It looks like Prop. 8 might be upheld

"Mass hysteria and rioting? Do they burn down the Mormon temples and churches? String up Christians and Mormons?"

I'm embarrassed for you.

If the decision goes against the proponents of the issue, will we see more gays killed?

I will never understand how two people in love getting married is such a threat to anyone. It makes less than zero sense to me.

Maybe if conservatives spent less time on non-issues like keeping gays from getting married and more time actually coming up with a set of real principles they believe in, they wouldn't have over 61% of people with a negative opinion of the Republican party:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112015/GOP-Takes-Another-Image-Hit-PostElection.aspx

If the proposition goes down in flames, will nosy busybody Christianists finally shut the hell up about SSM?

You're clearly unhinged.

Go play in traffic, trollina.

Tiiiiiiiime, is on our side. Yes it is.

Ah, the fear mongering. SSM will eventually be approved and finally gay men and women will have the same rights in this country as straights as far as the many protections granted by the legal status of marriage.
Nothing will change, some religious groups will claim god's wrath or cry the sky is falling but the day will continue, just like it did the day before. Finally, people will see that all the fear mongering was exactly that and all those religious people crying were empty hypocrites.
The world will continue to revolve, people will be born and die in this world but more importantly, perhaps, people will see all the screaming for what it was, nothing and empty threats.

Have a seat, I'm going to alert you to the fact that some JEWISH folks also voted against gay marriage! Something not supported by this many religions probably has some problems, I should think.

But hey, just remember that as a heterosexual, neither can I marry whomever I want... I have no right to marry my brother, no matter how much I love him! So guess what I do? In spite of the fact I may be sleeping with him, I ACCEPT IT. Of course, I should not expect to be a victim of violence for doing it, but I can make the distinction, and I do not have a temper tantrum and go out into the streets.

Imagine...if heterosexual couplings get no preference, here's one of many scenarios that could evolve: Two heterosexual women living together(with tax breaks), having affairs on the side to produce children, which they bring home to raise in their same-sex household. You know how creative these young people are... it won't happen right away, but eventually it really WILL threaten heterosexual marriages. Why would anybody choose the more challenging man-woman version?

Seems to me, the way to resolve it is to trust thousands of years of tradition and make civil unions as generous as possible. Even electing a gay president! It's NOT about hate! And lay off the Christians... Guy Arthur Thomas seems lacking in respect and is not a good example of a Christian!

"Something not supported by this many religions probably has some problems, I should think. "

Like what exactly? No rational or moral argument exists for denying gays the same right to marry that heterosexuals take for granted, especially if the person who is against gay marriage is already married themselves, or planning to do so, for that is pure hypocrisy and nothing more, which is neither moral, nor rational.

"Or will they be sensible and wait until they can overturn it with another ballot initiative?"

There's nothing "sensible" about passing UN-Constitutional ballot measures designed to do nothing but kick some group out of its protections.

Bonnie,

Quite a leap you made ...

"some JEWISH folks also voted against gay marriage! Something not supported by this many religions"

Although I'm sure "some JEWISH folks" did vote againnst equality, let me assure you that they acted against their religion. FYI, both the Reformed AND the (ahem) Conservative branches of Judaism favor - and perform - same sex marriages. As does the United Church of Christ, the Universalist/Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church, and heck, even the Quakers. Why should they all abide by your faith's tenets?

"as a heterosexual, neither can I marry whomever I want... I have no right to marry my brother"

Aside from the odious, false (i.e. UN-Christian) comparison of our relationships to incest, I'm surprised you want to marry him. If you need to have the reason incest is outlawed, you need to look up consanguinity and its results. BTW, did you know that the Bible proscribes the death penalty for the victims of inscest? Who would be the victim in your marriage to your brother, him or you? (Actually, it wouldn't matter, both the perpetrator and the victim "shall surely be put to death".

"Two heterosexual women living together(with tax breaks), having affairs on the side to produce children, which they bring home to raise in their same-sex household. You know how creative these young people are..."

Nothing prevents heterosexual couples from doing the exact same thing, Bonnie. So, no, I don't 'know how creative these young people are', but I can certainly see you making up a lot of nonsense.

And YOU 'diss Guy Arthur Thomas! Stop the bearing of false witness please. It's a sin, remember?

As unfair as it may seem, overturning Prop 8 with a ballot initiative will end all this "will of the people" mumbo jumbo coming from the Yes on 8 people.

I'm split on this issue. Same-sex couple should be able to marry or but only as long as children wouldn't have to learn about homosexualiy in school without prior parental permission (those 18 and older should also be able to opt themeselves out) and religious institutions do not have to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if it conflicts with their beliefs (we're all entitled to our beliefs). I'm not saying that these things will happen if Prop 8 is overturned, but they shouldn't happen.

On the other hand, the California Constitution gives the citizens the right to pass legislation and amend the state constitution by majority vote. An interest group shouldn't be interfering with that right. Though courts and legislators make and modify law, the will of the people should have supremacy over any other government body unless it conflicts with the actual literal wording of the Constitution (not some vauge interpertation of it).