God, Marriage and Proposition 8

In other words, if you choose to vote YES on the anti-gay marriage amendments in California, Arizona, and Florida, you have taken to infringing on others' religious beliefs, thereby opening the door to infringe on yours.

For their own religious freedom, I hope everyone rejects these anti-gay measures.

I believe that people have to asnwer to thier god or gods for what they do or don't . It is wrong for us to judge other people. if it is wrong to be gay,let God or the person high judge.Born gay or turn gay ,I don't know. Shut-up and let God or the Goddess judge. LOVE ONE ANOTHER, if you can't or won't have gay friends,to each his own.

Sara got it exactly correct.

This is a First Amendment issue--one of freedom of religious expression. Prop. 8 is incompatible with that freedom, and thus would be a violation of the Constitution of the U. S. It seeks to prevent those churches, ministers, and believers who see their God as approving of same-sex marriages from being able to practice their religious faith.

I say that in states where same-sex marriages are illegal "churches, ministers, believers etc. are or would be prohibited from having same-sex marriages" That is exactly what Prop. 8 is all about.

Yes, if Prop. 8 fails in CA a variety of institutions would be denied the "privilege" of discriminating against the legal rights of some citizens (with different religious convictions) that they would like to continue discriminting against.

And yes, I do believe that it is wrong for Prop 8 opponents to assault or steal from Prop 8 supporters.

I live in Florida, and I do not steal Yes on 2 signs, but rather I voted NO on 2 to show my disagreement with that Amendment. Likewise, I ask the same thing from anti-gay marriage folks-if you're going to disagree with me, do so at the voting booth.

There HAS to be a way for gay rights advocates and religious traditionalists to meet in the middle.

Mark Sasscer,

"This article illustrates one of the trends of our post-modern society."

Actually, it isn't a "trend". Being treated equally before the law is supposedly guaranted to ALL Americans, "post-modern" or not.

"Our society attempts to promote the philosophy that one's religion or moral stance should be separated from that person's decisions and behavior in public life."

No one is forcing any 'religious' person who doesn't agree with equal marriage to HAVE a same-sex marriage. (THAT would be a separation of your moral - aka 'religious' beliefs from YOUR actions.) You can believe what you want to, religously, but what of those people of faith that DO approve of same-sex marriage. Why should YOUR tenets and beliefs trump theirs?

"Such pluralism cannot exist if people make any attempt to live life with integrity."

Balderdash! Or are you saying we who disagree with you don't live lives of "integrity"?

"Every person lives out a worldview that is developed by family, religion, community, and personal convictions."

Not "every person" has a worldview rooted in "religion". Certainly not rooted in YOUR religion.

"To expect voters and leaders to behave or make decisions void of their own worldview leads to lack of integrity."

Quite incorrect. The Constitution used to guarantee all citizens would be treated equally before the law. It shouldn't matter if the judge's "worldview" differs or is rooted in a different branch of mythology than the one you follow.

DveLev,

"Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays"

Yes it does. Bear much false witness?

"it simply restores the meaning of marriage"

An UN-Constitutional "meaning" of it.

"and protects it as an essential institution"

It is not under threat - not from gay citizens, anyway. Speak to me of the Darva Congers and the Rick Rockwells who turned marriage's 'meaning' into a TV game show prize. Or of Britney Spears who turned the 'meaning' into a 55 hour (drunken but legal) lark. Or of Mickey Rooney who turned it into an 8 wives serial. THEN explain how THOSE "marriages" have "benefited mankind".

"Every culture in the world understands that marriage is between a man and a woman. Californians from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds, whether religious or not, agree that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Both statements are demonstrably incorrect.

"The California Family Code says, “domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections and benefits”".

Which the State Supreme Court found UN-Constitutional, since "separate but 'equal'" is NOT equal.

"disagree with us at the voting polls."

I'll disagree with you right here. Or maybe you would kindly allow us to vote on YOUR 'right' to marry the person of your mutual choosing?

Whatever happened to the right to the pursuit of happiness (nevermind the right to liberty) anyway?

Tom,

"Who says churches, ministers, believers etc. are or would be prohibited from having [performing, shurely] same-sex marriages?"

No one IS saying that (except the right-wing religious, that is).

"They simply would be legally recognized as civil unions, not marriages"

Which is the UN-Constitutional part, remember?

"Unfortunately, recognizing these so-called 'marriages' inevitably leads to requiring religious institutions to set aside their religious convictions"

Horsepuckey. Roman Catholic priests can STILL refuse to "marry" divorced people (even the heterosexual ones), even though such marriages are entirely legal.

PhoenixOnion,

"There HAS to be a way for gay rights advocates and religious traditionalists to meet in the middle."

No there doesn't HAVE to be a compromise. Religious traditionalists are NOT being forced to have or to perform same-sex marriages against their tenets. THEY are free to follow their beliefs.

OTOH, those religious NON-traditionalists are being DENIED the right to practice their marriage rites within thir own faiths by this discriminatory, UN-Constitutional proposition.

"Why shouldn't children be adopted by same gender couples?"

The issue I'm concerned with is religious institutions having to foster orphaned or abandoned children in same-sex spousal households. While I agree that the state run foster systems are, generally speaking, highly unstable, same-sex couples can receive adoption referrals from any number of institutions, religious or otherwise, who don't have a problem with their alternative lifestyles without sueing those who do have convictions to the contrary.

Recovering ex-pentecostal, when adoption refferal agencies are either forced to shut down or not deny same-sex couples based on their alternative lifestyles, then they ARE forced to forgoe their religious beliefs or suffer the consequences, whether they be Catholic, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, or what have you.

If same-xex couples want to call themselves man and husband, woman and wife, have a 'wedding' ceremony or anything else, the only issue at hand is whether the state would legally recognize such a union as marriage. Ceremonies like this have been going on for decades (as many gays and lesbians know) without states forbidding them to do so. The civil unions still have the same rights as heterosexual marriages in California without legally being defined as 'marriages'.

Tom,

"when adoption refferal agencies are either forced to shut down or not deny same-sex couples based on their alternative lifestyles, then they ARE forced to forgoe their religious beliefs"

They could forgo their public (i.e. taxpayer-paid) funding (if they had either integrity OR the courage of their 'convictions'). Then they could discriminate all they want.

Now, speak to me of those denominations that are "forced to forgoe their religious beliefs" when those beliefs INCLUDE equal marriage.

Your last paragraph covered 2 disparate concepts - namely, state recognition of relationships and 'permission' to (i.e not being 'forbidden' to) perform the ceremony formalizing those relationships. That the latter (the ceremonies) happen does not invalidate the need for the former.

"The civil unions still have the same rights as heterosexual marriages in California without legally being defined as 'marriages'."

They most certainly do NOT - not a single Federal benefit that derives from marriage between opposite-sex couples in California is given to same-sex couples married in California. Or to those married in Massachusetts. Or in Connecticut. Or in Iowa. Nor are they given to couples legally wed in those States who visit or move to any other State in the Union. Pesky full faith and credit clause, and all that.

Either you're delusional or you're being false witness.

P.S. Define "lifestyles".

I am shocked, apalled, & awakened! First of all, I am black and proud of it. Obama was equally elected for president of the USA by the will of the people. Now, there are only few folks who want to overturn the legal passaged of proposition 8 by an illegal act of force! Proposition was legally passed by the will of the people, for the people, & by the people! Why don't they also just overturn OBAMA'S legal election that was won by the will of the people? In addition, being gay is fully 100% free CHOICE that they are making for themselves. They are crying to the world for more special rights and treatments for their act of choice. They are NOT born gay or lesbians. They are choosing to live a UNnatural sexual lifestyle. Yet, they want us to give them more special rights. They are already have millions of dollars in their bank accounts! Gays drive the most LUXURIOUS cars. They are actors, singers, movie stars and they want more special treatments! Give us a break! We had enough of their rich spoiled life. We around the world are struggling to make ends meat while they are spending over 70 MILLION dollars in no prop 8 for more special protection of a free CHOICE of sexual living that they are making for themselves! Why don't they give some of their $$$ millions of dollars by helping the poor? Why don't they help homeowners pay off their mortgages? Why don't they help create more jobs? Why don't they donate millions to childrens hospitals? Why don't gays come out to donate more of their money to inner citys? Instead, they keep buying more toys, more gold, more mansions & more mercedes while we americans are suffering in these hard economic times! I say we had enough of their tricks, manupilation, & perverted lifestyle and special treatments! They never had fallen under the discrimanatory act because they werre not BORN that way. They made a choice of being gay! Therefore, we shouldn't pay, and support their choice of unnatural lifestyle. We should start a new proposition that prohibits gays from adopting babys too! And we are tired of their nonsense! They must stop comparing themselves with black americans. And start waking up to their foolishness! We want a better economy! we want common sense! We want truth! We want purity for America!

It is time for America to wakes up! & Defends her little childrens!

Sara, I couldn't agree with you more. Very well said. Those who are adamantly opposed to equal rights still have the right to speak their minds, however, and I can respect that. Unfortunately, these are the same people who won't see that both the Constitution and the Bible support equal rights - with no exceptions. Yet fear has a way of overpowering the loving hearts and minds of many, altering the words within each document to reflect their own opinions. As a perfectly happy and peaceful heterosexual woman, I can see that those who vehemently fight against this issue simply fear that which they can't comprehend. I applaud you for your courage to speak up. Thank you.