I have to say that Sam Ronson hit the nail on the nose. God created all men and women equally, and each should be afforded equal rights. I know tons of gay people, and all of them felt that they were born this way, created this way. Proposition 8 was drafted out of hate, not love, and I am deeply disappointed in the people of California for passing it.

It is indeed a shame. What made the whole saga all the worse was that the people pushing the yes on prop 8 side used morally questionable ways of getting their message across – lies, deceit and more than a few red herrings (see the one with the little girl in it? what do children have to even do with gays getting married anyway?). But then again, with truth not exactly on their side i guess they have to lie.
I hope the pro-proposition 8 crowd feels ashamed of itself for writing discrimination into the constitution.

when will you people ever learn,its not about you,gays,its
about changing the constitution of the united states,just
because you are gay does not give you the right to change
the constitution,shoould we just let murderers go free
because they think its alright to kill people,we can change
the laws for them too,or what about kidnappers,rapists,lets
just change the laws for them too.This country was built on
laws that protect everyone as a US citizen,if you don’t like
it maybe you should go to a third world country,where you have
no freedoms or laws that defend you.We are one nation under
one God who says it is wrong for a man to lie with another
man and woman with a woman,remember Adam and Eve,it was not
Adam and Steve in the Bible,but I forgot liberals do not believe.

The statement by Samantha Ronson is utter nonsense as is Adam’s statement that Prop. 8 was drafted out of hate. Prop. 8 is a recognition of society’s duty to pursue those policies which will promote the health and vitality of society at large. Without the heterosexual union society would not exist. Society has the right and obligation to protect the source of its existence and to perpetuate itself. The homosexual life style is a rejection of that principle in favor a self-indulgence, and is therefore one of the most anti-social behaviors.
When government recognizes homosexual marriage it is putting its seal of approval on it and holding it up as an example for its people to follow. It will thereby divert many in the rising generation from doing those things that are necessary to strengthen and perpetuate society. It is thereby promoting anti-social behavior. By enacting homosexual marriage government is telling its citizens that it doesn’t matter which “marriage,” straight or gay, they enter, they’re both the same, when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. Society derives many benefits and blessings from heterosexual marriage that it does not get from homosexual unions, such as 1) life and its future, 2)the best environment to raise children, and 3) greater health for its participants, to name just 3.
Heterosexual marriage is life and the springboard of civilization. Because of the blessings and benefits we get from heterosexual marriage government has the right and duty to protect and promote it to the exclusion of all other so-called marriage relationships. If we really love our fellow man that is what we would do.

Jim: Marriage is not just about making children. If that is true, what happens when a heterosexual couple decides having children is not for them? Does this mean they are “breaking the marriage rules?” No, it means that love and committment is one component of marriage, thus what difference does it make if it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship?
And all those heterosexual marriages being springboards of civilization? How about the divorce rate among heterosexuals? Can’t hold up heterosexual marriage as a blue ribbon for perfection. There are many homosexuals who have been together for years, in spite of the laws saying it is “illegal”.
It’s called “equality” for all, something this country stands for.
Legal discrimiation against homosexuals is basicly “against the law”.

Phillip:
Surely it is those who voted Yes to Prop 8 who are changing the Constitution?
The ruling that allowed same-sex marriages in Calif. required no rewriting of any laws, merely a clear Supreme Court interpretation of what had been printed on those pages for many, many years.
Now those who *oppose* same-sex marriage are having to alter the Constitution to protect their opinions.
If it is you who feels it necessary to rewrite the laws on marriage, then it is *you* who is seeking to redefine it, not the gay community.

This is a response to Phillip’s comment below:
Actually Phillip, before you speak I suggest you research our constitution and how many times it has changed in order to offer equal rights to many which include African Americans, Women, Asians, Indians, etc. If we never had changed the constitution then we would still have slaves today. If we never changed the constitution then girls would not be allowed to vote. If we never changed the constitution then schools would still be segregated. If we never changed the constitution then Black and White could never marry. The constitution was built to protect the people; yes you are right about that. And as people and citizens of the United States, all people are deserving of the same protection under the law and US constitution regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation. We are not one nation under ONE god anymore. We are one nation under many gods and religions. Don’t force your God onto my plate! If progress didn’t exist, there would be many people in this state and country who wouldn’t have any rights at all. We have to follow in those footsteps of history and progress to keep moving forward and finally becoming an equal society. We gave the rights to African Americans. We gave the rights to women! We gave the rights to Asians! We gave the rights to Indians! And we’ll give those rights to Gay and Lesbian couples! If you’re not on board with progress and equality, then so be it. But I suggest you step aside because we’re charging those doors of inequality and busting through weather you like it or not. Our voices are being heard, finally, not as a single unit anymore; but as a joined community and machine of both straight and homosexual people. Change and progress is inevitable, and your decision today to support inequality or to support equality will define how people will associate you, and those who think like you, in the history of our many different civil rights movements. The fighting won’t stop until equality for all is gained. It’s what we all deserve and it’s what we demand!

Let’s set aside the same-sex part of it for a minute. Why is it restricted to one man and one woman? The self-described “pagan” “gay” guy brought up the idea of the potential of Islamic law taking over the U.S.A.
Well, under Islamic law men are able to marry up to four women. Why can’t I marry more than one woman under the constitution? Why should society stop me? In fact, I find it unconstitutional that I don’t have the right to marry multiple women. Keep society out of my bedroom and let me marry four women. After all, isn’t that better than having four girlfriends? Then, if I die my things won’t have to go through probate.
My point is that, in the end, societies make provisions and definitions for what is accceptable and what is not for the general good. The fact that an opinion on that subject is based in religious persuasion does not make the opinion more or less valid than if it is grounded in one’s “pagan” (not my words) ideology, which can constantly change depending on one’s mood or specific ideas on any given day, and then in the aftermath it is called “progress”.
Right now I am speaking through a specific “lens” of thought. I can’t speak otherwise, it is who I am. You are reading through your “lens” and each one of us is severely biased based on our respective experiences. My lens is no less valid than yours although you may see me as more subjective and you less so. I see the inverse.

cont…I do not agree that homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual couples, and therefore, their unions do not constitute marriage in my framework. I have described that framework ad nauseum in other threads. I also do not believe I am “homophobic”, “intolerant”, “bigoted” or “narrow-minded” for holding to these beliefs. However, I am certain that you do believe those things about me.
The people that I know that are self-described homosexuals I see as both productive and lazy, intelligent and plain dumb, kind and mean-spirited, trustworthy and distrustful, clever and naive, generous and selfish. In short, most of the descriptors that I might use for someone that is not a homosexual I may use for someone that is homosexual other than their attraction to one sex or the other. The fact that they call themselves homosexual and define themselves that way does not mean I monolithically think they are all the same. Rather, they are individuals like the rest of us and should be treated that way: as equals.
That does not mean that because I reconcile homosexuals as equal and individual like anyone else that the idea of same-sex couples marrying is acceptable to me.
I hold to the view that marriage is definitionally different, regardless of what Merriam-Webster says it is or isn’t. As such, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron to me, because the differentiation of the sexes is part of the definition.

apologies for referring to the “pagan” “gay” guy here. It’s the name of someone in another thread that I was addressing…

“My point is that, in the end, societies make provisions and definitions for what is accceptable and what is not for the general good.” So back in the 50′s society believed that for the general good schools should be segregated. Society believed that black people weren’t equal to white people. Society believed that white people were more capable of learning than a black person was. That was the bleief of that majority of society. In the 1700′s to the 1800′s the majority of society believed that Native Americans also weren’t able to learn along side a white person. In fact, it was the white person who stole the land from the Native Americans, forced the Native Americans to attend american schools to teach them the American language and deculturalize them so that they may serve a purpose of servetude for the white american population. If there was any disagreement with what they wanted back then, the consequence was death.
My point is this, any time there is any form of a civil rights movement, it’s because at that time of the movement the general concensus of society is that the population being descriminated against isn’t actually being discriminated against. In fact, at that time they don’t see themselves as racists or biggots either. They see themselves as normal Joe-show people who want to protect the sanctity of their schools, of their society, and of their law. However, regardless of what the greater society believes at that time, we have to follow a constitutional right for equality. If the constitution always took the world of the general public, then I guarantee that the African American community wouldn’t be as free today as they are. The constitution protects all citizens of the united states regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. Regardless of weather you believe in two men getting married or two women getting married, or a man and a woman getting married, minorities are protected under the law and homosexuality is a minority group. I gay that the gay community should keep marching for their rights, and if today their demands aren’t heard, then tomorrow they should yell louder until they are finally heard. Progress continues and does not stop. Our society and culture has to progressively grow and be tolerant of those who may not be the dominat group of society. Seperate your religious beliefs from the state! Religion has no place in our constitution! And yes, I do think you are a biggot for not believing that homosexuals should be equal to the straight community. You are in the same mind set that the civil rights oppressors had back in the 50′s when they picketed the schools because a black man was attending a white school, or because a woman decided not to move to the back of the bus. Those same people back then believed they were right about their actions and we have learned through history, and through acceptance that those people were wrong and biggots. There is no difference between things that happened back then and their beliefs back then with your beliefs today! The only difference is that it may take 50 years before people realize how stupid it was for them to believe that everyeone didn’t deserve equal rights.

I will stand up in a bus for you. I will move to the back of the bus. I will help you get a job, I will hire you for a job, I support you getting benefits for a domestic partner and having them visit you in the hospital. I will stand by you if you are discriminated against in such things. In all this and more I support your equality under the law.
But by definition, marriage is, as I have said previously, the union of a man and a woman whose individual gender characteristics bring to marriage something specific and particular that is not replicated in other kinds of relationships.
Not once have I discussed inequality, nor do I think it. Therefore I do not see my comments as bigoted. Marriage and domestic partnerships are different and there is no getting around that. But do I look at homosexuals condescendingly? Certainly not! But I cannot change my ideas on what marriage is to make some in the gay community feel better about themselves either.
Cheers Sergio…

I’m not looking to change your ideas. Frankly I could care less about your ideas. But lets use, as an example, water fountains. We have two water fountains. Both water fountains have the same water coming from the exact same well. Only we say one water fountain is for white people, and the other water fountain is for black people. By your definition, that’s would be ok because it’s exactly the same. Honestly, the word “Marriage” is just a word that I care less about. However, I do care about it when we start separating two groups and saying It’s ok for this group to use that word but not ok for that group to use that word even if both unions are the similar. An oval and a circle are both very similar in shape but are not the same. By you saying “You can’t use the word marriage” you’re basically saying I am not deserving of that. You’re telling me that my status as a tax paying citizen isn’t the same as your status as a tax paying citizen and you are using a biblical definition of man and woman as your reason for that inequality. This is like a child who has a toy but says to the other child “No! This is my toy! You can’t have it! You can’t play with it! You can’t touch it! But you can look at it and watch me benefit from its experience.” Do you realize how dumb that is?! I respect your opinion that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman and you can preach that opinion up and down until the sun sets if you want. But don’t you think it’s a bit cocky and arrogant to force that view on society by completely trying to take that choice away from people completely? You don’t have to attend a gay marriage. You don’t have to tell your children that gay marriages exist or go into detail with them about it. You don’t have to say that it’s something you would condone. But don’t take that choice away from someone who only wants the exact same thing everyone else wants. Someone who wants to express the love they have for their spouse or partner by exchanging vows and getting married. Domestic partnership does not offer the same benefits of marriage. A domestic partner does not have hospital visitation rights of his or her partner if that person is dying in a hospital bed. And if that person dies, then that person’s family could come in and take everything away from the partner. There are major differences between marriage and domestic partnership. But in the end everyone just wants to be seen as equal. Not as gay, or straight; but as humans who have the gift and luck of falling in love. Isn’t the key ingredient of marriage “love”? Love between two people who want to be with each other through better or worse. Through thick and thin. Until death do them part. Isn’t marriage about finding a person that you absolutely love and not being able to imagine a world without that other person? Isn’t marriage about looking at your partner/spouse and thinking “I want to get old and wrinkled with this person.”? That is love. And yet we’re getting hung up on things like man and woman and we’re ignoring the key ingredient that is present in all lasting relationships. Love. That’s all. It’s about being in love and not being told that this love is different from that love just because of a little word. And you are willing to tell thousands of people that their love is not the same as your love. I’m sure you’re a good person, and like I said, I respect the difference in your opinion. But that’s where the bigotry comes in. Bigotry is when you said that this love isn’t worth the same as that love only because it’s coming from two people who happen to have the same sex.
Cheers to you Sloagm…

Sergio:
I do care about your opinions.
Your metaphor of the water fountains does not work in the framework of marriage. It does not apply. The reason is that marriage is not simply love. I love my children completely. I love my best friends. I love my wife. I love my dog.
Marriage is more than simply loving something. It is a binding promise between God and his two highest and holiest creations: man and woman.
Yes, taxonomically homosexuality is different from heterosexuality. That is why the two have different names. That is why the prefix same-sex is used. Fundamentally we all know that it is different.
The fact that it is different does not mean I am passing judgement on your relationship, the depth of your feelings, your personal integrity, whether you were “hard wired” or made a “choice”. It means what it says, that it is different. And because it is different it is not marriage. It is something else.
As I said before, I am completely in favor of granting rights of visitation, of probate etc. But changing the definition of marriage is a non-starter. It is not like drinking at two different water fountains, it is like trying to alter Newton’s Principia Mathematica to suit someone’s notion that somehow now x + y = y + y. Well, it doesn’t, no matter how you argue, it never will be so. But in so saying, I’m not belittling y + y, any more than I would belittle the number 5 not being the number 7…unless I was playing craps, then the number 5 would really upset me for not being the number 7.

The metaphor for the fountain absolutely does fit into this analogy. I understand that your faith, your “God”, tells you that he created man and woman and that man and woman is biblically the natural order. That’s all fine and dandy that you believe in that. I’m not arguing or discussing your religion. I think it’s great that you have faith in something and I’m not trying to take that away, or say that your faith is wrong regardless of my own personal opinion. However don’t force feed me that faith of yours if I happen to be an atheist person who doesn’t believe, or live by the same rules, of that God that you believe in and construct your morals around. Church was separated from state for a reason. That’s why we no longer teach religion in schools anymore. Because here in America we are built on a system of many different religious beliefs and we are tolerant and accepting of those religious differences. I’m not saying that you have to support or agree with two people of the same sex getting married. You don’t have to give them your blessing, you don’t have to attend their wedding, and you don’t have to teach your children that it’s right or “moral”, but you do have to be tolerant of those differences. Homosexuality does exist in this world and you are calling them second class citizens by saying they aren’t deserving of this title which you call marriage. This is a title which you have built a definition for it around your own religious agenda. We are supposed to be such an advanced nation of tolerance and acceptance and yet we still practice such intolerance toward this one group of people who only wants to have the same expression of love that you have. Our history has shown and proven to us what intolerance and inequality looks like and its effects, and right now there is absolutely no difference between this unjust law and the laws that existed 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, 200 years ago which discriminated against other groups of minorities. You are condemning and punishing a group of people for not following of biblical belief of yours. Well just for a second try to pull that religion away from the state. Gay marriage won’t change or affect your life in any way so don’t pretend that it will. I don’t care what argument you present to me, the fact is, gay marriage has nothing to do with you and your family. It has everything to do with the individual person. So I say keep your faith and believe strongly in it. But keep that faith to yourself and your family individually much like I will keep my belief and my faith to myself individually without imposing it on you. There is no place for your religion in our state or national constitution. We, as a state, have take several massive steps backward and I guarantee that weather you like it or not, marriage between two people of the same sex will eventually, and very soon, exist and be very much alive within California, and within this country. You can decide to be on board with it or not. But progress will happen weather you like it or not. That’s the natural law of life.

Sergio: You are very capable of expressing your opinion, but that is all it is and I have enjoyed hearing it. It has given me the opportunity to think critically about the issue and for that I am appreciative.
I think I it boils down to one difference: you believe gender is irrelevant in marriage whereas I believe it is definitional. My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that you are gay, it has to do with what I think marriage is.
My thought process is not: I don’t like gays, so I’ll try and figure out some way to thwart them. Rather it is: my definition of marriage is strictly gender-specific and if the truth of that definition hurts some who feel otherwise I am sorry, but I cannot change that. It’s not mine to change.
Anyway, it’s been fun…

Exactly! And yours is an opinion just as much as mine is which means that my opinion is just as valid as your opinion is. I don’t think you’re a bad person by any means. And I definitely appreciate your opinion. I’m actually very grateful that you’ve even ready my comments and have expressed a rebuttal of your opinion which I have also read and considered. Like I said, I’m not trying to change your opinion by any means. I just want you to see the other side of the coin and to understand the other side of the coin. There were a lot of people who were affected by this decision and I’m sure there will be a lot of people affected by the decision if/and/when the proposition gets overturned. I definitely don’t want you to get the impression that I am discounting your opinion and expression of thought because I actually enjoy reading your thoughts and trying to understand the other side. I just keep responding because I, myself, have questions and comments. So I thank you for educating me and have really enjoyed this back and forth debate that we’ve had. No harm, no fowl. I’ve always known that in the end we would just agree to disagree. But like I said, I appreciate, and respect your opinion and thoughts and wanted to learn more about them. That’s the only reason why this thread has gone on so long. Your thoughts have intrigued me. So thank you… regardless of our difference of opinion… haha… we agree to disagree. You’re a good guy.
- Sergio

… also, please know that I have never once taken any offense to, or have been angered by, any opinion that you have expressed and offered to me. I am considering your views as constructive knowledge for me and being tolerant and appreciateive of your different opinion. Besides, a good debater should know and understand both sides of his argument and I thank you for eloquently introducing me to the other side of that argument.Regardless of our differing opinions ha ha

More and more of us are WAKING UP, America. No taxation without equality; simple math.
Now the feds will need to repeal DOMA and DADT, grant us FULL equal rights (including marriage), and begin to start viewing our families – OUR FAMILIES – as the tax-paying contributing members of society we are…..well…..we USED to be!
Because if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, our very BELOVED are not acknowledged and valued as other families are legally, whatever we do outside of that home will never be acknowledged and valued legally, such as adopting children, working without discrimination, or serving openly in the military.
FAMILY FIRST. What is more important than FAMILY?
We owe the IRS absolutely NOTHING until equal. NOTHING. Get it?
This is NOT a test.
This is NOT a debate.
This is NOT a vote.
This is definitely NOT a popularity contest.
This IS justice – GAY TAX PROTEST.