What do you expect from someone who is getting ready to run for Senator? He doesn't want to tick off either side, so both sides will vote for him.

He's lost my vote...THAT's for sure!

I encourage others to also write to the governor via his official website or call his office. Take action to make them take some action of their own.

Where is the governor and where is corporate America? I guess the almighty dollar is worth more than equality and freedom.

Chairm, if I understand your argument correctly, we're really talking about a matter of semantics. The more correct term would be to say that Proposition 8 would be a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage--and the only people that affects are gay and lesbian, who unlike other adults in the state of Californai would not be free to marry the other adult of their hearts. But what have we done to advance the conversation?

Perhaps Gov. Schwarzenegger has changed his mind and feels the will of the people means something in California.

I was upset and angry when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislation in 2005 and 2007 that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry. He was correct to do so; his hands were tied by Proposition 22. He pledged his support that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex was a waste of time.

After the California Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 was unconstitutional, then Proposition 8 qualified for the November ballot and the Governor has been missing in action. No group of Californians should have their constitutional rights put up for popular vote. Our democratic republic is suppose to protect the rights of all it’s citizens. Where is the Governor’s leadership that majority ternary against a minority won’t be tolerated?

California's economy is in the toilet and our Governor thinks it is a good idea to take some time off to campaign for McCain, just like a few years ago when he campaigned for George W. Bush.

Email the Governor: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

PROP 8 is about taking away rights. Do you want to take away people's rights?

VOTE NO on PROP 8

Henry Tabatha,

You're wrong about Massachusetts Catholic Services. The issue was this: the agency had been serving as a surrogate for the state, assisting with the adoption of children who were wards of the state within the Department of Social Services. They had been allowing gay and lesbian people to adopt prior to the enactment of marriage equality in Massachusetts, and the board of directors voted unanimously to continue doing so. The Bishops said, "No, you can't do that" and asked for a special exemption from the state, which was not forthcoming. The Catholic services agency then stopped doing all adoptions, withdrew from its role, because the state wouldn't allow it to discriminate...which it had previously been ok with.

Blame the Bishops for stepping in to a situation that didn't warrant their intervention.

My concern as a parent, even though there may be laws now allowing me to opt out my child when I want, is that this becomes the first step toward removing that right. I don't know about MA law, but at what point did parents lose their right there to opt out their kids from objectionable material?

With the domestic partner laws already in existance, it seems that the pro gay marriage camp, is just really trying to put a stamp of approval on their lifestyle choice, by laying claim to a fundamental cornerstone of what allows society to grow and prosper, the family.

If prop 8 fails to pass, parents who object to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds will have absolutely no constitutional recourse to prevent the teaching of same-sex marriage to their children.

Supporters of same-sex marriage want same-sex marriage to be taught and encouraged in schools as soon and as frequently as possible. Blocking proposition 8 will enable this.

Opponents of prop 8 claim that parents will still have the right to review material being taught and to have their children excused from all or any part of it. However, what is to stop courts from removing this right as unconstitutional? Once tried, courts may claim this denies same-sex couples the right of having their alternative lifestyles legitimized in schools. Voting YES on prop 8 is the only way to ensure that this won’t happen.

This is an issue will have tremendous impact on parental and religious rights. It has in Massachusetts and it will in California. To claim otherwise is to be either disingenuous or myopic. Take your pick.

Hey governor? And what about you Dianne Feinstein? The silence is deafening-- and other voices are rushing in to fill the vacuum. To all the folks out there claiming infringement of speech and religious freedoms: pick up a book about sexuality! 1 out of 15 of your children will be LGBT and your dogma will greatly contribute to their suffering. If LGBT folks can't marry eachother legally, a few misguided ones will marry your sons and daughters. Mixed orientation marriages have a greater than 80 percent failure rate. How is that good for anybody?

The Yes on 8 campaigns have received donations from almost twice as many INDIVIDUALS as the No campaign. As far as criticizing church-based donations from the Yes campaign going to better causes, what about the California Teacher's Association's heinously significant donation to No? Aren't teachers seriously undersupported as is? I'd be angry if the CTA had donated to the Yes campaign. Why not let them use that money for crayons and paper or since many teachers have to do that with their own money already.

@Chairm: You had me agreeing (well, agreeing to disagree) with your argument right up until you decided to throw in the old standbys of polygamy and incest. Let's assume that Proposition 8 deals only with gay marriage and leave arguments of polygamy and incest for Propositions that are opposed/supported by people with a direct interest in such things.

It's hard to take the "Yes on 8" argument serious as their previous hardline morality stance has been supplanted by the much kinder, gentler (yet more sinister) approach that they're "protecting families" and (in their latest ads) "children."

If we want to protect families, I'll pull out the old standbys of asking you to penalize divorcees and out-of-wedlock conceptions that don't result in marriage. I mean, if we're all about promoting families, I would totally support you doing *everything* in your power to do that. Why stop with the gays?

In 1948, 30 of the 48 states had laws banning interracial marriage with proponents of said bans using biblical references to assert that the mixing of two races was wrong and immoral. In 2008, 50 years after those interracial marriage bans were deemed unconstitutional in the U.S. Constitution, the same argument was being used to assert that homosexuality (nevermind gay marriage) is wrong and every measure should be put into place to restrict said behavior while keeping the appearance of maintaining civil rights for these sinful, sinful people. Now, instead of making this a race issue, the proponents of a ban insist that it's really about promoting procreation. It's funny because if that argument were made in 1948 about why interracial marriage between heterosexuals should be allowed - it's all about procreation and family, right? - you'd have been driven out of town.

Times change. You should too.

@Clark: Everything is legitimized if it isn't illegal. Your faith. My faith. Your race. My race. Your family structure. My family structure. Everything down to our differing preference in sport. They all deserve an equal forum for explanation and dialogue, even if you disagree with them. I'm against having special curriculum designed to promote same-sex marriage, but I'm also against special curriculum designed to ignore it. Oddly enough (to you, at least) I'm also for the inclusion of Intelligent Design discussions in science curricula, even if it disagrees with many scientists' personal/professional beliefs, because I believe that that belief and practice - since it isn't illegal - should be open topic for conversation.

Re: Indoctrination. I went to a straight school. I was taught from the age of five, via books, videos and personal instruction, that a proper family consists of a husband and a wife. I was instructed by those old tape reels that it was "natural" to feel an attraction to "Suzie" when my body started to mature... and I was continually told that even when I felt no such thing... in seventh, eighth and ninth grades. So I think, a twentysomething gay man, that I have a pretty good idea that sexual orientation "indoctrination" is a failure and you should have nothing to fear; if your kids are straight, they'll turn out straight... if they're gay, they'll turn out gay. But unlike me, perhaps if they had someone offhandedly mention to them in sixth grade that yes, some people men are attracted to other men and it's a part of diversity, perhaps they wouldn't spend their adolescence wondering what was wrong with them.

Until you wear my shoes, dear proponents of Prop 8, or have a child who's gay and just wants one less obstacle reminding them that they're "different" and "flawed," I can confidently say that it is your views that are myopic and unsympathetic in nature.

Passing Proposition 8 will stand as a testament to the millions of hateful bigots out there who hide their disdain, distaste and their hatred of homosexuals behind seemingly harmless and wholesome cloaks of maintaining family and social integrity.

To wit: Every tyrant thought they were doing the right thing at the time.

Do all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths....look at Biden. Opposes it one minute and supports the next....ridiculous:
In his debate with Sarah Palin he said that he was against Gay Marriage but his words in this clip with Ellen are completely contrary….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlGqX0E6QDo

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49212F20081003

I understand that parents want to control what their children learn at school, especially to ensure that material isn't contrary to their values. But certain things are legal, whether or not they fit into your value system, and schools shouldn't be forced to lie about what the law says. If I am a bigoted parent who doesn't believe in interracial marriage, that does not give me the right to restrict schools from recognizing that interracial couples can get married if a child asks about it in class.

Gay people exist. They live in our towns and cities. They are in committed relationships. Currently, they are able to get married. It's legal. Parents can't keep their children from seeing or hearing about gay people, just like they can't restrict their knowledge of drugs existing or abortion being legal. What parents CAN do is frame the information that kids get outside of the home in a way that conforms with their values. This is their job as parents. But they should not be allowed to eliminate the rights of others just to make that job easier.

Stop the lies. These blatant lies have exposed the heart of the pro-8 forces as pro-hate.

The FACT is that no church is required to marry ANYONE. Divorce has been legal in this country and state for many years; Catholics refuse to perform marriages for divorced people. Any priest, pastor, imam or rabbi has ALWAYS had the discretion not to marry any couple for any reason, and still will.

The FACT is that parents can opt out of any "sex education" for their children they want. There is no change in educational policy in this state.

The FACT is that gay couples exist, whether you approve us or not. We aren't going away. Our families exist among you.

The FACT is that my right to marry the woman I love (which I have proudly exercised) has NO effect on you. Our love and commitment and willingness to be together for the rest of our lives doesn't hurt our secular community: it strengthens it by providing a stable and protected home for our children and including us in basic secular values.

Prop 8 has no effect over any opponent's right to be disapprove. You can still disapprove. You can preach bigotry if you like. Just as you can disapprove of black-white marriage, or inter-religious marriage. Your right to disapprove and speak to your disapproval is UNAFFECTED.

But you can't enforce YOUR views on me in the secular sphere. That's unAmerican, and unConstitutional. And it goes against all the values of Californians.

Who voted on your marriage?

Gay marriage = CIVIL rites.

Prop8 = PropHate.

To those who say "We already have domestic partnerships, why do the gays need marriage?" -

So you think there should be a system of, say. "Separate but equal"? Because that worked so well for African-Americans? Wrong. In a few decades we will be as horrified about bans on gay marriage as we are now horrified about past bans on interracial marriage. And don't tell me that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" (as opposed to skin color); there is mounting scientific evidence that it is determined by genetic and prenatal factors.

If the reason for marriage is for procreation, does that mean that my husband and I shouldn't have been allowed to marry because we don't want children?

And last time I checked, we are supposed to have separation of church and state, so it is wrong to amend the constitution based on people's religious beliefs. And Proposition 8 is clearly driven by religion - just look at the donors.

It is horrifying that a simple majority of people can amend our constitution, but it takes 2/3rds to raise taxes. It will be even more horrifying if we amend our constitution to add discrimination.

Regarding proposition 8 – 1) The Bible does not teach that ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’. This is a recent litany spewed like venom by people who obviously do not read the Bible, in particular the New Testament. 2) In the New Testament – the historical writings in the Bible which contain the biography and teachings of Jesus Christ – the commandments that Jesus leaves us are simple: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40. I didn’t see ‘unless your neighbor is different than you’ in these verses. 3) John 13:34 teaches: ‘A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you’. My version of the New Testament doesn’t have an ‘except’ or ‘unless’ following this text either.

The ‘exceptions’ to Christ’s teaching have been created by people using hatred and fear to stir up a religious base against a group of people considered to be the ‘enemy’; ‘different’, ‘less-than’ – like men stirring up the ancient crowds to stone a woman. Jesus also said in John 11:26 ‘Whosoever believes in me, though he die, will have eternal life’ – Whosoever - again, no ‘except or unless’ in the teachings of the Word made flesh. Evidently Jesus just didn’t get it – He forgot to hate, He forgot to tell you to be afraid, He forgot that hate-mongering preachers were smarter than God who created all of life in it’s variety of uniqueness. He thought love was enough.

Marriage is, always has been, and will continue to be, a legal contract joining two individuals. In the ancient times of many cultures, including Judeo-Christian, it was a contract used to build power or gain property between men of different families or tribes which made the woman little more than chattel – property to be traded, used and divorced at the will of the male. A Wedding (different than a marriage) is a ceremony – typically public, frequently religious, in nature - celebrating with family and friends the legal union.

Homosexuals do not want to have a wedding in your church, they do not want to force their way into your religious community – they, like all people, want to go where they are loved and cherished as the unique creations of God that they are - they want to be around true Christians, people who follow the teachings of Christ, not the rantings of misguided preachers who teach division and judgment and have forgotten or choose to ignore the commandments of Christ. They want the same legal rights that you have to inherit joint property without paying capital gains taxes and resetting the base value on the house they have shared for 30 or 40 years with their partner, they want visiting rights granted by the hospital, or intensive care, to a close relative, they want the right to collect the pensions or the life insurance of the person with whom they have shared their lives, they want the right to make end-of-life decisions for each other.

Reflect on what Christ taught about the outcasts of His time - the Good Samaritan, the lepers, the woman who was about to be stoned, and that Christ had the courage to step in, to move against the laws of that time to stop the persecution, to dispel the hatred. It is easy to teach hate and fear – it is the nature of man to fear that which is different, but it is not the teaching of Christ - Christ taught that love is greater than fear. Don’t deceive yourself, God doesn’t want you to vote to amend the constitution of the State of California - if you want to vote to exclude an entire group of people from the basic civil rights provided under law by the legal contract of marriage then just claim it – claim that you are a bigoted, fearful, perhaps even a hateful, person who has judged God’s creation and in your eyes found it wanting.

Finally, when you vote on November 4th, think on Matthew 25:40 which teaches ‘Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.’ There is a spiritual consequence to our actions and I believe, like Father Farrow believed, that Christ has shown us what He expects of His people.

Make your life a blessing,

Lee Ramsey

Why the tremendous volume of negative views of Prop 8 on this page? I am aware of a handful of submissions by friends in support of Prop 8 to this page that are not shown here, including one of my own. Is the Times editing out those in support of Prop 8, or just running way behind in moderating?

I have spent many hours reviewing the issues surrounding Proposition 8, and wrote a 15-page article on the subject stating my findings and opinions, which provides all references to original source material. LA Times rules prohibit providing the URL to this article.

I am tolerant of the beliefs and lifestyles of others. But tolerance does not demand acceptance of all things being equal – such a concept is preposterous. As it relates to same gender marriage, Californians can be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of differing lifestyles, without accepting those lifestyles as being equal to the institution of marriage.

Same gender marriage will never be the same as traditional marriage, period. For starters, the plumbing is different.

Discrimination, which is often used to mean unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice, is wrong. But the word discrimination also means to discern qualities and recognize the differences between things. By this definition, we all discriminate every day as a necessary part of making decisions. And recognizing the qualities and differences between traditional and same gender marriage should not mean that we are all forced to equalize them. Some allowances should be made for the differences.

In this regard, California already has the most tolerant and non-discriminatory laws regarding same gender couples that can be found anywhere in the U.S. Equality California, a leading opponent of Proposition 8, states on their website that California has already moved from being “a state with extremely limited legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation." Same gender couples can enjoin in civil unions, and be with, and love each other, and receive most every California legal right enjoyed by married couples. Passage of Proposition 8 will not change this. Thus, California has already shown tremendous tolerance and equanimity to people of same gender persuasion.

Most every day now I read articles online about how proponents of Proposition 8 are using scare tactics and outright lies about its implications on children to win its passage. In researching this subject, I found that there have been many efforts over the years to pass California laws having to do with the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. Some few have passed, but the majority failed. I am surprised that few have publicly observed that the failure of most of these measures to pass was likely related to California’s recognition at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. In other words, that definition, which became California law when voters passed it overwhelmingly in 2000, was an important bulwark in the legal defense of striking down proposed legislation that would mandate same gender education of our young children. That fence has been blown down now, as it were, by a May 2008 judicial fiat. If Proposition 8 does not pass, will the proposals for new legislation mandating exposing our children to increased education about LGBT issues cease? What does history already show? Any rational adult will recognize that if anything, such efforts will ONLY INCREASE, and find greater likelihood of passage. Scare tactics? We are talking about the future of our children here. While I do find some of the simplified statements made by ProtectMarriage to be incomplete, and feel that a more complete disclosure of details on each statement would solidify the positions they take, I also recognize that we live in a sound bite world. Many people just don’t want to take the time to learn about this issue. It is uncomfortable for many of us, but it is a fact of life today.

Proposition 8 is all about letting the voice of the people decide. “It’s going to happen now, whether you like it or not” smacks of arrogance and intolerance on the part of opponents of the measure. I believe that we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of differing lifestyles, but without accepting those lifestyles as being equal to the institution of marriage. That’s why I will vote Yes on Proposition 8.

Karin, you have not understood my comment correctly.

It is not just a semantic quibble.

You said:

"Proposition 8 would be a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage--and the only people that affects are gay and lesbian, who unlike other adults in the state of Californai would not be free to marry the other adult of their hearts."

Prop 8 does not ban "same-sex marriage". But you say it does so let's go with that.

Tell me, precisely, what is banned. No, not the label but the core of the thing -- the features that are essential and which distinguish the relationship type from other types of relationships.

You said something about hearts. Is this a eupehmism for sexual behavior, sexual attraction, or romantic interest, or something else?

Is there a legal requirement for any of that? Or do you depend on mere tradition alone?

See, if you say something is banned, then, you need to go further than to just plop a name on it and fold your arms. You need to distinguish it from other things so that it can be identified.

Prop 8 would not prompt the government to send police in search of hearts, right? So this is not a ban on people seeking that.

This is about societal preference for the conjugal relationship type. And its core is as I described it. You might disagree, and that's fair, provided you can state the core you would rather recognize.

What are the legal requirements that define it?

My general point is that you are conflating nonmarriage with marriage. You take one tiny subset of the nonmarriage category and say it should be called marriage -- even though it is sex-segregative and cannot provide for responsible procreation.

This must mean that you either object to the special status of the core of marriage and would prefer government to not express societala preference for that core; or that there is something far more significant, superior, in the center of the relationship type you have in mind and it is that core which must be shown societal preference.

Have I read you correctly? Please elaborate.

Thomas said:

"Let's assume that Proposition 8 deals only with gay marriage and leave arguments of polygamy and incest for Propositions that are opposed/supported by people with a direct interest in such things."

That is a very mistaken assumption.

Proposition 8 does not mention "gay marriage". In fact, it simply affirms the both-sexed basis of marriage.

But you assum otherwise because for you the man-woman criterion is a ban on something that is in fact not forbidden by the proposed amendment.

You might show me I am wrong: be very specific and tell me what would be banned. What are its distinguishing features such that society can identify it as the thing being targeted by Propositon 8?

Because if you can't do that simple task and make your answer stand up to scrutiny, then, what you should not be so hasty in trying to flee from the legitimate quesitons about how lines would be drawn around the relationship type you have in mind when you say "gay marriage".

You say you have a direct interest in changing what the government recognizes. Okay. But you are opening the gate and trying to close it against other people. Is that not exclusionary? Yeap, it is.

See, if society confuses nonmarriage -- even if just the subset that you have a direct interest in -- with marriage, then, you can't really expect people to think of "marriage" as distinct.

What you might think of as polygamy would just be adults forming consensual, caring, and loving relaitonships.

When it comes to kids, if two moms are better than one, why not three or four or more moms? If you think that the inclusion of a husband amongs all those wives would be a big no-no, then, imagine that these wives are in a same-sex arrangement. They might adopt kids. They might use "donors". Or they might be childless. It is their choice, right, and these are all adults choosing other adults of their hearts, right?

For that matter, why bother to false accuse a couple of sisters of incestuous sexual relations when they would simply like to gain the benefits that gay and lesbian couples have been clamoring for? Maybe they have children and need the protections for their family. Who are you to draw an arbitary line -- especially with all this talk about equality and discrimination.

I find Lee Ramsey's comments fascinating. He says the Bible does not define marriage as between man and woman, and also seems to believe that God approves homosexuality. I use the KJV Bible, and here is what my copy says:

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Leviticus 18:22-23
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith . . .

Deuteronomy 23:17
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Isaiah 3:9
The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Genesis 12:13
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.

Romans 1:24-27
. . . God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator . . . For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Timothy 1:8-10
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane . . . For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind . . .

Jude 1:7-8
. . . Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Deuteronomy 29:21-23
. . . the Lord shall separate him unto evil . . . according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law: So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you . . . when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the Lord hath laid upon it; And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom . . . which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:

Lastly, the teachings of Jesus regarding love are often misunderstood to mean that loving the sinner means we have to accept the sin. This is simply not the case. Jesus showed love and compassion to the adultress woman, but he did not excuse the sin. Rather, he commanded her to sin no more.

John 7:10-11
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman [who had been taken in adultery], he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Lastly, the Apostle Paul clearly and accurately prophesied what our conditions would be like today. He also counseled us what to do about it. .

2 Timothy 2:1-5
. . . in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God . . . from such turn away.

Loving others in a Christlike manner does not mean embracing unacceptable behavior. We can love the sinner and hate the sin, as God does.

Society should support the goodness of love and committment between two people who want to share their lives with each other and care for each other. As far as I can tell, that strengthens the institution of marriage. Gay people are saying "we believe in marriage and we want to participate". If marriage is such an important element of society, and I believe it is, then why would you want to make sure that so many people have to remain single? If you deny gays and lesbians the option of marriage then you are lowering the numbers of married people in society and doing harm to the cornerstone of the foundation of civilization. You are preventing the children of same-sex couples from having a secure and stable environment under the law.

I love how all these homophobic and bigoted people pretend that they are all for fairness and against discrimination and that they "love the sinner" but then they go on to call for denying equal rights to same-sex couples. They already enjoy the right to marry and they sure aren't going to let any one else join their private club.
It is JUST like the shameful arguments made against interracial couples not so long ago. Turn back the clock. Fifty years ago, would you have wanted to be one of the people who were for equal rights or one of the ones who wanted to make laws to keep two people of different races from marrying?
If you are fearful and full of hate and use your religion to justify your bigotry then you will vote yes on 8. If you are truly for fairness and equality and real Christian values then you will vote NO on 8.