The majority of California voters decided that Judges cannot, by fiat alone, redefine marriage.

For thousands of years marriage has been husband and wife. Until this vote, it was a complete abuse of judicial power to redefine marriage in a way that is radically different and contrary to the will of the people.

I would suggest that gay couple go get their civil unions, and if the feel that civil unions are lacking some important right then fight for that right to be added to the civil union definition.

This is not an issue of EQUALITY but rather an issue of DEFINITION. All citizens have the same marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation, and marriage IS the union between one man and one woman. If anyone should be given a special right to REDEFINE this institution, then to be fair ALL people should be given the same equal right. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.

I am the daugther of a Moroccan muslim father and a Dutch catholic mother who are still happily married. I went to school with a boy who had two mommies and he turned out fine. Gay marriage is permitted in The Netherlands and most people here don’t bat an eyelid at it. One of my coworkers in a former job was married to his longtime partner and they adopted 2 children that are being taken care of very well. How much longer before people stop telling other people who and how to marry?

Scott, I would implore YOU not to speak on behalf of Canadians..Are you even hearing yourself?? A “gay lobby”? You’ve got to be joking. Of all the LGBT people I know, not one of them is walking around trying to “recruit”.

Give me a break. Maybe you should stop letting Dave Rutherford and your pastor tell you what to think. Maybe get out there and talk to some gay people. We only fear what we don’t understand.

I voted for prop 8. Why? Because the court took away my voice. I would have been in the “somewhat disagree” with prop 8 before the courts ruling (I voted against the last two anti-gay marriage amendments).

Courts should not have the authority to decide issues that should be left up to the states to decide in the 21st century. This is not 1960 in Mississippi. Gays have the right to vote, put measures on the ballot, hold office, and have civil unions.

If the court had withheld their implementation of their decree until Nov 5th, I would have voted against prop 8.

Why do those against using the word ‘gay’ with the every so sacred word ‘marriage’ not understand that anything less is still inequality? The same people would say that Rosa Parks got to her destination and was allowed to use public transport….I say, I’m a full-fare ticket payer (taxes) and I don’t want to sit in the back of the damn bus!

Proposition 8 had nothing to do with the church or a religious marriage. It was the denial of a civil marriage to Gay and Lesbian couples. Civil meaning relating to being a citizen. In America, a heterosexual couple can marry in the church if they wish to have their marriage recognized by their religious community and make an oath before their God. That is only one part of their union. The other, is the civil marriage that clergy is authorized by the government to grant, unlike in many European countries that strictly separate church and state. By this authority, a legal marriage license can be granted by an ordained clergy member.

However, a heterosexual couple who do not wish to have their marriage recognized by a church, or who CANNOT have their marriage recognized by their church because, for example, it is a second marriage with a previous divorce and their religion doesn’t allow divorce, or, they wish to marry a person of a different faith and their religion expressly forbids interfaith marriage, can still have a civil marriage that is legally binding in the eyes of American law even though it is not recognized in the eyes of their church. In this case, the government separates religious morality from civil rights.

Gays and Lesbians are only asking to have the same right to marry in a civil ceremony. A marriage performed by a state judge or other state official. This has no effect whatsoever on religious marriage, and would not be recognized by most churches. Proposition 8 would have granted a state recognized civil marriage. NOT a church recognized marriage.

A federally recognized civil marriage provides the utmost protection for any couple.
A straight couple who are domestic partners but not legally married will, like gay couples, find limits on their legal rights and protections when it come many topics, from tax returns to insurance coverage to parental rights. Civil unions also do not provide the same extent of rights and protections as a civil marriage. And a state civil marriage does not provide the same rights and protections as a federal marriage. A gay or lesbian couple legally married in Massachusetts will find their rights null and void outside of the state. But it is the hope, that with each state approved Gay and Lesbian civil marriage, we will eventually be granted the right to a federal civil marriage and have equal rights and protections throughout the United States.

Below is a list of some of the rights lost without a state or federal civil marriage. While some of these rights are protected under domestic partnership, a large number of them are not. Many rights that are lost under domestic partnership are critical social issues, such as healthcare, social security or homeownership. This list was found on the website of the Official Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics:

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

legal recognition of the couple’s commitment to and responsibility for one another;

legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;

legal recognition of a child’s relationship to both parents;

joint or coparent adoption (in most states);

second-parent adoption (in most states);

foster parenting (in some states);

eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;

ability to own a home as “tenants by the entirety” (ie, a special kind of property

ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);

protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);

automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one’s partner;

access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);

access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);

ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;

ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;

recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;

ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one’s partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);

ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;

recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child’s education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;

ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
access to spousal benefits of worker’s compensation;

ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;

privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;

immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);

access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);

visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;

children’s rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;

legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;

domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;

automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

children’s right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;

surviving parent’s right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;

Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;

exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);

automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
access to deceased partner’s veteran’s benefits;

ability to roll deceased partner’s 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

Look up all the countries where same sex marriage has been legal for over ten years. Over ten years ! Come on California , get with it.

If a state allows one group of adults to enter into a contract but not another group, that seems very discriminatory to me. That\’s exactly what it does when it allows marriage by straight couples but not gay couples.

The state should give marriage back to the churches and let them decide who they want to grant the blessings of marriage to, and allow the couples (straight or gay) to obtain civil unions from their state government.

Legal marriage as it exists now (in most states) is a special privilege for one group of people that is denied to another group of people. Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, and that\’s not the case here.

This is a huge disappointment. Not all churches and religions oppose gay marriage; there are those that do support it. If this is about religious rights, how can we deny the pro-gay marriage churches? Are we not denying their rights to grant marriage as they see fit.

This is about ignorance and discrimination. This isn’t protecting marriage, it is only an attack on gay people. How can civil rights be denied to a group by a 5% majority? The majority should never decide the rights of the minority. My heart goes out to all of those in California.