. People seem to target "the gays" the "violent gay activists" for boycotting and protesting this proposition and think about why they are doing this. If you support 8 and are vocal on this thread put yourself in a gay person's shoes. How would YOU feel if you were unable to receive a Civil Marriage Certificate under the State of California. If Proposition 8 is passed, the world will not turn gay, children will NOT be subjected to inappropriate material, and churches will not lose their right to practice their particular faith. All these " activists" are asking for is the same legal rights as any other person. Is this so difficult to comprehend?

Uhh Kathryn,

Paul was not referring to HAIR salons. You do mean well, but you are misguided and misinformed.

You also left out incestuous marriage with your convoluted attempt to include gays in a special definition of marriage that EXCLUDED polygamists and pedaphiles . Shame on you, why aren't you advocating EQUALITY for them? You seem to be innocent of why polygamists, pedaphiles, incest worshippers and gays are grouped together and not allowed to marry. They are birds of a feather.

Why no lame stories about how first they came for the communists and then they came for me when it comes to pedaphile rights? No cries for us to OPEN our minds to them? Your selectivity makes the case that changing the law on marriage for gays is a SPECIAL right for them and not equality for all.

We are all entitle to marry. Their are understandably some MORAL restrictions to marriage, such as incest, age, number of spouses, and sex of spouse. You can't claim to argue for total EQUALITY and ignore those exceptions.

Your efforts would be better devoted to lowering the drinking age for our fine boys who are defending our country overseas. These combat veterans (today being Veterans Day) can bleed and die for us, but can't legally buy a beer in Palo Alto. How about some EQUALITY for beer? You seem to be ok with someone under 21 not being allowed to buy beer, but are offended that siblings can not get married?

I am sure you realize the contradictions in many of our laws and in your arguments. So lets just leave it with you supporting Gay Marriage, irregardless of the law, and the rest of the United States and its citizens solidly against it.

Is it a sign of a compassionate society when we so much money spent by both sides when that money could have been used in so much better manner to help the suffering in this world.

We have children suffering from AIDS and being orphaned with no adults to support them.

We have the aftermath of natural disasters worldwide, hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and the people are still strugging to get their lives back even years after the event and the charitable money stops coming in.

We have hunger, destitution and poverty even here in the affluent US.

There is an underground worldwide trade in children, young girls in particular, being forced into prostitution and even being sold as sex slaves by their families.

And we see huge sums of money spent and time wasted by some who are concerned with perceived civil rights. I see many whose civil rights are being ignored, mentioned above, and this money could have been put to much better uses.

A truly compassionate society needs to put its priorities in order.

Is it a sign of a compassionate society when we so much money spent by both sides when that money could have been used in so much better manner to help the suffering in this world.

We have children suffering from AIDS and being orphaned with no adults to support them.

We have the aftermath of natural disasters worldwide, hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and the people are still strugging to get their lives back even years after the event and the charitable money stops coming in.

We have hunger, destitution and poverty even here in the affluent US.

There is an underground worldwide trade in children, young girls in particular, being forced into prostitution and even being sold as sex slaves by their families.

And we see huge sums of money spent and time wasted by some who are concerned with perceived civil rights. I see many whose civil rights are being ignored, mentioned above, and this money could have been put to much better uses.

A truly compassionate society needs to put its priorities in order.

Uhh LMAO,

If you haven't heard, this debate is about equal rights for same-sex couples. NOT for people interested in a legal union with their siblings, multiple partners, underage children, animals, or anyone else. I did't see polygomist or incestual marriage on the ballot. This is about Same-Sex Marriage. Like I said before, this is not asking for special rights. This is asking for the same legal and civil rights as any other consenting adults of legal age. Separate your beliefs about homosexuals from this issue. Separation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage.

Uhhh Hair Salon customer,

"This is asking for the same legal and civil rights as any other consenting adults of legal age." So you want equality for incestuous siblings as well?

Like I said before, this is asking for special rights. Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. When you want to change the definition to include underage kids, siblings, or more than one man or woman then you are asking for SPECIAL RIGHTS.

You well know that California is the trend setter for the nation. "As goes California, so goes the rest of the country" is a common refrain. California has stated loud and clear that gays, polygamists, pedaphiles, and incestuous siblings are NOT entitled to get married. That leaves ONLY two other states (both which had this imposed on them by the judiciary) to follow California's lead.

Proposition 8 does not mention or single out homosexuals at all. It simply excludes a large group of deviants that have always been excluded from marriage.

This debate IS about the definition of marriage, which includes ALL of the groups that are NOT allowed to get married. Gays and their supporters are uncomfortable with being grouped with polygamists, pedaphiles and incest supporters. I don't blame them for not wanting to be grouped with all of those that are not legally entitled to get married, but IT IS WHAT IT IS.

This is not a religious argument, but a social argument (and like most aspects of society it does have a religious element to it) that the people have settled.

There will be No Special Rights for Gays. There is a reason homosexuals are banned from marriage just like pedaphiles, polygamists and incest supporters.

LMAO--pedophiles are allowed to marry in California--it has been shown that gays do not engage in pedophilia. Many pedophiles hide their identity under the cloak of heterosexual marriage (unless of course they are catholic priests).
Too bad that you need to include gays in with a group of lawbreakers (pedophiles, polygamists and incest supporters)--we know where you stand on civil rights for gays.

Wow...Michael P..you haven't a clue about what Jesus said and did, do you? No, love did not come above all...love OF GOD came above all..

Try actually reading the Christian bible and maybe even going to church once in a while.

How do you explain the admonition of Jesus to abandon your family to follow Him? The temper tantrum in the Temple? Jesus knowing that he was going to be betrayed and who was going to betray him...and letting the betrayer continue along his chosen path despite the known consequences?

Does that sound like your definition of "love above all else"? No.

You define Jesus's teachings in a very narrow way that is self serving. There never has been and never will be any justification on a religious basis for the use of the word MARRIAGE for the union of 2 people of the same gender. Live and let live..yes...same responsibiities and rights under a different name? I support that. But don't lecture us on right and wrong on the basis of "love above all".

Don't try to preach about something you know nothing about.

"Gays do not engage in pedophilia"????? HAHAHAHAHAAH

Reminds me of Ahmadinijad claiming there are no gays in Iran.

to ahmadinijad on our forum:

Web Link
Web Link


Try looking at the facts before you besmirch the reputation of gay people

Looks like a lot of Gay Supporters are grasping at straws.

I didn't say Gays were pedophiles (although I'm sure they have their share)

I didn't say Gays were Polygamists (although I'm sure they have their share)

I didn't say Gays were Incest advocates (although I'm sure they have their share)

I said Gays, pedophiles (or whatever term you would like to use for someone that wants to marry underage children), polygamists and incest lovers are all a group that our society has found to be morally lacking and are thus not allowed to marry.

If Gay Supporters were really for EQUAL RIGHTS for all to marry, they wouldn't exclude these other groups as well. Gay relationships belong in the same category as the above cited groups, all of which are forbidden to marry. Gays know this and this is why they are fighting so hard to gain same sex marital sanction.

EVERYONE has the right to marry, someone of a different sex, someone that isn't already married (unlike Obama's underage mama and already married papa), someone of legal age, and someone that isn't an immediate family member.

Nice try with the Equal Rights argument. It just doesn't fly. Or about as well as the Civil Rights argument before the Blacks voted to uphold the definition of marriage last week. These are specious arguments that don't work. Everyone knows what marriage means. The gays need to get their own word to express a devoted union.

LMAO--very amusing reply--continuing to compare gays with pedohiles, polygamists and incest advocates--all criminals.
How can gays be polygamists--if polygamy means having more than one partner in marriage??
Funny that one of the groups that opposed polygamy, the mormon church, still practices it in some of their offshoot groups.
And you also claim that gays are "morally lacking"--where do you come up with that? Who determines morals? you??? that is a sad statement.
And of course you totally ignore the fact that many pedophiles, polygamists (by definition) and incest advocates are married--since most of them are heterosexual.
Why don't you just admit that you are homophobic and leave it at that.

No on 8, you are kidding right? How can gays be polygamists? The same way heteros practice it.

Regarding the Mormoms, you got that right. I think it is hilarious that gays and Mormons are on opposite sides on the definition of marriage considering the polygamy issue. But as I stated, Prop 8 was always primarily a social clash, and not a religious conflict.

That was one of the many many misdirections that Gays fell victim to in trying to change the constitution and the definition of marriage. They tried to portray this as a civil right issue (only to get crushed by the black vote who was rightly offended by the comparison) and now that marriage is enshrined in the constitution, the Gay lobbyists are trying to portray it as an Equality issue (which is equally ludicrous).

Since you take offense with my comment that Gays are morally lacking, please explain why Gays can not marry in civil society around the world, in any religion (yes even Buddhists and the Dalai Lama ban gay marriage) or society, just like they ban pedophiles, polygamists (outside of Islam)and incest couples from marriage.

I understand you may feel that same sex couples are no longer morally lacking and that times have changed. Surely you understand that their is a big difference between ignoring what folks do in their bedroom and blessing it at a wedding.

So who determines morals? We the people of California have spoken, and we do not bless Same Sex Marriage. It is in the constitution now.

You mention that you believe that pedophiles, polygamists and family members are married. They are as legally married as Gay couples are today. You can have the ceremony, you can lie about the truth, but if you are found out, the marriage is invalidated.

The thrust of my argument is that gays are just as entitled to get married as I am, just not to underage kids, multiple spouses, same sex members, or family members. These are the same restrictions ALL of us abide by.

NO special exceptions to marriage for GAYS.

LMAO--Why don't you tell me how gay scan be polygamists since you stated: "I didn't say Gays were Polygamists (although I'm sure they have their share)".
Regardless of your double talk--you clearly lump gays in with criminal activity, which it is not.
civil rights are not determined by a vote--it used to be illegal for interracial couples to marry until the Supreme Court overturned the ban--just because the people voted and you call it a law, doe snot make it just--the courts will decide this issue.
Not sure why you continue to put gays in with the same group as pedophiles, polygamists and incestuous couples--I guess it is your way of putting down gay people--as I stated earlier you forget the fact that pedophilia, incest and polygamy are against the law (well, actually you don't, you are just demonstrating your homophobia for all to see).

the bottom line, your whole argument is irrelevant and has nothing to do with gay marriage--is is just a load of BS that you are spreading to try to justify the denial of civil rights to a group of people based on their sexual orientation

We gotta have SOMEBODY to kick around.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

It's a shame 8 passed, but all you have to do is extrapolate (64% 8 years ago, 52% now) to know where this is heading though. Hopefully gay activists will show a little patience, as someday they will get what they want.

It will also be an interesting court case or two to determine what the actual results are. To me...the previous ruling was made that constitutional equal protection or constitution privacy over-rode the previous prop, and I suspect it will override this one too (basically the same reasoning).

People whining about "activist judges" basically don't understand what we have here in the United States. There are fundamental principles place in our constitution, including the bill of rights and that the principles of democracy (as practiced here in the United States) fall under these principles. There are situations where the majority (what some people are calling the mob) don't get to impose what they want on the minority...and that is when they violate the principles.

Over time interpretation of what constitutes equal protection and privacy has shifted...hence Rowe v.s. Wade and In re Marriage Cases.

Bottom line, though, what a simple majority has made, a simple majority can over turn in 4 or 8 years. The demographics are against you! (most young folks these days DO NOT feel their marriage is threatened by someone else's or many of the other really bogus points that were made on the flyer left on my door).

Also, it is fairly clear that substantial mobilization BEFORE the election will be helpful to the repeal of prop. 8. Hopefully it will be conducted in a positive way rather than a negative way (such as the ladies that parked their truck in front of the house of a pro-prop. 8 house in San Jose and painted it with all sorts of defamatory statements).

It is hard not to get angry when people are against what you strongly believe in, but the moment comes for every movement where the moral certainty overcomes the hatred and people learn to stand up and convince everyone around them that their cause is right in a respectful way. I am convinced that this day will come for homosexuals of California (and eventually all of the United State).

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

Many students at Palo Alto High School were upset over the approval of Prop. 8. Read about it here: Web Link