Another Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Initiative in California?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Ben West of Ms. is completely wrong when he states (generously, I say out of bald ignorance) that by not "choosing" homosexual acivities, one is not homosexual. Sexuality has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with acivity!!! I do not DO gay, I AM gay! If I married a woman and remained faithful to her, had children by her, and abstained from relations with men I am still just as gay as I ever was, because sexuality has naught to do with conduct, and EVERYTHING to do with desire. Why is it always people, having never been gay themselves, nonetheless feel perfectly qualified to explain to me why I am gay, and admonish that I could give up being gay/tall/male/brunette, et. all, if I simply chose to do so???

Jeffrey Wells of OK 8:42PM April 06, 2009

Is God really that distant in your minds that you believe you are in the right to take what he designed to be sacred and holy and distort it to fit your views?
How? Why? We live together peacefully not forcing our views on homosexuality. I have friends that are homosexuals and they know what I believe. I know what they believe. That doesnt change the fact that we cant cohabitate without people mocking church goers of any faith by practicing and being devout to their moral standards. It clearly states in the Bible that Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. If one doesnt believe the Bible then you can try and give an answer to how we came to be on this earth. Whether it be by intelligent design or evolution. I believe both needed a supreme being to happen. It doesnt make sense as to why other apes didnt evolve and we are sitting here on computers...It is sad to see that America who was once prosperous under the devout worship of our Heavenly Father. It was founded through him. It was given so people might be able to worship freely. Do no comparing between now and the civil rights movement. There is no comparison. Marriage is not a right. It is an opportunity to be bonded in the Lords eyes. And since the Lord has decreed that Homosexuality is an abomination and that adultery is an abomination. We are actually doing you a favor because not letting you get married is keeping you from committing adultery after you find out that your first offense of the Lord was wrong...does any of this make sense? I am sorry. I have nothing against homosexuals. I have my beliefs and they are to my core. My heart is heavy because of this tragedy that has never before been seen. I also give this last bit of warning.
Get off the Fences of the Temples, churches, mosques, etc Before the Lord Almighty knocks you off...

Skylar Blackburn of IN 10:13AM November 19, 2008

It is a privilege, in that it may be limited by the state. There is a reason why states sponsor marriages (with tax benefits and other benefits attached by the state to married couples). The state wants to encourage marriage so that people get married, have children (future citizens aka taxpayers), and live a stable and productive life, nurturing and teaching their children to do the same. The state benefits when more people are married. These benefits to the state do not exist, or certainly not to as great an extent, outside of a traditional "one man-one woman" marriage. Loving v. Virginia was still a bad decision, because the Supreme Court should not be meddling in the affairs of the states. The spirit of the decision was correct, though, because one man and one woman were involved. Race and sexual preference are not equal measures of a person. If you are white, but you always had a tendency to "act black," would you ever achieve "blackness?" No. If you act homosexual, are you a homosexual? Yes. Likewise, a black person cannot cease to be black by "acting white." There are many reasons for that, and that's another discussion, but, no matter how you act or what you do or do not do, you cannot change your skin color. However, you can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. If you're not practicing homosexual activities, you're not a homosexual. The point is that race and sexual preference are not on the same level, and cannot be given the same weight. You cannot equate the two when arguing this issue. They are not equal. It's that simple.

Ben West of MS 11:00PM November 13, 2008

It's too bad the people of this country didn’t exercise their will by popular vote to overturn the courts decisions of 1948 Perez v. Sharp. 1954 Brown v. Board of Education or 1967 Loving v. Virgina. The courts were right in those decisions and the citizens respected the courts ruling. Our society had made a terrible shift to “I’m right and everyone else be damned.”

Guy in SF of CA 3:33PM November 13, 2008

"What right to homosexuals have to change the legal meaning of words based merely on the decaying moral values of society?"
Don't think I could have said it better myself!! Being a Christian and believing in the bible and reading very clearly that marriage was designed BY God for a man AND A woman, I am so thrilled Prop 8 passed in CA! It was a nice feeling after feeling so down about the Obama win. The liberal illuminati gave one up to us!

mnotaro of CA 12:02PM November 13, 2008

Attention Obamatrons.... Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. But now "times" have changed...You believe that "morality" is subjective and "evolving" - Therefore there is no morality, merely a perception of it.... So why don't brother and sister marry, or Father and daughter? How about polygamy? Oops... guess you haven't "evolved that far yet - Or have you?
God is the source of Absolute Morality - Never changes...Man can only discover, ignore or adhere to... But that's an arduous process ...easier just to change morality to suit whatever hedonistic whim attracts us at the moment.
Now, to the argument in your mind... Yes, we can know Absolute Eternal Truth... Just takes a bit of logical thought - From the beginning.
It may be hard to get your mind around and it isn't about "faith"... "I do not have faith in who my father is, I know who my Father is." That's a good place to start. Funny thing is, you'll end up there too.
Without that foundation all philosophy is meaningless...Just ideas, swirling in a gray mist, all equal to all others and therefore equally worthless.
Anyway, I can't do all the heavy lifting for you... Go figure it out.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 8:45PM November 11, 2008

commitment is not just between a man and a woman,everyone has right to love.and no one should be against it.
as a citizen of a free and democrate country,we should view this problem in an open mind.we should treat every couple in the same way.

ye yu ning 9:43AM November 11, 2008

I have a feeling that the previous two commenters would have been against Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case in 1967 that ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage. Before then, marriage had been defined as the union of one man and one woman of the same color. I'm sure they would have been furious that activist judges were destroying the sanctity of marriage. RL Schaefer must have thought that a white man marrying a black woman was a sign of the "decaying moral values of society".

Ken M of NJ 9:37AM November 11, 2008

It is the state that issues the marriage licenses--not corporations, churches or private individuals--and it is up to the citizens of that state to decide to whom the licences may be issued. Opponents of Prop 8 believe the definition of marriage is a matter of personal choice, seeking an exception from the now constitutional law. If a majority vote doesn't matter to them, perhaps we can convince them that McCain should be our President come January.

John H. of AK 9:38PM November 10, 2008

let's leave the traditional definition of "marriage" stand and just vote on making a new word for the homosexuals who want to legalize their arrangement... I like "homohabitating" or "civil union" - Give 'em a civil ceremony and license or let some pseudo Christian religion marry them.
What right to homosexuals have to change the legal meaning of words based merely on the decaying moral values of society?

R.L. Schaefer of CA 5:30PM November 10, 2008