DON'T BUY INTO PHONY FEAR TACTICS. Prop 8 IS an attempt to write DISCRIMINATION into our state constitution. Prop 8 IS, in FACT, a violation of our FEDERAL Constitution (14th amendment). Don’t confuse"holy" matrimony with CIVIL matrimony.
FACT: History shows marriage IS and has ALWAYS been a civil union. All adult citizens who pay taxes are entitled to ALL of the SAME rights under the law, and since NO legitimate CIVIL reasons to deny gays marriage exist, gays are entitled to ALL of the SAME marriage rights as any other citizen. Religion has NO bearing on civil law, much though some would like to make it about THEIR religion. Fortunately for all of us, separation of church and state does NOT allow any one religion to rule us--or our laws, otherwise we'd be living in a theocracy like the Muslim extremists. But like extremists, religious activists HURT PEOPLE, not with bombs, but through words, TV ads and devious devices like Prop 8.
FACT: Marriage wasn't even recognized as a sacrament (a religious union) until the 12th century! The Puritans had CIVIL marriages when they came here in the 1600's! We MUST also obtain a CIVIL license to marry, and clergy AND NON-clergy legally perform marriages. If marriage were only a religious union, then only clergy would do the honors and we wouldn't need approval (i.e. license) from the state. This, alone demands that ALL citizens are ENTITLED to ALL the SAME rights.
FACT: Gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual marriage. For the life of me I cannot fathom how gay people marrying will affect my marriage in any way! In fact, contrary to what Prop 8 supporters say, research shows that in Scandinavian countries (who've had gay marriage for decades) heterosexual marriage is still going healthy and strong, and even their CLERGY acknowledge that it has proven to be BENEFICIAL!
Those who suggest that gay people already have the same rights are lying. It is purely a FEAR tactic, solely in an effort to TRICK gullible voters into voting DISCRIMINATION into the constitution. The driving force behind Prop 8 come from a cadre of RELIGIOUS ACTIVISTS who want to force THEIR particular extremist beliefs on the rest of us, and they are willing to lie to do it--this is tantamount to a form of religious persecution, and that is patently UNAMERICAN. America has long prided itself on being the land of the FREE. Haven't we had enough of such fear tactics already? It is ironic that so many lies are being told by the very people who SHOULD be standing for truth, love and equality! Changing the constitution is a very SERIOUS matter, not to be entered into lightly or on such flimsy pretext, but that is exactly what Prop 8 supporters are asking us to do. DON'T LET THE FEAR MONGERS TRICK YOU INTO VOTING DISCRIMINATION INTO OUR CONSTITUTION! Vote NO on Prop 8 = NO on PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION.

The article claims that the ad says that schools would have to teach gay marriage. It doesn't. It says they would, which is a true claim, as Massachusetts has proven.

Tuff call. I think II will go yes on prop 8.

My main thought is for babies and children that will be placed with 2 men in adoption arrangements. I just think that a kid needs a mom or else he/she will have serious issues.

I wish people would stop putting down Iran--it's a great country!!
And marraige between a man & a women is the way it is suppose to be--natural!!
Amercians are smart and will be voting for families--
natural and sweet and pure and no confusion at all!!
YES on 8--not teaching gay marriage in school for my kids!
This is the way we are created and born!!
white and black--no gray area--yes is yes and no is no!

First of all, I agree completely with Amil. There is a deeply flawed view many people have on the history of marriage. Marriage was more about property and protection than love until about the 1500s. Even the old testament attests to this. That's why if a man died, his brother was to marry his wife. I hate that people just believe everything they are told.

Second of all, as many other posters point out very well, I never learned about marriage in school. That doesn't even make sense. What does that claim mean? How do you teach homosexuality any way? Hmmm...I remember in 5th grade learning that boys might like other boys in sex ed, and that was it, basically (by that age, if you like boys, you probably know it already anyway). And what's wrong with kids knowing about same-sex marriage? I went to school with kids who had 2 moms or dads. Do you just want to lie to your kids? It's not going to make your kids gay or messed up in any way. Get real.

What studies were done to show how well kids are raised with two fathers? You say studies show that children do best when raised by a mother and father--compared to a single parent home. To you, a single parent home is not ideal. But a home with two parents is? That's what a same-sex marriage would be.

I'm tired of people USING CHILDREN to promote their own agenda. The same thing happened with interracial marriage. "I'm worried about the children. They won't know who they are." It's really all about you and not knowing who you are, and maybe having to face ugly truths about yourself, but blame it on the children.

And while I'm on the subject of race; Separate but equal does not work. If you really thought civil unions and marriages were the same thing you wouldn't have a problem calling a same-sex union a marriage. It allows you to think to yourself, "At least it's not marriage," or, if a man introduces another man as his husband, in the back of your mind, you think, "Not really." It only promotes division.

Saying that we voted on it 8 years ago is pretty lame, especially when many of the same people who oppose gay marriage would dance in the streets if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

I am friends with and work with many same-sex couples who are now married, legally. Is it fair to take that away? Do you really want to do that to ordinary people who are in monogamous relationships with someone they are in love with and are already celebrating months of being married? That's just wrong.

Finally, my boyfriend is English. Eventually, he will have to return to England. If I were a woman, we could marry and he would legally be allowed to stay in the US, just like many other couples. Even if Prop 8 is struck down, he will not be allowed to stay because it is a federal issue and DOMA would trump CA law. It's not right to FORCE this kind of separation of two people who are in love, when the same thing would not happen to heterosexual couples.

amii,

Did you notice how all of the different types of marriage that you mentioned have one particular thing in common? Every one of those forms of marriage is built around the nucleus of a man and a woman. And it has always been that way throughout all of human history.

Some cultures have (and still do) bring a man and a woman together for marriage in different ways or out of different motives. Indeed, as you’ve pointed out, sometimes more men and/or women have even been added to the formula. (There is a reason, however, why such cultures never progressed to develop into modern civilizations. Polygamy and polyandry are ultimately destructive to a society. But that’s another discussion...) In any case, marriage always has - and always will - *necessarily* include a man and a woman.

And yes, the state’s most compelling and only legitimate interest in privileging marriage (as the union of one man and one woman) is that a legally committed man and woman not only ensures the existence of the next generation, but also at least allows for the best possible environment for the welfare of the children who will be the future citizens of society.

I know... I know... Many men and women have always married who are not even capable of having children (as with the elderly or the infertile) and these days - especially in western culture - people often marry who just don’t even want to procreate, period. Even in these cases, however, genuine marriage does still interest the state in that the union of a man and woman benefits society by bridging the gender gap of our species. On the other hand, same-sex ‘marriage’ actually widens the greatest difference between humans by further segregating men from women.

Besides, think of it like this: If an author were to discover that a lot of people are using the books she writes as doorstops, would she suddenly have any interest in - or obligation to - write longer tomes so that her books would be heavier, better doorstops? I don’t think so! Whatever some people are using her books for, her interest in publishing remains the same.

In the same way, even if many couples are able to take advantage of (some of) the benefits of marriage for reasons other than why we as a society would want to encourage and privilege marriage, our interest in supporting (and defending) the institution of marriage - in its present form - remains the same. It is the only institution we have that binds men and women to one another and men to their own offspring. (Women, for obvious reasons, always at least start off bound to their own offspring...)

And the fact that many married couples are either infertile or uninterested in procreation is certainly no rational argument for completely reordering the form that marriage has always had in human society merely for the sake of compelling all of us, by law, to approve of, encourage, and support homosexuality.

There is a reason why no culture in history (at least none that has survived up to this day) has ever recognized any group of men only or women only as a marriage regardless of what the sexual practices of such groups were or whether or not homosexuality was approved of by the society in question. And that would be the same reason why we should not legally recognize even just two men or two women as ‘married’: What is sanctified by law is encouraged and will certainly become more common. And same-sex couples are, by themselves, not capable of producing the next generation and, for reasons I’ve already stated in this thread, such unions cannot provide what children need most for their welfare – a committed mother *and* father to provide and care for them.

I wish to advise that careful attention is needed in deciding how to vote on Proposition 8.

First, Proposition 8 is simply stated, an ammendment to the California Constitution that defines marriage. Limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples.
This ammendment does not revoke the statewide benfits given to homosexuals whatsoever. It only stops the legal marriage of homosexual couples.

Proposition 22 had passed by 61% by the Californian citizen vote. The California Supreme Court overturned this Proposition and homosexual couples were still allowed marriage.
Now, Proposition 8 has been proposed, going to the vote of Californian citizens, to ammend the constitution.

The effects of both outcomes I feel are needed in deciding which way to vote.

If Proposition 8 does pass, homosexual couples will simply not be allowed marriage. Realize that all the benifits previously granted them will not diminish or disappear, this is not about that.

If Proposition 8 does not pass, then the state of California will have to uphold homosexual marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages. This means that children in schools must be taught that both marriages are equal, and also they would be taught certain characteristics of the relationships, but obviously "age appropriately". Adoption agencies will have to be unbiased in allowing all forms of couples to adopt. Religious adoptong agencies would have to either change their own beliefs (if their belief is that only heterosexual couples should adopt) or give up the agency. As homosexual couple's rights are pushed further it will likely force churches and other organizantions to stop protesting or lose government benifits. Churches (etc.) would lose their tax exemptions, lawsuits against such organizations would become commonplace. Religions that will not conform to this ideal will likely lose their marriage licenses as well. Thus the freedom to religion is diminished.

At this point, you might ask yourself which outcome allows more freedom, obviously that is what this is about.

I personally am in favor of Proposition 8, because I believe that the family is the unit that defines America. No other organization is more important. I will not stand by and watch what I consider sacred to be dissolved by the pursuit of ill willed "freedoms".

The good people of California voted in favor of defining marriage as between man and woman in 2000, and it is my hope that citizens will get out and vote again.

I believe that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Not between two men, or two women, or one man and multiple women etc. Prop 8 does not remove rights from gay couples in civil unions. Prop 8 simply defines marriage as being between a man and a woman as it has been for several thousand years. For more information on Prop 8 go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) and ProtectMarriage.com.

Proposition 8 is about protecting an institution that has been in place in society since the beginning of time. It has nothing to do with taking away people's rights; laws are in place to protect those rights. It has everything to do with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the rights of children. Voting YES on Proposition 8 means you respect the union of a man and a woman to be the definition of marriage and not having that definition rewritten to suit a special interst group. It means supporting democracy where the people's voice rules the land and not four liberal judges. I support families, the rights of children and fairness. That is why I am voting YES on Proposition 8.

Thanks to all who joined this discussion, both for your participation and the generally thoughtful, civil tone of the discourse. I'm signing off for the night, but hope to provide a similar space for many such debates.

And Clayton--You couldn't have given me a nicer compliment.

Dear Ms Klein,

Although, I realize that you disagree with my point of view, I must commend you for allowing both sides of the issure to be read on your blog. My opinion of the LA Times has come up a few notches. You are a true American Journalist!

Leland, I wonder whether your observations aren't confusing correlation with causality (something my statistics teachers used to beat into my head). Yes, there is a high frequency of single-parent families in impoverished, crime-prone areas. The question is what caused what. Did the poverty cause both the single-parent families? Did the single-parent families cause the crime? Is there another factor we haven't examined?

Once poverty and crime are taken out of the picture, what do we know about the outcomes for single-parent families? The studies I have seen so far are not definitive.

Beyond that, gay marriage takes families away from the single-parent construct and moves them toward two-parent families, with legal commitments that tend to keep those families together. What studies are there on these two-parent families compared with typical heterosexual two-couple families.

Certainly, divorce is generally not seen as an ideal outcome for families and children. But what are we dto do about this? Since gay couples will continue to form loving, lasting partnerships, and raise children, Prop. 8 changes nothing in this regard except to allow the marriages that brign a legal stability to the families.

I don't really know the numbers, but I wouold imagine that far more single-parent families involve heterosexual parents who never married, or heterosexual parents who divorced. So, should we ban unmarried girls and women from having children? (I'd love to see what the Proposition 4 supporters have to say about that.) Go back to tightly restrictive divorce laws even for desperately unhappy families? Proposition 8 is not a cure for any of the ills you suggest.