If I understand your post correctly, the right for same-sex couples to marry has not been taken away. Rather, the majority of the public has simply decided not to recognized that right. And it follows that in 2010, or whenever marriage equality advocates wage a successful campaign, that right may again be recognized by the State of California.
And when a majority of concerned citizens, worried about radical Islamists infiltrating society vote to no longer recognize the right to privacy for Muslims, or to allow their free speech, the Muslims should quietly go back and devise a better campaign?

Nope, Dave, I disagree.
The right was there all along in the state constitution. It was just never enforced, because for too long homosexuals were one of the universal bogeymen.
That it was there all along is why, NOW, the social fundamentalists are rushing around to MAKE SURE that it’s taken away in writing by getting the words ‘marriage is one man and one woman only’ into as many constitutions as they can. The good thing is that it takes a lot more to change the constitution of the United States than to ‘amend the constitution of California. That’s why the Equal Rights Amendment failed.
I have worked as a flack, so I know one when I see one. Dave, you’re a flack for the LDS church, you’re supposed to write this stuff. And as a fellow flack, I know that maybe, if you keep pushing the message, people will come to believe it.
But sometimes they don’t. Then, what do you do?

With respect, your description of the role of the courts in American democracy is incorrect. From the very beginning of the United States, our government has been a group of different entities that serve to prevent each other from doing the wrong thing. The legislature makes the laws, the president can prevent the laws from being enacted, and the courts can prevent the legislature or the president from violating existing laws. However, the legislature can make new laws to control the courts. Thus, while courts do not play a “primary” role in creating civil rights, your description is misleading because no one part of the government plays a “primary” role in determining or creating civil rights.
The California court simply recognized an existing civil right; it did not create one. Currently, in California, there is a fundamental right to marry a consenting adult of one’s choosing; however, Proposition 8 prevents this right from being extended to gays and lesbians. This is patently illegal and unconstitutional, and I have little doubt that the California Supreme Court will recognize it as such.
For right now, it would serve your purpose for California government to be changed to a simple majority rule system. However, this has never been the shape of any major government in the United States. The reason for this is that simple majority governments, where a 51% majority vote can decide anything, usually trample on the rights of minorities. This is why we have such things as equal protection under the law, which means that the laws have to treat everyone equally.
If Proposition 8 is allowed to stand, then a majority vote could similarly amend the California Constitution to say that Mormons are not allowed to marry. While this is unlikely to happen, no one should be able to take away fundamental civil rights simply by a majority vote. Civil rights shouldn’t be a popularity contest. It is not the fault of gays and lesbians that others think they do not deserve fundamental rights. This is the result of the willingness of some to spread vicious lies about gays and lesbians.
In writing this, I hope to have corrected your misguided talk about rights and about the nature of government. Laws are a two-edged sword. While you’ve changed them today to hack away at the civil rights of gays and lesbians, tomorrow the same laws you’ve created can turn around and cut off your civil rights too. This is why courts were established, to prevent the majority from destroying itself.

You write: “So Prop 8 did not take away an existing right for same-sex couples to marry in California. Instead, it was the culminating act in a long-running political and governmental process to determine whether or not such a novel right should be recognized.”
Both these claims are incorrect.(1) The right of same-sex couples to marry in California was recognized in the California Supreme Court decision In Re Marriage Cases on May 15, 2008. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California on November 4, 2008, that right was rescinded. (2) The passage of Proposition 8 is hardly the “culminating act” of a “long-running political and governmental process.” That process continued when the California State Supreme Court agreed on November 19 to review three constitutional challenges to that Proposition.
You are entitled to your own opinions on the wisdom or validity of same-sex marriages, Mr. Banack–but you are NOT entitled to your own facts in the same matter.

Nice Steven B. Not to mention the author is incorrect about what was important in that ruling. Here’s a note to the author not a single amendment to the United States Constitution eliminated an existing right – the 14th amendment sought in fact to enforce a right which at the time was not universally agreed on. Oh, and about the Mormon church’s involvement a significant portion of money donated for proposition 102 came from Mormons (I believe the estimates were approximately 30%) and of course in California 40-70% (depending on what sources you look at, though 40 is universally agreed as the minimum here). No doubt for those who want to look into the matter further one will a number of similarly disproportionate levels of contribution. The struggle for civil rights at any time, in any place, or by any group has never been exactly one of the utmost decorum but then again expecting people who’s rights are being trampled to buy a toaster from you or keep an eye on your lawn that’s more then passing foolishness.

As to your observation of post-election reaction by gay marriage advocates compared with Republicans, I think it is important to point out that gays and lesbians have had success with visibility marches and “outward” public action. The gay community cannot quietly deliberate new campaign tactics, nor can they achieve success from the closet. The failed “No on 8″ campaign deliberately chose to not show gay and lesbian couples in their television ads lest they offend the undecided voter. In contrast, 1978 activist Harvey Milk encouraged California gays and lesbians to be open, out, and visible in their successful fight against The Briggs Initiative:

A huge coalition of predominantly progressive grassroots activists, led by out gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk . . . under the slogan “come out! come out! wherever you are!”, mobilized to defeat the Initiative. In what became the “No on 6″ campaign, gay men and lesbians went door to door in their cities and towns across the state to talk about the harm the initiative would cause.
Gay men and lesbians came out to their families and their neighbors and their co-workers, spoke in their churches and community centers, sent letters to their local editors, and otherwise revealed to the general population that gay people really were “everywhere” and included people they already knew and cared about.

By this tortured thought process, we should regard the right to free speech and religion as temporal. After all, the First Amendment may one day be repealed in the ongoing legislative process that creates American law.
So, if Christians lose their right to worship freely, we would have to conclude that they never had that right at all. It was only something the exercised for a while–until the majority rethought the concept.
Courts don’t create rights. They only interpret rights that exist under constitutions. Some just take longer to be tested and recognized than others. Gays had the right to marry in California. Thanks, in part to Mormon activism, they cannot. End of story.
But, what the California court really found was that same-sex relationships must be treated equally. Marriage was the remedy to inequality. How they now decide to achieve equality will be interesting.

>>> “30 States have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage”
And therein lies the rub, Dave.
My Canadian-mind cannot grasp the concept of mob-rule stripping the civil, secular rights of an entire minority.
Once more, my humanity cannot fathom the hatred that such a mob must possess to fabricate outright lies to trample said minority. For example, the much-prattled “traditional marriage chant”; what a joke. You romanticise “marriage” in a 1950’s Leave it to Beaver episode.
The fact is; the modern form of Marriage has undergone many changes within the past hundred years – let alone thousand.
The fact is; the institution of Marriage is first and foremost a civil, secular contract that must be signed and recognized by the Federal Government to grant the dearly-beloved any of the Rights and privileges afforded under the contract. Even within your own Church you may have as religious a ceremony as you wish, but to the government it means nothing until you sign that civil, secular Marriage Certificate.
The fact is; you lie, repeatedly, when you use phrases like “activist judges” to imply Justices of the Peace who flagrantly ignore the rule of law to issue judgments in favour of same-sex marriage.
Wrap your mind around that last one, because what I’m about to say is going to blow you away.
It may be that much of the public repeatedly vote against Marriage Equality. Perhaps some people are just hateful, or bigoted, or ignorant, or believe the lies that their ‘traditions’ are under attack, or act out of some misguided wish to enforce their religious beliefs on the entire public. Whatever the reason, yes, perhaps your quote is correct.
But Dave, in the majority of cases around America and around the whole world Judgments in Courts of Law – from Canada to Europe, from Europe to freekin’ Israel – the Courts of Law are rendering verdicts calling what you and your ilk vote for discrimination under the law.
That is, the Civil Secular Law; the same law that governs the civil, secular Marriage Certificate you signed when you got married.
The same Marriage Certificate a Mormon couples signs; or an atheist couple; or a divorce-Catholic getting remarried; or a death-row inmate; or a drunken couple in Vegas; the same damn piece of paper.
And nowhere, Dave, does that piece of paper contain any stipulation for the couple getting married to adhere to any form of “traditions” set by any culture, religion or race. Nowhere does that legal document command the couple getting married to produce x-number of children, or any other the other bull you and your ilk blather on and on about.
You did read the marriage certificate before you signed it, didn’t you Dave?
And lastly, your analogy about the Republicans losing the election is as asinine as your defence of Prop 8.
The GLBT community in California didn’t hope to pass the law; the law already existed. 18,000 couples were married. Then their marriages were, overnight, placed in limbo pending legal obliteration.
Dave, if somebody did that to your marriage, wouldn’t you feel compelled to march in the street?
How far would you go to protect your family?
Watch us.

Utter trash.
The social conservatives show their true form when confronted with the implications of the constitution. There are no such things as rights that are given. There are only rights that are reserved to the federal government, all other rights, recognized or not, are supposed to devolve to the people. That’s Mormon people and Gay people alike.
Thems the breaks for ‘All men are created equal’.

To hear reformed polygamists pontificate on the sanctity and immutability of marriage as “one man and one woman” is absurd. That this politically connected, tax-exempt, rich, church should collaborate with the Roman Catholic church to remove the rights of people is unacceptable. Personally, all churches should be taxed like any other corporations. The hypocrisy is stunning. The self-righteousness even more so. How does extending marriage to any loving, legally competent couple weaken it for anyone?
Personally, in Canada the definition of marriage should apply in the US as well: “Marriage is the union of two people to the exclusion of all others.” Did you see the “period” at the end? If you are “shocked, shocked” that same-sex couples love each other and want their relationships protected and seek the Federal, State, and local benefits (and are willing to accept the concomitant responsibilities), then your church doesn’t have to solemnize such unions. But the State should grant civil marriage contracts to any qualified couple. If that is “ramming the gay agenda down people’s throats” well, these are the same throats no doubt who opposed desegregation and, 150 years ago, would use the same Bible to say that “slavery is biblical” and therefore OK too. That mentality will always be on the wrong side of justice and history, and always must be opposed. Thank God Obama and the Democrats are in control now!

Free speech means that I can spend my money the way that I want. I can express my opinions, even of your religion and its biases, as I wish. It does not guarantee you politeness. It does not guarantee you my respect. Mormons, as members of a once persecuted minority, should understand this, now that they have become the persecutors.

“So Prop 8 did not take away an existing right for same-sex couples to marry in California”
-Dave
I’m wondering Dave, does your church consider it a sin to lie? The above quote is an outright lie, no ifs ands or buts. Same sex couples were given the legal right to marry by the California Supreme Court. Prop 8 took that right away. How else can you explain the marriage licenses that were granted on Nov 3rd and refused on Nov 5th? In fact, it may indeed have invalidated my marriage license obtained in June. So prance around it all you want. You’ll still one day need to explain to your grandchildren why you wanted to take away my rights, why you have a need to force your beliefs on others through secular law, why you could not Love your neighbor as yourself.
Today, you just need to explain it to me.

Some real pseudo-intellectualism here.
Just because issues and candidates both appear on the ballot does not make them the same thing. Candidates serve fixed terms and can be rejected or re-elected at defined intervals. In many cases, we have recognized that it is necessary to clear the slate, occasionally, and have imposed term limits on officeholders.
On the other hand, laws and amendments enacted by initiative generally remain in force until they are positively repealed. Those who object can–and should–demonstrate against them. Subjecting ideas to public scrutiny is the best way to make sure that bad ideas don’t remain law. It also tends to reveal the true motives of those who pursue them. (Note: The LDS church publicly patted themselves on the back for they’re good-hearted willingness to support certain limited protections for same-sex couples. Yet, in practice, they are obstructing the legislation that would make that possible.)
Further, the idea that Republicans are quietly cooperating with Democrats is laughable. The Bush Administration knows that disrupting the transfer of power would only be another black mark on their already deplorable legacy of pre-emptive war, rampant spending, politicization of justice, torture, cronyism and mismanagement. But, every Congressional Republican is already moving into the obstruction posture they maintained during the Clinton years. Many, like John Boehner, freely admit that will be their role. Months before the inauguration, they’ve already begun blaming Obama for the massive growth of government, losing the war, creeping Marxism and the economic collapse–all of which occurred during the still-unfolding Bush Presidency.
It doesn’t take Muhammed Ali to knock down a straw man!
Others have noted the Orwellian attempt to pretend that same-sex marriage rights never existed in California. Given the court’s decision that it was a “fundamental right” and the nearly 20,000 marriages that were performed in the state until the passage of Prop 8, that assertion is pure disinformation.
While I dislike seeing well-intentioned Mormons come under fire, it comes with the territory when you choose to engage in politics. Particularly when you seek to impose a religious test on a civil institution. Same-sex couples aren’t asking for equal access to churches…they’re asking for equal treatment under the law.

jadvar,
I prefer to look at May 15th and Nov 4th. I’m sorry you’ve had the emotional rollercoaster, but completely disagree with your position. Not prancing around. My explanation to my grandchildren will not at all include hatred toward the gay community, but will include a solid position on defending the sacred meaning or marriage (and on how certain members of the gay community sought to insert their will — trying to rally their members by claiming a violation of civil rights — over the will of the majority in our state and most in our country).

My explanation to my grandchildren will not at all include hatred toward the gay community, but will include a solid position on defending the sacred meaning or marriage (and on how certain members of the gay community sought to insert their will — trying to rally their members by claiming a violation of civil rights — over the will of the majority in our state and most in our country).
And then, as your grandchildren and great-grandchildren are walking away from your nursing home room, the grandchildren will quietly tell the great-grandchildren how they need to forgive grandpa, because he’s from a generation back when they didn’t know any better, and had been taught that way.

Don’t take to the streets? Nah, it’s alot more fun to target the hateful evil cult (that’s what their Yes on 8 Evangelical allies call them, SORRY!).

Dear Dave,
I have been following you since you started in 2003 and have generally been impressed by your comments and contributions. In recent months as you have begun to turn to politics, especially issues concerning gay marriage, the quality of your contributions have gone down, way down. Like, embarrassing to yourself down. I don’t know if you consider me a friend or not, but I consider you a friend, and I invite you, for your sake as well as my own inasmuch as you publicly represent my religion, to take a break from this topic. Your treatment of this issue displays a huge lack of tact and sensitivity and isn’t doing anyone any good.
Thanks.

I would be somewhat amused by the comments made so far if they weren’t such a display of disingenuous arguments, both lacking in intelligent reasoning as well as research. Perhaps we should remind the readers of the Family Code of California, which unequivocally states,
“297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
I could quote more of the code, but it only goes into more detail about how domestic partnerships receive all of the same rights as married couples in California (feel free to look it up). This being said, if the opponents of Prop 8 are concerned about federal rights, I would suggest (no, encourage) them to take it to the appropriate venue (i.e. the Supreme Court). Ah, but this might be counter productive at this time, when one considers the make-up of the current court. Better keep the fight in California and erroneously proclaim that it’s about rights, so that you can nurse the sense of a ‘victim complex’ which makes it acceptable/laudable to demonstrate bigotry and hate crimes against those who voted for Prop 8.
Because, in the end, if an employee is doing exceptionally well in her/his job, but happens to be black, gay, Jewish, Catholic, etc, and a hate-mongering group decides to economically blacklist the person ONLY because of their beliefs, race, identity, or lifestyle, then this is bigotry. The opponents are free to practice this bigotry, but let’s be honest and call it what it is. And as same-sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples in California, they cannot, in good conscience, use the cry of bigotry against those who supported Prop 8. It was never about rights. It was the redefining of the word Marrige.

So far no one has formulated a reasonable premise for gay marriage as a right. The only thing I’ve heard/read is a lot of rhetoric based on the *assumption* that SSM is an inalienable right-with nothing to back up that assumption. Marriage has, since the dawn of humanity, been a rite (legal and/or religious) associated with the union of the opposite sexes. Never has it been associated with the union of two (or more) of the same sex. But now there are those who would define it differently in such a way that the minds of both God and Darwin are rendered moot on the subject.
Why?

Dave and the National Review are right. All the rhetoric trying to frame the oxymoronic invention of “same-sex marriage” as a “civil right” is a smoke screen for an insidious attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
“Same-sex marriage” rests upon two Big Lies, fabricated ex-nihilo with smoke and mirrors:
Big Lie #1: Homosexuals are a “helpless minority” deserving of special protection beyond that due normal human being.
Homosexuals are no more a “helpless minority” than are adulterers or fornicators, who apparently also have no intention to control their lust. Must we also formulate a contorted redefinition of marriage to whitewash the shame of fornicators and adulterers?
Big Lie #2: Homosexual acts are a “civil right.”
No formulation of civil rights has ever granted protection to immoral or unethical acts.
Jack (on November 29 at 4:28 PM) aptly invoked SSM as an effort to render moot the minds of both God and Darwin. Check your family tree. At each branching there is one father and one mother, back to the beginning of time, until by mathematical certainty, all of mankind, homosexuals included, are descended from . . . one man and one woman.
Since homosexuals don’t reproduce, there is no possibility of ever finding a “homosexual gene.” Homosexuality is therefore by definition a choice. Once the victim is enslaved thereby, it may indeed be exceedingly difficult to cure, as is alcoholism, but both diseases were incubated by a freely-chosen act.
I do not say that same-gender attraction is necessarily a choice. Nor is opposite-gender attraction necessarily a choice. But how we act on sexual desire distinguishes human beings from animals. I have great respect and admiration for those who experience same-gender attraction but choose to remain celibate, just as I respect those who are attracted to the opposite gender who choose abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage.
There are so many gifts and talents to be developed within the human family that it is insane and self-destructive for anyone to characterize himself primarily by sexual attraction.
SSM requires not only that we reject God and Darwin, but that we reject all ethics. Consider the widely-accepted standard formulated by Immanuel Kant: “What if everyone did it?” If this supposition leads to a logical inconsistency, then the behavior is immoral, and all members of society are under a moral imperative to avoid that behavior.
Kant provided an example that would have saved the world from its present financial crisis: What if everyone borrowed without intent to repay? Answer: Eventually nobody would loan money and commerce would cease. Therefore borrowing without intent to repay is immoral.
Now ask, “what if everyone practiced sex with the same gender?” Answer: the human race would come to an end. Therefore sexual activity with someone of the same gender is immoral.
Understand that I apply Kant’s standard equally to those who are attracted to the opposite gender. What if everyone had sex outside of marriage? Then all children would be denied nurture from a father and a mother, so sex outside of marriage is also immoral.
In like manner it is immoral to enter into marriage with no intent to reproduce. But at least such couples incur some “risk” of reproduction. Naturally, those who cannot reproduce are excused from Kant’s moral imperative to continue the human race. Homosexuals are not.
By this ethical standard abortion on demand is also clearly understood to be immoral. However, abortion in the case of rape or incest, or where the health of the mother is severely endangered, or where the pregnancy has little chance of producing a viable infant, is not necessarily immoral, because such pregnancies are not chosen – those who cannot choose are excused from Kant’s moral imperative.
We see, therefore, that those who demand “same-sex marriage” must of necessity banish both religion and ethics from the public square. Only one “sin” will remain in their unholy writ: that of “homophobia.”
Shame on all those who seek to force a redefinition of the word “marriage” for the purpose of acquiring, by theft, legal sanction for immoral behavior!
Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr’gmail’com

Prop 8 is a classic case where Gay Rights clashes with Family Values.
What are family values? It’s indentifying and promoting those attributes that create a more nurturing society and home for where to raise our children.
Examples of family values legislation are those laws that restrict the use of tobacco, alcohol and other dangerous, addictive and harmful substances. It is also laws restricting pronography. It is laws that promote the establishment of organizations proven to build character of quality such as the Boy Scouts.
Another key element of family values legislation are laws that promote increase fidelity between parents and also decrease the risk of spouses cheating on their partners and abandoning their children.
Can you see how all of these family values legislation examples fly in direct conflict with those groups trying to assert various individual rights?

I am a Californian. I am Gay. I have a partner. We are domestic partners. When we were domestic partners and not married we were denied benefits from my job at federal express that married spouses get. We were told point blank that only “legal married spouses” get those benefits. We got married before the election. We now get those benefits. Blame it on corporations. Blame it on the millions of different ways that domestic partners still get discriminated against. The only way to ensure equality is through having one legal arrangement for all people gay and straight. I am proof of this. You can keep saying over and over that gay people have all the same rights. It doesn’t make it true. The only way we get 100% equality is to have one system not two. That is why gay marriage will be legal in every state. I give it 10 years. In California it will be by next summer.
http://www.valueallfamilies.com

Your Name: Domestic Partners in New Jersey have been greeted with similar responses from HR departments and other businesses who’ve refused to recognize that state’s DP law, even though it’s supposed to be marriage-except-by-name. Folks have had problems with some hospitals refusing to recognize DPs as family members, too.
Roland: Proposition 8 (and similar anti-marriage constitutional amendments and DOMA laws) are totally anti-familiy values. What about gay families like mine that include children? How does Prop 8 (or in my case, IA’s DOMA law) “promote increase fidelity between parents and also decrease the risk of spouses cheating on their partners and abandoning their children”? They de-value our families and prevent the children of gay couples from being protected by state marital laws.
Tracy Hall Jr.: Not much to say, but I don’t think the entire world is going to become gay, so the concept that all heterosexual procreation will end with the advent of SSM is somewhat moot.

“Since homosexuals don’t reproduce, there is no possibility of ever finding a “homosexual gene.” Homosexuality is therefore by definition a choice…”
Wow, that is an incredibly unintelligent statement.

Marriage, morality, and the laws of any Country MUST protect the fundamental building unit the married family(Definition of Family in this context – one man & woman with children). In the same sense Companies, Federal Express included, should have the right to support and encourage the fundamental unit of society. Unmarried homo & hetro sexual couples should NEVER be allowed the same level of protection of the FAMILY. Giving even a semblance of rights to those who violate the sanctity of the family (see definition above) DEVALUES the family and undermines it.

By Families First’s definition, family health benefits should never be offered to spouses of heterosexual married couples until the wife becomes pregnant. My husband, our children, and I don’t violate the sanctity of anybody’s families. We certainly don’t DEVALUE Families First’s family or Dave Bannack’s family or anyone else’s families.
Y’know, the religious right often talks about gays and our “special rights”. More and more, I see that the religious right is all about promoting their own “special rights” and doing everything they can to squash the “equal rights” of those around them who aren’t like them.

Can you feel the love.
This whole thing came about from, what I believe, is a tortured reading of the California constitution. In response to that tortured reading, an amendment was purposed and passed. This is the way our country runs. Sorry, that’s the way it works. The amendment process is how the people override court rulings. That is because, as a whole, we recognize that democracy is flawed. The courts had ruled that slavery is OK. The amendment process at the federal level changed that. Please note that I do not consider SSM a civil right.
The majority of blacks and latinos voted for the amendment. The majority of protestants and catholics voted for the amendment. The majority of Obama voters voted for the amendment. Obama is not in favor of SSM. It seems that this anger is focused on a church (that incidently, did not corporately donate anything to the Prop. 8 issue), that didn’t have a whole lot to do with the passing of the amendment.
And Dave, why on earth did you move the blog? This place is horrible, which is why I left it a year ago.

Read the Mormon Forums. Many are still engaged in a shrill enough smear campaign as to suggest they would support the impeachment of Obama even before he is sworn into office. So much for suggesting the politics of retaliation is not alive in the ranks of the faithful.

The only thing I see going on here is that with the election of Obama (Who, by the way is ANTI-SSM…along with Biden too.) the far left liberals, err “Progressives” now feel emboldened. Thus the LOSERS in this particular political tete a tete feel that political retributionism is ok. The VERY people who say they are oppressed, maligned, beaten upon, and basically “bashed”, now feel that it’s entirely reasonable to “Bash back!”. On top of that, these retributionists are COWARDS. Mormons represent less than 2% of the Cali vote. But they sure make great targets!! (Considering the history of Anti-Mormon sentiment) By FAAAAAR it was the African American, and Latino vote that pushed this through. Of course the gay/lesbian community sure as heck aren’t going to head down to south central and start some mess. And of course the Catholic Church is WAAY to big and powerful… piss them off and they’d get squashed like a bug. So it’s the Mormons who get attacked.
But wait, I hear. It’s not about the vote.. it’s about the money. OHHH ok. Money then is it? The FACT that the “No on 8.” folks spent TENS OF MILLIONS more than the “Yes” folks doesn’t matter?? OHHH I see, it’s that a large percentage of the money came from Mormons, who don’t believe in SSM, put up a large part of the “Yes” money… Hmmm I see… Well, why do I think that if I were to take a look at who contributed to the “No” money that VAST majority of it would have come from Gays/Lesbians or their lobby groups… Who DO believe in SSM???! I suppose then that means I should round up a few of my buddies and start violently protesting against gay/lesbian business, individuals and setting fire to their meeting places. I guess that cool too. Pathetic.
Doc

“The refrain that “They took away our rights!” is equally misguided. It’s not like putting the label “right” on your interest group’s desired policy change makes it a right.”
Not misguided at all. They DID take away a right. The right to equal treatment under the law. The CA Constitution guarantees that to all citizens under its equal protections clause. That is what makes it a right, and it is not a matter of merely applying a label. It’s in the Constitution. The CA Supreme Court validated that right, and the Legilature voted – TWICE! in favor of it.
As you, yourself typed, “Rights are established by Constitutional text.”
“Prop 8 is simply part of that process.”
Not hardly. It was extra- (or anti-) Constitutional. Equal treatment before the law for all citizens. Equal means equal and all means all, no matter how you want to try and twist it.
“So Prop 8 did not take away an existing right for same-sex couples to marry in California.”
That is simply false. aka a lie. aka a sin.

Sorry, but no, Your Name December 2, 2008 7:29 AM, I cannot “feel the ‘love’”. Love is nowhere to be found in deceipt.
The CA Supreme Court’s reasoning was by no means “tortured”. It’s called the equal protections clause, and it applies to all citizens whether you like it or not.
“an amendment was purposed and passed”
Convenient that you ignore the fact that the CA Constitution cannot be changed by simple majority of voters. It requires a 2/3 vote in the Legislature. That would be the same Legislature that voted – TWICE! – in favor of equality.
“Please note that I do not consider SSM a civil right.”
Plese note that what you consider civil rights means nothing in light of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment before the law for all citizens. BTW, neitherr is heterosexual marriage a “right” – it isn’t in either the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution.
You rage on a lot about “the majority” while willfully ignoring that the courts are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Just ask the Lovings.

“The VERY people who say they are oppressed, maligned, beaten upon, and basically “bashed”, now feel that it’s entirely reasonable to “Bash back!”.”
Isn’t that the essence – the fulfillment – of the “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” law? aka, you reap what you sow.

“So far no one has formulated a reasonable premise for gay marriage as a right.”
Gee, Jack, here all this time I thought equal treatment before the law for all citizens was a “reasonable premise”.
Speaking of “big lies”…
Not “special protections” Tracy, equal protections. Currently it is you betterosexuals who have special rights.
An fyi, since you don’t seem to know it, homosexuals do have the right to privacy (Brown v. Texas, I believe, not to mention Lawrence v. Board of Education). Their “acts” are just as “protected” as heterosexual acts. You just don’t happen to like it. Tuff!
You speak of “adulterers and fornicators” but they have the “right” (privilege, actually. Nowhere in either the Constitution or theh Bill of Rights does anyone – not even heterosexuals – have the “right”) to marry. Get a clue.
“I do not say that same-gender attraction is necessarily a choice.”
Um, actually, you did. In the previous sentence to this one, you typed, “Homosexuality is therefore by definition a choice.”
Prevaricate much?
BTW, religion – now that’s a choice.
“SSM requires not only that we reject God and Darwin, but that we reject all ethics.”
For all your talk or ethics and ‘morality’ you don’t display much of either, Tracy. It is not ethical nor is it moral to lie. Many religions perform gay marriages. They have not ‘rejected God. Besides, doesn’t America ‘promise’ “freedom of religion” anymore? Why should we be forced to abide by your religious tenets?
You call it immoral to enter into marriage without the intent to procreate. Yet we allow non-procreative (by choice or by nature) heterosexuals to marry, immorality or not. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. A little logic would help your case. I see none of it in your post.
Your hypothesis, “what if everyone practiced sex with the same gender?” is simply absurd. Everyone doesn’t practice it. The world is not doomed.
You talk a lot about “sin”, yet we allow the adulters (sin), thieves (sin), liars (aka bearers of false witness, aka YOU), heck, even murderers to marry. Why is this one particular “sin” of being a homosexual supposed to be a barrier to marriage when none of those other “sins” isn’t?