Lessig

While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.

If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.

As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.

The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.

The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.

What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.

More here

I agree with the conservatives: "marriage" is an institution of religion, a sectarian concept that the secular state has no business redefining.

Government institutions should offer only civil unions and let the God-fearing fight to define their word "marriage" on the open fields of the culture war. This debate does not even belong on the ballot.

"The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science"

Really? Just like the ancient Greeks depended upon modern science? Or, indeed, just like homosexual long term relationships and families didn't exist before homosexuality was legalised? I'd really be interested/amused by any form of argument that you could develop regarding the need for science, polity or any ensuing developed policy to have a meaningful homosexual relationship, but sadly I am not under the impression that one can justify your statement in any way, shape, or form.

"Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place."

By this logic, heterosexual couples who can't bear children are not really married. Your attempt to address this specific objection at the end of your post is unconvincing and fails completely at its purpose (deflecting criticism).

@Jeffrey Harmon

Its refreshing to see a comment more thought out and articulated than the garden variety, however it falls short on many accounts, of which I will name a few.

"the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality."
The state is indeed an agent of its people but it is not the moral authority of its people. That function is left up to the individual and one should not be led to conclude that what the state allows is an implicit endorsement of what should transpire. America has a tradition of individual liberty and freedom and as such we allow "vices" like pornography, gambling, and drunkenness yet the state does not actively promote their usage. Don't mistake what is allowed for what is advocated.

"Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements."
One counterexample: Polygamy. Don't say "all other arrangements". It leaves your argument open to quick refutation.

"Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life."
One can argue quite effectively that companionship is indeed part of the pursuit of life. Or one can naively argue that two out of three inalienable rights constitute a supermajority :-) Gun ownership is another right that fits this mold.

@ hans
i agree the government should only recognize civil unions. unfortunately, the government decides what is marriage. and unfortunately, it is on the ballot.

vote no on 8!

I am sick and tired of "yes on 8" supporters saying things like about gay marriage being like "incestuous marriage"," "polygamy," and "pedophilia." For the record, the people in this country who have either participated in, or rallied for "incestuous marriage" have identified as "heterosexual"! The same goes for those who practice, or wish to legalize "polygamy"! It should also be stated that almost EVERY study done EVERYWHERE in the United States for the last 20 plus years of CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTERS, or those who practice "pedophilia", over 70 percent have identified as "heterosexual" males!
"Protect Marriage" is ridiculous! Are you "protecting" the "traditional marriage" which statistically speaking, ends in DIVORCE within the first THREE YEARS?
So in essence, "yes on 8" supporters want to retain the right to file frivolous marriages with the state of California to "only between a man and a woman"?
And for the record: there is NO "homosexual agenda"! Gay people have no desire to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality! Is there a "heterosexual agenda"? It appears so. Do the research! Heterosexuals are the ones attempting to get gay people to "convert" to their "lifestyle choice", not the homosexuals attempting to get the heterosexuals to convert to homosexuality!
Furthermore, the ignorant statements about homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice" and "their choice to be gay" and simply stupid! When did the heterosexuals wake up and make a decision to be "heterosexual" Who here honestly actually said to them "should I be straight or gay"? If homosexuality is a choice, then by logical deduction, so is heterosexuality.
So are the "no on 8" supporters attempting to force California to be a "heterosexual" state? It appears so!
Why do the heterosexual people constantly attempt to force their lifestyle choices on the gay people? If it is a proven fact (check with the medical, psychological and law enforcement communities) that the majority of child molesters are "heterosexual" why do people feel comfortable leaving their children alone with people who have such a high probability of being a child predator? If the divorce rate (check the statistics in ANY family law court) is so high, why on earth would people want to not only defend this practice, but teach their children it is "moral" to grow up, file multiple "marriages" and then file multiple "divorces"? How is that moral?
Get over it people! Your fear of gay people is totally unwarranted! It is the gay people (who have been historically bashed, beaten up, threatened, slandered, torted, mutilated, maimed, killed, shamed, and discriminated against who should be afraid! The heterosexuals have the proven history of doing these shameful things against homosexuals for years! Not the homosexuals doing it to the heterosexuals! (Reference the holocaust, "witch burning", stonewall, Matthew Sheppard, and countless other historical "hate crimes"!
Maybe, just maybe, we are sick and tired of it all, much like the other minorities finally got sick of it all, like the black people, Japanese, Jewish, etc.!
Hatred and discrimination is a terrible thing to "teach your children"!
P.S. Those of you who are inevitably going to discount and disregard what I have said might want to research the points I have brought up. And if you want to comment back, fine as long as it is intelligent and not "gay bashing" because that would do nothing more than prove the points I have brought up!
Proposition 8 was written specifically to propagate further discrimination against specifically gay folks based solely on their sexual orientation! Discrimination is against the US Constitution as well as separation of church and state! Please stop using the name of "GOD" and "JESUS" to bash people because they are different. NOWHERE in the bible does it say to treat your neighbor with such prejudice! In fact, it is a COMMANDMENT to "love thy neighbor".
Hate is NOT a HEALTHY value to be teaching children! Didn't we learn from the mistakes of Hitler?
NO ON PROP 8!!!!!!!!!!

My Church performs same-sex weddings. So the folks who say "Vote Yes for religious Freedom" are against MY religious freedom. (And they're pro-incest, too!)

Thank you Mr Lessig for the intelligent, but personal argument. Living in a country that allows same sex marriages, has allowed family and friends to celebrate the loving unions of such couples you so aptly describe.

Wow. "paid for by nobody, save my kids, who would otherwise have had a couple more hours to play with me..."

Children change everything, don't they? My daughter is just a hair older than your oldest boy, and the fact of her existence has become the central fact of my life.

Here in Arkansas, we're facing a similar fight, against Proposition 1, which bans cohabiting people from being foster or adoptive parents. It's a tacitly anti-gay proposal, initiated after our state courts struck down a specifically anti-gay provision. Its reach is considerably greater, as all unmarried couples (and possibly single people--the language is not clear on this point) would be denied the ability to be foster or or adoptive parents.

This proposal would always have offended me, on the simple basis of justice and equality and all that, but now, it drastically restricts the number of our friends and relatives who could take in Quincy if something happened to my wife and myself. That makes this personal in a way oppressive laws, even those laws which affected me directly, seldom were before.

Now I think it's time to get my daughter off to school. I'm late doing so, dammit.

Imagine that you select people at random and ask them to write a small computer program (maybe a little calendar to keep track of birthdays or a small calculator to balance your checkbook). First, most people simply won't want to do it. Second, even if you were to offer them sufficient incentive (say, a million dollars), most people would have a very difficult time writing the little computer program.

Suppose instead that you select people at random and ask them to get along with each other. Most people wouldn't want to do it and, even with adequate incentive, would have a very difficult time. That is, as with computer programming, very few people have either the skill or inclination to effectively manage interpersonal relationships. To put it another way, most people have serious psychological issues lurking beneath the surface.

There are certain branches of modern psychology that have dispensed with the ideology and abstract philosophy and taken a factual observation based (scientific) approach to the question of how to manage interpersonal relationships (and emotions, generally). This approach has yielded some important progress. While it may seem cliche, one of the key findings is the importance of communication: specifically, certain strategies for effective communication.

So, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

Well, many people in the USA would claim that there is some kind of "God" entity that is opposed to gay marriage (and in favor of proposition 8, specifically). The problem is that this God entity is not employing effective communication strategies (as worked out by certain branches of modern psychology). If there is a God entity and if it does actually want people to vote yes on proposition 8 then, at the very least, it should come down and engage in some panel discussions in which it advocates its particular viewpoint. At the very least, it should post a video blog (along the lines of the very nice video posted above by Lawrence Lessig) in which it lays out its key arguments.

Some people would argue that the "bible" is the God entity's attempt at communication but the bible falls far short of being effective communications by any reasonable standard of modern psychology. First, the bible does not specifically take a stance on proposition 8. Second, and more fundamentally, both the old and new testament contain opinions that, taken literally, are abhorrent by the standard of modern ethics. Just to give one example, there is the whole business about "plucking out" eyes in the new testament. If one does not take the bible literally, then one is left with a jumble of metaphors that are too vague to be, even remotely, considered to be effective communication.

So, at the end of the day, one has to make a decision about gay marriage based on either tradition and culture, generally, or on factual observation. Tradition and culture, generally, have a long history of being wrong (an obvious and relevant example here is inter-racial marriage). That leaves factual observation.

Based on factual observation, does gay marriage harm society? Not as far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, gay marriage actually has substantial benefits. Therefore, proposition 8 is wrong.

Jeff Harmon writes: "The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family."

Mr. Harmon, as a father of two in a traditional family, I cannot disagree more with your statement.

The answer lies in the encouragement and protection of family. Family is not exclusive to heterosexual couples, anymore than it is exclusive to heterosexual couples that naturally procreate.

Creation of family occurs when two people join together with the intention of raising, adopting, creating (via the myriad of choices now available), and nurturing children.

Regardless of their sexual orientation.

My wife and I are not deserving of protected status because we chose and were able to have children in a traditional way. Nor are same sex couples less deserving because they chose to establish their family in a non-traditional way.

This is about equal protection. Not procreation.

Sometimes all one needs to do is observe the behavior of the opposing sides of an issue to discern where truth and right are. In my area, the opponents to Proposition 8 (Traditional Marriage) have repeatedly stolen "Yes on Proposition 8" signs from neighborhoods. Cars with “Yes on 8” bumper stickers have been keyed and spray-painted. Last Saturday, a group of Yes on 8 families stood on a street corner with Yes on 8 signs. The vast majority of people honked their horns, made thumbs-up gestures, or applauded as their vehicles passed through the intersection. While the families stood at the corner, two No on 8 supporters crossed the street and positioned themselves directly in front of the Yes on 8 supporters, trying to provoke a confrontation. When the Yes on 8 families failed to react, the two individuals left. When there were vehicles passing through with No on 8 supporters, most of them shouted obscenities and made obscene gestures at the Yes on 8 supporters. One woman actually screamed (in front of her own child) "Jesus loves everyone you f#&$ing b$tch!!!.”

I've seen and heard enough to make my decision. It is clear that the gay activist have no respect for the freedoms (freedom of speech) of those who oppose them on Proposition 8, yet they demand tolerance from all.

What about the rights of children and parents? Aren't they more important than lifestyle choices? No matter how they try to package it, judges, politicians, and teachers can not rationalize that homosexuality and same sex marriage is "normal" behavior. Homosexuality is not "normal", it's contrary to nature. The union of a male and a female is the only means of procreation. Neither a man and a man, nor a woman and a woman can produce a child. While I believe we should all be tolerant and accepting of people's lifestyle choices, I draw the line when gay activist deceitfully and covertly try to indoctrinate our children and our society that gay marriage is normal and the same as the marriage between a man and a woman. What’s next, allowing marriage between adults and children?

Sneeje: Ummm... your definition of "factual observation" and mine are very different. You use the word fact, but offer none. Even though I agree with your final statement, your evidence supporting it is opinion not factual observation.

Exactly. It is my opinion that an analysis based on factual observation would conclude that gay marriage is beneficial to society. I did not mean to imply, however, that there is a simple proof, based on factual observation, that gay marriage is beneficial. My opinion is that one could easily devote a lifetime to a factual observation based (scientific) study of the effects of gay marriage on society and that the conclusion would be that the effects are extremely complex but generally beneficial.

Strictly speaking, it's not clear that any analysis, even a fact based analysis, can demonstrate that life has a fundamental purpose. That is, it is likely that life has no purpose and that, at the most fundamental level, notions of "beneficial" and "harmful" are meaningless.

What one can do, though, is to observe that people have emotions. People have pleasant feelings and unpleasant feelings. People feel good and people feel bad. People have things they want and things they don't want. One can then, as a practical matter, try to structure a society so that people feel good and get what they want - even though there is no fundamental reason why people should feel good or get what they want.

An immediate problem is that sometimes people want things that are mutually exclusive. A white person wants a black person to ride at the back of the bus but the black person wants to ride at the front of the bus. The principle of individual freedom says that the person who is most affected (in this case, the black person) should be the person that has the most input into the final decision (in this case, the black person should get to decide whether to ride at the back of the bus).

Applying an "individual freedom" analysis to gay marriage, gay people are most affected by whether they get married so they should be the ones to make that decision - particularly, the people getting married (gay or not) should, in general, be making the decision of whether to get married.

There is also a purely experimental approach to looking at the effects of gay marriage on society. One could for example, compare societies that allow gay marriage to societies that do not. While a purely experimental approach can show that allowing gay marriage does not immediately cause the total collapse of a society that allows it, more subtle effects are difficult to distinguish. For example, a society that allows gay marriage may be more prosperous but that may be because a society that allows gay marriage has a greater commitment to individual freedom which allows greater economic innovation.

Anyway, a fact based analysis is very difficult but, in my opinion, it is the right analysis and, in the end, such an analysis would favor allowing gay marriage.

Prop 8 is not about discrimination or denying people’s rights it is about legally defining the term “Marriage” as the recognized legal union between opposite sexes. That said I think that same sex couples should be afforded all the legal rights granted to opposite sex couples who are recognized as legally united or married.

However I do not believe that redefining a term which has traditionally had a meaning referring to opposite sexes is the right way to go about this. Look this is an extreme example but Imagine back when the civil rights movement was happening. America ripe with discrimination everywhere, signs up – WHITES ONLY, No COLOREDS.

Imagine if the great civil rights leaders of that time had decided to fight for their cause the way the gay and lesbian movement of today is doing so… We want to change the definition of the Term White to include all colors, sure that would have gotten the job done, but sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

I just don’t think this is the right way to go about this… and this is why I will be voting YES on 8.

Stand up for your cause!; let people know, show who you are, and what you are and be proud!, don’t be swallowed up into an ambiguous term.

"Sometimes all one needs to do is observe the behavior of the opposing sides of an issue to discern where truth and right are."

Agreed... The "yes on 8" people have been stealing signs everywhere, and this has been reported. Additionally, let's take a brief, yet topical look at the claims and behaviors made by the "yes on 8" campaign, shall we?

"Gay marriage will be taught in our schools"....The California Superintendent of Public Schools has been very clear when he openly stated "Proposition 8 has absolutely nothing to do with schools or children, and using children for these ads is shameful". His view is shared by the California Teacher's Association.

It is a fact, that the children who appear in these ads, have been, according to the actual parents of these children "exploited and I demand that the yes on 8 campaign take down these images of my children immediately! I did not give them any permission to use my child's images and video for anything"! And have in fact, written a letter to the Sacramento Chronical asking that they do the same and also take legal action against the "yes on 8 campaign".

The leaders of the "yes on 8 campaign" are currently under investigation by the US Government for suspicion of misuse and illegal use of campaign funds! They are using your donations to actually pay themselves over $200,000.00 a year a piece to "make your voice heard" by the way!

Cruise "youtube" and you will find videos of "yes on 8" campaign supporters harassing and even physically assaulting the "no on 8" supporters, who did nothing to provoke them except oppose their view point. The "yes on 8" campaign supporters went out of their way to approach the "no on 8" supporters!

Pretty much, each and every claim made by the "yes on 8" campaign has been proven to be a lie and deceitful! And they are mainly doing this, according to their own blatant omission, because it is against their religious beliefs. Yet numerous organizations of the same religious beliefs have openly came out and supported "no on 8" claiming the behavior of the "yes on 8" campaign is against their religious beliefs, teachings, and practices!

Just curious, since the bible actually states in Liviticus that it is "a sin to eat crustations" would you, along with the rest of the "religious" supporters of "yes on 8" support a proposition to ban the sell of all shellfish in the United States? Or did you miss that part and love to go to "Red Lobster" with the rest of them after church and participate in group sinning?

The laws of the US are clearly against forcing religious beliefs on anyone!

I would vote against proposition 8, if only because the government should have no role in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution, not a political one.

From G.G. to Wes:

I really don't think it's that difficult for "normal" people to get the right thumb angles. It was pretty definitive as to which directions I saw them point last Saturday. As far as the middle finger... it's a gesture that says a lot including (1) please look at me, I am a rude and undisciplined moron, (2) I don't have a rational argument so this is the best way I can express myself, (3) I don't care if your 5 year old sees me, F--- her too!, and (4) I support Proposition 1 (if there is one).

Gays should be treated as adults. But that does not change the fact that homosexuality and gay marriage is not normal and should not be taught to our children as such.

Craig Huey's comment is notable because virtually all his arguments are the same arguments used against interracial marriage and other civil rights in our not-so-distant past. Except the ones that are just patently silly like Dobson has to move to Canada so he won't be prosecuted for "hate speech."

He of course attempts to insulate these arguments from the obvious parallels with with the sophistry that was used to deny civil rights to black people for so many years. This he does by simply asserting:

"But choosing one’s personal sexual behavior isn’t the same as what defines one’s race."

Sadly, like so many of the claims about racial inferiority and other "facts" used to oppose civil rights and equality for black people, this statement is simply wrong and the product of nothing but ignorance and a rather amazing lack of empathy. As so many have pointed out, it makes absolutely no sense to state that someone chooses his/her sexual orientation (or to claim that it's merely "behavior") when it's counter to almost every human being's actual experience -- both homosexual and heterosexual. Perhaps Mr. Huey woke up one morning during adolescence and flipped a coin to decide whether to be heterosexual or homosexual, but that's not the way it works for the vast majority of people.

It truly saddens me that so many have learned nothing from the Civil Rights struggles that are so important to this nation's history, or that they can simply rationalize those lessons away in an attempt to continue to stay atop a pecking order to which they have come to feel entitled.

PHOTOGRAPHY DUO MARKUS KLINKO & INDRANI JOIN THE NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=130070193&blogID=444822102

Shika simply repeats the arguments that Huey made, which are wrong now for all the reasons they were wrong when they were used against interracial marriage. S/he then goes on to claim that a bunch of lawsuits were filed against churches and other institutions that refused equal treatment to gay couples. I can find no actual reference to any such cases and s/he provides none. Just lists a bunch of anonymous cases with no names or details. I might well say that a bunch of homophobes sued me for being gay and why should I have to defend myself. True? Who knows. But apparently Shika thinks s/he can just say it and no one will care whether any of it is actually true or not.

Moreover, what do these supposed lawsuits have to do with taking marriage rights away from same-sex couples? If someone wants to sue for discrimination, they can do that regardless of how marriage is defined...and if the case has no merit (e.g. as regards religious beliefs) it'll get thrown out as in one of Shika's phantom examples. Discrimination laws are already on the books and not affected by whether on not same-sex couples can marry.

Finally, one can again go back in history and look at the ban on interracial marriage which the courts overturned some 60 years ago in California (and later in the whole nation) and debunk all of Shika's assertions. Was there a rash of lawsuits? No. Did churches who wanted to discriminate suffer? No. Were people not allowed to believe in racism or were they banned from saying racist things? No. It's all just made-up scary stories to frighten those who can't be bothered with the facts. Timely, I suppose, since Halloween is around the corner, but not an argument that thoughtful people can take seriously.

Well-written article. The NY Times came out with a pretty good article about the issues as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/27right.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I believe this is a very strong, thought out argument. How does choosing who you want to marry weaken marriage, even if it is a human being of your same sexual orientation? I agree with this argument, in that divorce weakens marriage, not homosexuals. In his statement he makes a comparison about banning divorce is like banning same sex marriages. It’s legal for people to get divorces and re-marry, so does that mean we should be able to ban divorce, if we can ban same sex marriages? In your opinion is this a strong argument for why Californians should ban proposal eight on November 4th?

As a Mormon Educator in California I find it extremely interesting that so many individuals find that they are justified by calling people who are demonstrating their civil right to pass legislation as bigoted. I have taught several homosexual students over the years and several continue to come by and visit or give me a hung when I see them around town. They all know I am Mormon and that I am very religious but they also know that I love and care about them as well. I treat all my students the same, whether they are homosexual, drug addicted, over sexed, neglected, on parole, abused, self injuring or just plain normal. Just because I want my religious freedom protected does not mean that I am intolerant of others. When I was younger marriage was a term only given to a union performed in a church, if you were "married" anywhere else it was called a civil union. Religious rights must be protected and marriage is a term established with religious connections. Churches back east have already been challenged in the courts regarding their stand against performing same sex marriage. Prop 8 is not hate but those who stand against it have done nothing but spew hate. We are not bigots. If anyone of you have taken just a few minutes to learn of how our ancestors suffered to ensure these rights, you might understand. It is truly sad that up until 1986, it was legal to kill a person just because they were Mormon in Missouri. Sadly we live in a time where the separation of church and state is blurred and open to interpretation. Prop 8 is to protect religious freedom, instead of name calling, vandalism, and venom, why don't you propose your own legislation?

@WRB:

You call Shika's references to lawsuits "phantom" and say you were unable to find references to these lawsuits. I found many references to these and similar lawsuits with just a little bit of searching (all on sites I've never visited before). For example, here's an article about the Catholic church abandoning adoption in MA: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

Here's an article about a GA counselor who was fired after being sued for declining to treat a same-sex relationship issue: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071717.html

Here an article from the other side of the lawsuit fence -- parents in MA bringing suit because they claim their children are being indoctrinated in school about homosexual lifestyles: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2008/06/parent-david-parker-petitions-us.html

Here's an article (with many reference links) written by a MA resident detailing what was been happening there, in his view: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

This is what worries me about the CA supreme court's decision to overturn the will of the people and somehow find a new "right" in the constitution to same-sex marriage. I worry that this new "right" will be used to force those of us in disagreement with this lifestyle not just to accept it (as most have already done) but to embrace it.

If I chose only to look at Proposition 8 on the surface, I too could conclude that it is anti-gay and discriminatory. However, it is not that simple. People need to stop the lies, deceit, and hidden agendas and focus on facts.

FACT: Whether you believe in God or not, nether God (for believers) nor nature (for atheists and agnostics) designed the human race, or any other species, to procreate and sustain itself in anything other than a male-female union. Homosexuality is not "normal" human behavior no matter how it is packaged.

FACT: “Marriage” is not simply a word that can arbitrarily redefined. Marriage is an institution and tradition founded in religious roots that for thousands of years has stood for and been embraced by humankind as the union of a man and a woman.

FACT: For those who try to use the “Jesus loves everyone” argument, I could not agree more. However, Jesus taught that we should love the sinner, and not the sin. As a society, I believe we should be tolerant of others irrespective of sexual orientation. That does not mean however that we must abandon our religious beliefs and agree that their lifestyles are morally right.

FACT: The State Superintendant of Education has lied to the voters of California. I have read the California State Education Code and it clearly states that marriage is to be taught in the public schools using age-appropriate materials. If Proposition 8 fails to pass, it will be mandatory that same-sex marriage be included in such instruction. Who determines what is “age-appropriate”? The school districts! Parents have no say in the matter. Issues of sexual orientation and marriage (just like religion) should be taught in the home, not in the public schools. (I wish there was as much energy focused on improving the poor academic performance of our schools as there has been on this issue).

The State already recognizes domestic partnerships and individuals in such unions have all of the same basic rights as a man and a woman have by virtue of a marriage. Therefore, I ask myself, what the issue really is here when you look below the surface. By add the pieces together, it is easy to conclude that the gay activists are pushing for society to accept that same-sex marriage is “normal” and the same as the union between a man and a woman and their need to indoctrinate our children with their views.

This issue goes well beyond gay rights. It’s about religious freedom. It’s about separation of church and state. It’s about preserving traditional values. Please vote YES on Proposition 8.

To Remi:

While a feel very strongly about voting YES on Proposition 8, I wanted to thank you for your comments. It was well written and more objective than just about everything else I have been reading. I also appreciate the polite and tolerant tone of your writing.

I, like many others, have a deep concern over the continuing decay of the values and principles of our communities, state, nation, and world and what future we are making for our children and grandchildren. Public debate is healthy and necessary, but to see the hatred and evil acts that people perpetrate against each other in the name of their cause has been disheartening. I have witnessed much of this in the past few weeks, even done in front of young children.

Not to open another can of worms, but I can best express my concerns regarding where I’m afraid we are going as a society by making reference to another divisive issue. I still cannot come to grips with the fact that we, as a society, accept the killing of unborn children. What started as limited use of abortion has now become routine. Now we even condone “partial birth abortion” where the life of a fully developed and viable child is taken in a brutal manner. Where does it stop? We have desensitized ourselves to the point where we no longer can discern between right and wrong. This is all evil needs to take hold and conquer our social conscience. Gays (the minority) want to be heard and demand their rights, but what about the rights of children who cannot even be heard?

So where do we draw the line with regard to the many issues underlying Proposition 8 (Gay rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, parents rights, children’s rights, etc.)? What comes after mandating that churches must perform same-sex marriage and schools must teach that same-sex marriage is normal? Where does it stop? What will we say when the next group pushes for marriage between adults and children? You may think that this is ridiculous, but I’ll bet everything I own that our founding fathers would have thought the notion that we would be “legally” killing unborn children was ridiculous too!

@Ed

I want to add my thanks for a respectful and thoughtful tone and approach. Two things I would point out.

First, it's important to stick to the facts. Ed laments that churches will be mandated to perform same-sex marriages and schools mandated to teach that same-sex marriage is normal. Yet these are just falsehoods. Prop. 8 seeks to take away the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Defeating it has nothing to do with what goes on in churches that don't believe in same sex marriage or in schools. In fact the CA Sup. Ct. went out of its way to point out that religious institutions will not be forced into anything. Again, I go back to interracial marriage, the ban on which was overturned 60 years ago in CA. Are our churches forced to marry interracial couples? No. Are schools teaching interracial marriages are "normal" (whatever that means)? No. Moreover, there's nothing that mandates anything about teaching gay marriage, in fact CA law lets parents opt out of eduational programs like sex ed. that provide information about homosexuality (among other facts of human sexuality). So these, I'm afraid are just red herrings.

Next, Ed raises the slippery slope argument: if we allow gay marriage then allowing pedophilia is inevitable. Leaving aside how offensive that is, it's just a worn out fallacy. We allowed people to own shotguns and then handguns and then semi-automatic weapons etc. did we not? Does that mean we inevitably will have to allow them to own rocket-propelled grenades and tanks? No. We let people drive 65 miles per hour on the freeway, much faster than in times past. Does that mean we inevitably will have to allow them to drive 150mph? Obviously not.

Ed's main point is that he sees an eroding of certain moral values in allowing gay rights, abortion etc. That is certainly a legitimate judgment he is entitled to make. The real question is, to me, when it comes to these very tough and very PERSONAL moral/religious issues on which there is a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement, who should decide? The individual or the government? On these personal moral issues, is there a reasonable realm of privacy and freedom of religion (or freedom from religion) in which individuals and couples make their own decisions, or are their personal family & religious decisions left up to 51% of people who happen to vote? I think the founders answered these questions quite wisely, and measures like Prop. 8 are a serious assault on that wisdom.