The claims that homosexual marriage will swing open the doors to forced indoctrination of our children, including in kindergarten to homosexual lifestyles are TRUE.

In Massachusetts, as soon as homosexual marriage was passed, the homosexual lobby demanded and were given their way, that indoctrination would start, before children had grown old enough to know any differently, and even the opt outs parents have traditonally had regarding sex ed, and sexuality instruction, would be denied parents. They would be told that they do not have any rights on the matter.

David Parker was ignored, harassed and then arrested purely for demanding that for the few weeks remaining in the school year, that an opt out for them be granted. His and his family's civil rights were violated. Apparently to the homosexual movement, they have the right to violate the seperation of church and state, and denying parents the right to raise their childen with the ethics and values of their faith.

I'm a democrat, I used to think that gay marriage was just that, but I've had my eyes opened. The same things that have happened in Massachusetts have happened in the UK when homosexual marriage was passed. I'm voting for prop 8, as are all my friends and family, and we are NOT republicans. We will not accept the fascism of homosexual extremists.

I believe having met the Parker family that there is clear evidence that the "just let people do what makes them happy, "tolerance is the greatest virtue", "what's YOUR problem religious people" argument is a smokescreen.

Massachusetts story shows what is really being done, not fear mongering but fact.

When my kids ask why I am opposed to just letting people do what is natural, I relate their potty training (no longer acceptable to just go when you naturally need to) as well as the fact that a child of abuse or alcoholism have a natural disposition to do those things only one of which is illegal. The reality is that the person must do an unnatural thing by being above his or her basal instinct. The counter argument is really just a veil for pure narcissism. I'm voting for Prop. 8. I'm OK with anyone correctly associating my opinion with biblical morality. I believe both sides are well described in the Bible with the opposition view well represented in Romans 1:21 - 1:32. I just have trouble reading Rom 1:26, 27 and Rom 1:32 without concluding that there really is condemnation for folks who act out exactly as the bible describes in those verses -- "exchanging the natural use for what is against nature" -- now *that* is something, the opponents claim that the folks are only doing what is natural but the Bible says it is the exact opposite. How to break the tie? Maybe it's my translation... Uh-oh, I checked a bunch of translations going way back to earliest copies and they same the same thing. Hmmm, so it must not be the bible that is changing and different...

I totally understand that I am stating something extremely unpopular, that there is such a thing as an absolute, a straight line and that other lines can be compared to and then described as crooked. That is the reality of biblical morality. We really do believe in absolutes. Is that close minded and intolerant? Of course it is! We reject the idea that everything is relative and subject to the interpretation and opinion of the individual (particularly the one who puts self above all else). I can trace my logic back to the most reliable, well researched, well investigated books that has ever existed and while I respect Harvard and have friends who graduated and are attending there, I frankly put more value and weight in the collected works of Saul of Tarsus than even an honorable Harvard Professor. By the way, use the "denying their rights is not fair" argument with the Mexicans across the border who don't understand why we deny them their natural right to own the land known as Alta California.

Yes on 8.

Since Kelly Ewing Powell personally thinks it is ¨wrong¨ to be romantic with someone of the same sex, same-sex partners should not get the same esteem and dignity as opposite-sex partners! How selfish, esp. since none of the posters in her camp discusses why being gay is wrong, just that it is a matter of their own faith. Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried in his book on liberty characterized this perfectly: refusing to reason with those whose rights or equality you would restrict (oh no! get books by Harvard professors out of the curriculum too, because the kids might learn what an ignorant rabble we are!). Whatever you all personally believe about God and Jesus has no place in public schools or imposed on people through public policy - e.g., now the selfish argument that because I believe God condemns gay relationships, children cannot be taught they exist. Those are your private beliefs adopted without evidence, as everyone else is free to adopt different beliefs. If your norms are so wonderful and superior, then won´t children gravitate to them without all of the coercion you demand, such as withholding information about same-sex relationships and ferociously trying to make sure kids learn only your ideas about family and relationships from an early age?

What are they smoking? You can't teach about Jesus in school but you want to shove the Gay agenda down our childrens throats.
Be prepared for lots of lawsuits, you can't have it your way.

How is this hurting the children? They are teaching this in school because they want the children to be more open and accepting about this issue. They aren't brainwashing children at all! Religion isn't being taught in school and you hardcore christians seem to have no problem with it! So why cant you accept gay marriage being taught in school? You aren't involved in their relationship, and you have no right to prevent same sex couples from getting equal rights. And what makes you think a child will grow up happy from a heterosexual couple? Ever heard of divorce? Hypocrites.

In reference to an earlier post above (and one of the arguments for Prop 8), since when does learning in school "hurt" children? Shouldn't kids learn about how our society works, including the ins and outs of marriage? It would really "hurt" children to be left in the dark about marriage; especially later in life when it is important to make informed decisions about relationships.

As mentioned in the story, schools are not mandated to teach students about marriage. Most students are either never taught about marriage in school or if they are, it typically happens when they are teenagers. Ask around and you'll be hard pressed to find kids learning about marriage in school. Maybe this lack of education contributes to the incredibly high divorce rate.

I believe marriage should be taught in school - in its entirety. It should be explained that most marriages in the US are essentially two separate institutions: a religious one and a legal (civil) one. It should be explained how people marry, how people divorce, as well as the benefits and consequences of both. And there is no legitimate reason why gay marriage shouldn't be included. In fact, it wouldn't even be called gay marriage - it would just be called "marriage."

Religious and other private entities have the right to not accept same-sex relationships and marriages - I believe they are entitled to that right. But when you're dealing with a legal/civil issue in which everyone but one minority group is able to enjoy rights and benefits on a national or state level, you have a reason for change. If the Catholic church (or any other religion) refuses to accept same-sex marriage, so be it. But if the federal and state governments refuse to accept same-sex marriage, it is blatant discrimination.

As a country, we've managed to grow from ignorant and close-minded to somewhat more open-minded and accepting of other people and their differences. But we still have a ways to go.

It's unfortunate that so many people still don't realize that we are all different and yet we are all the same.

Kelly,

Please tell me you are not a teacher. That you are not an educator. Please tell me that you counsel no one. It terrifies me to think someone like you actually come in contact with children at all much less help to form their perceptions of the world. Your poem truly depressed me.

P.S. The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to think gay marraige is fine by God. I assume you think you know better.

I am a kindergarten teacher and used to be a health educator and hiv antibody test counselor. I teach values and patriotism and of the pursuit of haapiness and the freedoms we enjoy. A 5 year old is just beginning to understand these values. I see the adjustment they go through when there is a new baby in the house or just one on the way. I can't imagine what the confusion of these issues would add. Children deserve so much- They are precious- if only each can be raised in a home iwth a mom and a dad.
We voted on this issue and... this is my poem about my thoughts

Four judges legalized same sex marriage-
From San Francisco has come disparage
For, in 2000 marriage was defined
As between a man and a woman, we outlined

What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history's sacred institution
Must be placed in our state's constitution

Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem

We've given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society's more pained

But, what of our creator- who said, "Thou shalt not"?
And of our founding father's and of all that they fought?
We've commandments for how we should live
And, we can't grant things that aren't ours to give

I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I've counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest

Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let's focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation

Let's not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God's laws

My partner of 35 years (and my spouse of 1 1/2 months) raised to young girls that were abandoned by their biological father at birth and a burden to their mother at age 9. We raised them in an openly gay environment with love, religious freedom (at one time we spent a year in weekly meetings with Mormon missionaries), ethical values and compassion as the basis of our family beliefs. They are, now, both productive members of society, heterosexual and raising families of their own with the same values that we taught them.
We were blessed by their presence in our lives.

Why not "protect" marriage in a way that REALLY gets the job done: outlaw divorces (retroactively for one generation back, naturally) and force - under penalty of jail time until they repent - any couple that procreates. Ah, shucks, make it anyone that has vaginal sex.
I mean, we DO want to "protect marriage", right?

If the backers of Prop 8 really want to preserve traditional marriage, then let them go for it all the way, as it was historically done for centuries. Parents would pick out their children's spouses for them years in advance; brides and grooms would not meet until their wedding day; a hefty financial transaction would take place in the form of a dowry and maybe some land and animal exchange; husbands and wives would be married for the sake of legal and contractual matters, but maintain mistresses and lovers on the side (wait, they still do that part...);and divorce would be cause for excommunication from the church and society at large. That's traditional marriage. Anything less than that is just being namby-pamby.

I'll accept the arguments about traditional marriage when the gay marriage opponents tackle the other threats to "traditional" marriage - drive through wedding windows, Elvis impersonators, wing walking and scuba diving weddings, weddings in Klingon, and no fault divorce. Once we get those impediments to "traditional" marriage cleared up for the heterosexual couples, then we can start to worry about the impact of homosexual marriages.

We have so debased the institution with the casualness and stunts that are allowed today, that the concepts of life long monogamy that "traditional" marriage champions use as a cudgel against gay marriage are mere phantasms.

If they want to address those issues and make divorce a serious business, they should add them to their continuing stream of anti gay marriage proposals. Let's see them get that passed. But there is no way they would have the guts to ever try a holistic approach to "traditional marriage" propositions and not just the icky gay stuff.

Civil unions don't seem to address everything, and gay people look happy when the get married. Unless they can really argue that the state is going to force me to marry a man, I just say "let people be happy"