Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Harris: No on Prop. 8
STORY TOOLS 
More from Opinion ColumnistsIn March 2000, Californians overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposition 22 — the California Defense of Marriage Act — which in its simplest terms, defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. In May of this year, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, overturned the initiative, ruling that same-sex marriage was guaranteed by the state constitution as a "fundamental right." Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in his majority opinion, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
The predictable reaction to the ruling is the most controversial initiative on November's ballot: Proposition 8. The initiative would amend the state constitution and overturn the California Supreme Court decision. The text of Proposition 8 is short, simple and to the point: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
8 reasons to defeat Prop. 8
Here are eight reasons why we should defeat Proposition 8 this November.
1. Proponents of Proposition 8 argue that it reflects the "people's will," as evidenced by Proposition 22. As public opinion polls show that support to allow same-sex marriages is growing rapidly, will those who are crying "majority rules" quietly step aside if Proposition 8 fails?
2. Until 1967, it was also the "people's will" that interracial marriages be illegal and the institution of marriage seems to have withstood this "assault" on its foundation, as it has withstood divorce, adultery and, in my case, a Catholic marrying a Jew.
3. The Supreme Court's decision is being attacked as bench legislation by a liberal activist court. It is important to note (in light of California's well-deserved reputation for being extremely liberal) that the Supreme Court is considered moderate, with Republican governors appointing six of its seven members.
4. Civil unions are a legal issue, which is where the state's involvement should begin and end. Marriages should be performed and recognized by churches, synagogues and mosques. If a religious institution does not want to acknowledge a relationship, then that is a private matter between that institution, the individuals and their God. However, when a state refuses to acknowledge a relationship, it is a public matter — and is indefensible.
5. I believe that a gay man can be just as good a father as a straight man, but that he can't be as good a mother as a woman, which is why a man and a woman is the ideal partnership for raising children. However, the reality is that millions of children in this state are being raised in situations that are nowhere near ideal and suffer as a result. If two committed, loving adults want to commit their lives to raising a child, God — and the state of California — bless them.
6. I have yet to be shown how allowing same-sex marriage in any way diminishes my marriage, my family or my role as a father.
7. It is easy to say that I would have supported interracial marriage if I were old enough to have lived through the then-controversy. In years to come, when the same-sex issue has faded to all but historical irrelevance, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there, publicly supporting those who needed the support. It will be the best way to know that if I had been in Birmingham in the '60s, I would have stood on the right side of the hoses.
8. If one of my children were gay, in love and wanted to get married, it would be impossible for me to look him or her in the eye and say I could not support the desire to be married. How can I possibly support a constitutional amendment that would legally demand that I — or any parent — do that to their children?
Same-sex marriage is a difficult issue and when it is positioned as an attack on traditional marriage, religion, God and families, it is easy to see why so many are so involved.
Parallels in history
However, parallels in history and current trends all indicate that this issue will eventually be resolved, that marriage and religion will not be negatively impacted, and that once again we will find a balance between religious freedom and individual rights. 2008 is the 30-year anniversary of California defeating Proposition 6, the Briggs Amendment, which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. We were on the right side of history in 1978 and let's hope we are wise and fair enough to be there again this year.
— Scott Harris is a political commentator who lives in Ventura County. Read his columns and contact him through his Web site, www.ScottHarris.biz or email him directly at Scott@ScottHarris.biz.
Posted by NowHearThis on September 28, 2008 at 12:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, yes and more yes on Prop 8
The gay lobby has run amok with their putrid behavior. Don't believe me, check out "Folsom Street Fair, in San Fransicko, 2007."
Civil rights should never be afforded anyone "on the basis alone," of who someone is sleeping with.
And no constitution says that.
The leftist-liberal court overturned the will of the people and legislated from the bench!!
We are witnessing the collapse of the United States of American thanks to leftist-liberalism!
Posted by handyhood on September 28, 2008 at 4:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree some what with nowhearthis, but my biggest problem is the fact that 4 out of 7 people have determined that their beliefs mean more than the beliefs of the populace. Californians already voted that marriage IS between a man and a woman, and these 4 judges have said our vote does not matter. Only a Man and a Woman can reproduce naturally, therefore it is not natural for a gay couple to raise children. God put Man and Woman together for a purpose, this is how it is suppose to be, and all the lobbying by the gay community can not overshadow that! VOTE YES ON 8
Posted by ironwoman on September 28, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let people make their own decisions based on their own value system.
jw, since when do you believe in God's will? Now you lecture people on judging when all you do is judge?
Posted by avuncular2008 on September 28, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When gay marriage is legal, which it inevitably will be given this country's slow but steady movement towards equality, it will, as the writer says, fade away as an issue. The people above should really ask themselves why they are so intoxicated with the idea of gays marrying. Since the beginning of civilization there have been gay people. They are all around you. Lawyers, doctors, teachers, politicians--Log Cabin Republicans :). They enjoy rich lives, difficult lives, normal lives. They already raise children. They already live lifetimes together. Now it's time to acknowledge their equality under marriage. In Massachusetts
the sky has not fallen. The reference to interracial marriage is a good one--I have no doubt that many of those in favor of prop 8 would have been against interracial marriage--not all but many. "The corruption of civilization," and so forth, they would have said. The bottom line is that we *already* live in a society where gays have families and live together.
Those in favor of Prop 8 should really ask themselves honestly the simple question: how does it affect me if it makes others happy? How will it really change my life or the life of my children? Let's say right now there are 3,000 gay married couples in Ventura County. Is this ruining your day?
Finally, those that claim it compromises the institution of marriage must explain how and why. My wife and I have been married 17 years. We have a solid marriage. We have gay friends. If they decide to marry, we will be happy for them.
Posted by keem_s on September 28, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People being born gay has been discredited long ago.
Posted by NowHearThis on September 28, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gay support and acceptance is another reason why this country is in collapse. No baby is born homosexual, that for sure. One day, after being exposed to a very loose and questionable society, promotion by the liberal news media, the entertainment media, the liberal educational system, the liberal political system and other liberal inspired entities, a person might say, wow, It's cool that I can "do" the same sex.
And, we're told we have to accept this behavior, or be labeled, "intolerant." Rubbish!
And jw, I don't discriminate against anyone. You just won't see me hanging out in bathrooms and gay bars.
Posted by mikeb6804 on September 28, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am entitled to my opinion on Prop 8 just as well as those who support the gay agenda. But the bottom line is: The Supreme Court legislating from the bench is wrong and unconstitutional.
Posted by avuncular2008 on September 28, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Gay support and acceptance is another reason why this country is in collapse."
Let's see, did gay acceptance cause this financial meltdown? Did it cause us to go into Iraq? Does it contribute to an epidemic of obesity? Gas prices rising? Bin Laden? In Canada, where gay marriage has been legal since the early 00s and totally legal in '05, things seem to be going along all right. Must be those Canadian gays are different.
Posted by Gen224 on September 28, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please vote YES on Proposition 8. The arguments raised by Harris are unpersuasive.
1. Harris misses the point. The supporters of Proposition 8 raise the prior overwhelming support of the people in 2000 because it reflects the audacity of a handful of Supreme Court justices. California vests the rights of government in the people, not the judiciary; that is why the initiative and referendum exists in our Constitution. What the response will be of the supporters of Prop. 8 after the election is not a reason to vote for or against it.
2. Comparing same sex marriage to the interracial marriage is offensive. No one can choose their race -- there is no question about that. Whether one can choose their sexual preference is open to scientific debate -- and there is evidence that sexual abuse and other environmental conditions can influence sexual preferences. There is no civil rights parallel here.
3. The Court stepped well outside of its role in interpreting the text of the constitition and our states' laws. This is the creating of a new definition of a long established legal and social institution. The definition of marriage is of such consequence that it must be decided by the people, not by a handful of the justices of the Supreme Court.
4. The state already recognizes the "civil union" of domestic partnership for same sex couples. Thus, a mechanism already exists for the state and for religious institutions to have different views on the meaning of same sex partnerships. Marriage does not have to be redefined to achieve this purpose.
5. The redefinition of marriage will be confusing and harmful to children.
6. It may not diminish YOUR marriage, but for more than four million other Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 22, it will matter. The definition of marriage is not nominal or incidental to our culture. If you reflect on it, you'll see that changing the public meaning of the institution of marriage would impact art, literature, social science, psychology, child rearing, and countless other institutions in our society.
7. How do you know that you are on the right side? Because the entertainment industry/media elites tell you so? I can tell you that there are just as many people who feel that they want to tell their grandchildren that they worked as hard as they could to save traditional marriage and did not stand by in apathy.
8. Certainly, if we are honest, if a child came to you and wanted to marry their partner, one would be conflicted emotionally. But since when is our children's desires the guiding principle for how we should enact laws or order society?
Please VOTE YES on Proposition 8. Thank you!
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 28, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would advocate defeat of Prop 8.
I think Mr. Harris' commentary while surprising is right on point.
I think that "avuncular2008" put it best, so I won't repeat his points other to say I agree wholeheartedly.
I have to object to remarks like those made by "mikeb6804" and other about "The Supreme Court legislating from the bench".
This kind of remark is frequently used, but it isn't accurate at all.
The Court did not legislate from the bench, in this case the "legislation", Prop 22, was written by anti-human rights advocates and approved as legislation by, yes, a vote of the people.
It's fair to point out that such "votes of the people" often have "majorities" that do not reflect a majority of citizens eligible to vote and are in fact often constitute less that 50% of all eligible voters.
There is an assumption that if people "vote" for it, it must be right.
Well, it isn't always.
That is why the Calif State Supreme court OVERTURNED a bad law written by agents with an agenda to disenfranchise citizens, and then a law that, citizens both mislead by propaganda and by their own irrational fears, voted for a bad law, that being Prop 22.
The State Supreme Court did not WRITE law, good or bad, they just upheld the State Constitution, which is their job really. They threw out a law that, in their opinions, violated the State Constitution.
Folks, that is how the system is supposed to work. The Legislative branch creates Laws (and in California, the citizens can via Propositions), the Executive Branch carries them out, and the Judicial Branch reviews the appropriateness of Law based on the Constitution, amongst other factors.
It will remain to be seen how, if it happens, a passage of Prop 8 will compare to that same body of law and precedent.
Posted by ironwoman on September 28, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ditto Techuser.
Posted by ConcernedResident on September 28, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But liberals do help the majority. The liberals leave the door open to everyone and do not force their narrow views for all to have to conform to their ideals. Liberals say, "Gay, straight, bisexual...it doesn't matter." Conservatives say, "You must be like us or else you are horrible people who will be condemned to hell."
Posted by NowHearThis on September 28, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey avuncular2008, obviously, you cannot read.
I said, "Gay support and acceptance is ANOTHER reason why this country is in collapse."
See the word ANOTHER. There are a myriad of reason why this country is in decline. ONE is the nasty behavior of homosexuality and the news, entertainment, educational (and many more) industries that continually jam their leftist ideology down MY throat.
I am proud to be intolerant of what I believe to be a rotten behavior. Having the gay extremists promoting homosexuality as acceptable behavior is just, unacceptable!!!!!
Posted by avuncular2008 on September 28, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NowHear,
I apologize for missing your 'another.'
My questions, however, still stand. I have yet to really understand how allowing gays to marry will affect you or others or the "institution" of marriage.
I asked about Canada, about Massachusetts. They seem to be fine.
I would also gently ask you how many gay people you know--real gay people, not the caricatures displayed on TV or on Youtube clips. The ones I know are both left wing and right; they pay taxes, they surf, shop, raise children, and so forth. Their sexual preference, in fact, becomes secondary to my relationship to them.
Gen224,
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-reasoned response. I respect your outlook, though I disagree with it, especially #4.
While it seems that civil union would be a solution, from what I understand--in addition to the symbolic resonance of marriage--there are practical, law-driven limitations to civil union. If I am in a gay relationship for 30 years, marriage allows for end-of-life decisions to be made, for wills to be written together, and so on. Again, from what I understand, these rights and others are not part of civil union.
And as for item #6, I agree with you. It's only that I believe the changes will not be detrimental. In an ironic sense, gay marriage is actually a conservative notion--marriage is.
What really hurts children? The absence of guidance and love.
As for #7, I would hope that my 40+ years on this planet, knowing a variety of people and having my values informed by my family, my friends, and, likely, what I've read and thought about would inform my decision. Yes, I absolutely believe that legalizing gay marriage is not only the right thing, but a civil right in line with any other.
Lastly I would say that I do not believe that everyone in favor of the proposition is bigoted or homophobic. Not at all. I'm not willing to categorize people that easily.
Posted by gramagracie on September 28, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like us to go back to the "FAULT" divorce!!!! Remember when you had to prove just cause for the divorce. How many people of this generation would even want to get married. No more havesies...you caused the divorce you got
ZERO!!
Posted by A4T on September 28, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1. The 'audacity' of the judges was to say the state has no clearly defined interest in denying same-sex marriage. I recommend reading their decision and their reasoning; you may disagree with it, but you should at least be aware of it.
2. A better comparison might be to inter-religious marriage, where religion seems like a choice based on external factors, not an unchangeable category like sexual orientation.
3. The court did redefine what groups may be granted the right to marry, but it did not redefine marriage. The judges expanded access to a group not in your definition. That is within their right as judges. It's easy to confuse what is right with what most people want. The idea that what the majority wants MUST therefore become the law is not a democratic means to a fair end. Most notably, it denies anyone not in the majority equal access to the rights shared by every other citizen.
4. If the state and church already have separate views on marriage, then why NOT ask the state to recognize same-sex marriage? There are serious detriments to the inequity of civil unions, not the least of which is the status of lesser, second-class citizen. Reserving marriage for those deemed worthy of it is a far darker path than allowing more to partake of it.
5. The redefinition of marriage will NOT be confusing and harmful to children. It will only seem confusing to children who are currently being told that same-sex marriage is wrong. However, kids are told all sorts of things by their parents. They learn from this to see what they are told, what exists in their world, and to make decisions themselves. Children are not harmed by knowing that such marriages exist.
6. I agree completely that "changing the public meaning of the institution of marriage would impact art, literature, social science, psychology, child rearing, and countless other institutions in our society," and I look forward to this. It is how our society grows and develops that will define us. In what ways would that be negative?
7. There isn't really a 'right side', only those who see a better world by change and those who see a better world by maintaining the status quo.
8. What is your alternative? What should guide our development of laws? A religious book from YOUR religion? From my religion? A desire to create a society that is free from discrimination and fear, that understands and accepts the right of its members to live and to share in the civil rights we all were granted by the US Constitution?
I am a man, 43, and I married my partner in August, promising to love, honor, and cherish him until death parts us. We've been together over 17 years. We are bound by the rings we exchanged, and by the words we spoke before our friends, co-workers, and family. We are promised to each other, body and soul. We are married.
Please vote No on 8. Do not enshrine discrimination against a minority in the California Constitution.
Posted by avuncular2008 on September 28, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very well-put, A4T, and congrats on your marriage.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on September 29, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gen224 ,Great Comment!!!!!! YES ON 8 !!!!!!!!!!!
NowHearThis ,I agree!
Posted by Just_wondering on September 29, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so sick and tired of the debate over gay marriages and if gay couples are suitable to raise children and be called a "family". How many posters have ever known an adult raised in a loving and supportive family, that happened to be same sex? I have...and from what I have seen, the kids that came from loving supportive gay families turned out just fine. I had the pleasure of seeing them grow up into confident, well-educated loving adults in very stable relationships...and all of them straight. Instead of people being so concerned with trying to stop loving couples from marrying, why don't we concentrate on something that is more important to the big picture....homelessness, the kids that go hungry every night, kids (and adults) that have no access to healthcare, the failing education system in CA. Beacause really, int he big scheme of things...whether Larry and Steve or Susan and Beth want to get married, really isn't that big a deal.
Posted by bleshon on September 29, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lassen's Market donated $27,500 in support of proposition 8. I feel that those who do not want discrimination instilled in the State Constitution should Boycott the market and contact them to know how you feel. It seems to me that their costumers will be pretty upset over their position and should vote with their pocket books.
Posted by del on September 29, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you bleshon, I will check into your claim. We spend a fair bit in Lassen’s; perhaps it is time to shop elsewhere.
Posted by rickcwood on September 29, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change this.
So gay couples CAN be at the bedside of dying partners...and other benefits according to CURRENT California Family law...so what is the REAL reason behind the desire for the word "marriage?"
Posted by del on September 29, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Posted by rickcwood on September 30, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
that is NOT separate but equal...not even close...any other intelligent answers to my question?
Posted by bleshon on September 30, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Del, You can see the donation record at <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-... gay-marriage battle: Follow the money</a>. We PoliticalWatchCentralCoast.org and Vote Blue want to organize a boycott and perhaps some protests to get the word out and show the company that there are consequences to their position. I want to state that every individual has a right to their opinion, if the Lassen family had made the contribution we would not have a lot to say about it. But we feel a company who supports discrimination is another mater. Their customers don't share their views. We love the organic meat case but will shop elsewhere to make our point and hope others will do the same. Go to their website and send them emails and letters and tell them what you think.
Posted by del on September 30, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rickcwood, anytime a different name is applied to the, so-called, equal situation, you have decided it is different. Different is not equal.
Intelligence is a relative term; relative to one’s narrow-minded bigotry.
Posted by del on September 30, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bleshon,
Thank you. I had found this yesterday and my wife and I have already fired off e-mails and sent the info to the Ventura County U.U. churches in case they do not know. I would suggest your group contact the Ventura U.U. church, if you haven't already. I'm sure they would provide you with much support.
Posted by bleshon on September 30, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Del,
What is the U.U. church?
rickcwood
States honor marriages licensed in other States and not necessarily laws like Family Code §297.5.. The relationships need to be transportable should the couple decide or need to move to another state for one thing. The other is respect for your neighbors and fellow citizens of the state and our country. But again, the biggest issues here is state sanctioned discrimination and bigotry. Once you don't allow gays to marry how long will it be before Jews, African Americans, Mormons and others are denied a set of rights such as freedom of religion. This is much bigger that whether two people of the same sex can marry.
Posted by del on September 30, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They are 'welcoming congregations'.
Posted by rickcwood on September 30, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bie, thank you for answering my question. I respectfully disagree. The argument that "Jews and African-Americans" are next is not valid OR logical. No one is asking samesex couples to "sit in the back of the bus" or to drink from a different drinking fountain. Liberty isn't being denied.
To "del," You call me a "bigot" for disagreeing with you. I didn't call anyone a name for differing with me. I was asking a question. That one person tried to answer responsibly. So your line of logic is, "agree with me and you are not a bigot, disagree and you are." Are you the sole keeper of the truth? Put some religious language in your argument and you would sound like you were making a "faith" statement...because you are.
As far as the relationships being transportable, there are few states that recognize same sex marriage...so if they do move with a VALID California "marriage" it won't be recognized in most states...accept ones that DO allow same sex "marriage." So that argument doesn't work.
It is bigger than two people marrying....what are the chances of holding a position deemed "anti" same sex marriages or homosexuality in general, becomes "hate speech?" Very high...and probably where California is going...it already shows up in posts here that those who disagree, even respectfully, are called names...talk about hate speech.
Posted by bleshon on September 30, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any form of state sanctioned discrimination is unacceptable which is what prop 8 is. Marriage is sanctioned by the state, not by a church. I am sorry rickcwood, you are just flat wrong.
Posted by rickcwood on September 30, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriage is not "sanctioned" by the state..it is licensed by the state. Society is based on the family unit...the family unit existed before the state. So you wouldn't have a marriage if the state didn't say you had a marriage? I don't care what the state says, I am married to my wife. The only reason we have state governance of marriage is for protection of its citizens.
So is there something wrong with being married to multiple people? If you say "yes," why? Where is the idea that being married is just between two people come from? Where do we even have marriage? Is it just something man dreamed up to make him/her feel better? Why have an act of commitment like marriage? Whose idea what it? Not the licensing but the true meaning behind it?
Was it just an idea developed by a state? If so then why do we have emotional songs, words of commitment, vows to one another, scriptures (for those so inclined)?
As you can see there is a distinct difference between a state license for two people to be considered "married" and a ceremony symbolizing two people committing themselves to each other for life.
So how you choose to define marriage is how I must and if I don't agree with you then I discriminate? So if I think polygamy is okay or child marriage is okay then we should have that as well? While we are "not discriminating" let's be sure to cover all the possible choices.
Posted by rickcwood on September 30, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
by the way...i realize i am not going to change you mind and you aren't going to change mine...it is important for all to truly investigate and think through the logic of our arguments...this debate is deeper than being about discrimination and fairness...we have to ask ourselves what marriage is and where we got the idea of it in the first place. If it has no "religious" significance, then why all the fervor over the word itself? Why not be contented with "civil unions" or "contractual cohabitation agreement"? Let's go ahead and separate all church and state then by removing the word marriage. Will that work?
Posted by rickcwood on September 30, 2008 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
both mccain and obama define marriage as a "union between man and a woman" and are for "civil unions." And both are against a federal amendment...unless it interferes with state rights.
Posted by del on October 2, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bleshon:
I could not find anything on the sites you mentioned, re boycott of Lassen's. We have spent thousands of dollars in that store, and are appalled that they would supoport prop 8 as a corporation, not as private citizens.
Can you steer me in the direction of a boycott or a picketing endeavor? Thank you.
Posted by JesusMalverde on October 3, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a heterosexual, married father, and church goer. GUESS WHAT??? I have far more to worry about in this world than whether two people who are already together get to call themselves "married."
What amazes me is the hostility that people in favor of this proposition have toward the gay community...do you really care? What is the gay agenda you keep talking about? I guarantee you that I could listen to gay "propoganda" all day and it is not going to sway me to sleeping with men. Why are you so afraid???Once again WHO CARES!!!!!
Posted by bleshon on October 8, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Read more about Lassen's Markets contributions to the yes on 8 campaign at PoliticalWatchCentralCoast.org
Posted by AwakeInOC on October 18, 2008 at 2:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wake up California and understand that Gays cannot throw a conspiracy together any better than Bush can rally Wall Street to save the US economy.
Proposition 8, pure and simple, is all about assaulting equal rights for California couples and promoting special rights that white couples have taken for granted despite that pesky US Constitution with its 1st and 14th Amendment protections.
Proposition 8 imposes a narrow, discriminatory concept of marriage on all Californians.
The Conservative California Supreme Court saw through the hysteria and recognized that the constitutional right to marry (specifically, marriage as the right to realize and exercise all the legal rights of union) is a fundamental right for ALL Americans regardless of race, religion or orientation.
If you are thinking that some Gay/Lesbian conspiracy is waiting in the wings to exploit the outcome on Nov 4, you are all sadly - and cynically - mistaken.
So what's the big threat from people you are so unwilling to engage or understand? I'm just a simple Christian, and Prop 8 seems to fly against everything I learned from the Bible calling for us to 'love thy neighbor. We cannot judge people whom we haven't the ability to understand, and we shouldn't vote in laws enforcing that judgment.
Posted by momagainst8 on November 2, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to Nowhearthis, my cousin was never exposed to the liberal media and what have you. He grew up in a hick town, with three brother, and one sister. His father is a hunter with deer heads on the wall, stuffed pheasant and duck trophies on the mantle. His brothers all excelled in sports in high school, they all went into the military, all fought overseas. He never went into the military, he never played sports, and he has been gay as long as I can remember, as a little girl I remember looking at him walking with my Grandmothers cape on, an ornate cane in his hand and thinking "he's not like the other boys". Some people are born gay. AND every American is born with equal rights, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You, however, are NOT born with the right to destroy the lives of loving people. NO on 8, is a No on HATE.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 39 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.