Poll: Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage losing

Steering toward a NO vote is really a sad state of affairs.....Do you think if you say it benefits gay people it will win...Think again. Marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else is out of the question!! God created man and woman to be together, not man and man or woman and woman. Domestic partnership affords you all the same benefits and rights as a married couple. But you just won't be satisfied until you break down every moral code we have lived by for thousands of years. It was better when you all were in the closet.

I AGREE

Ignorance is bliss, If a person chooses to get married then let them do it with whom they please, in the end they'll end up getting divorced just like all the heteros, wait...isn't divorce out of the question for you religious folk?? Hmmm, yeah let people do as they please and keep state and church seperate for the good of this country.

devareaux wrote:

Steering toward a NO vote is really a sad state of affairs.....Do you think if you say it benefits gay people it will win...Think again. Marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else is out of the question!! God created man and woman to be together, not man and man or woman and woman. Domestic partnership affords you all the same benefits and rights as a married couple. But you just won't be satisfied until you break down every moral code we have lived by for thousands of years. It was better when you all were in the closet.

Yet another person who is either unwilling or unable to separate marriage in the civil sense from marriage in the religious sense.

I don't care what the legal documents are named. The only thing I care about is that it is the same for everyone.

It's not about redefining the definition of marriage. It's about equal protection under the law for all people. If marriages were called something else; something that does not endorse religion, then maybe folks like you could separate the two in their minds and realize this issue is really about civil equality.

You might think civil unions as a separate and (un)equal institution are a great alternative and should afford all the same rights as marriage... I don't. Perhaps the two might be the same now, and will be some time should California go back to civil unions, but all it will take for one to no longer be the equivelent of the other is a conservative legislature with an agenda to widdle away at the rights a civil union affords.

The only real way we as GLBT folks can protect our equality is through a marriage license. You might say that it is inapplicable because our unions are not marriage. I would say in turn that civil marriage is not religious marriage.

A single civil institution for all is the only way to go. As such, any measures to subtract from the rights that marriage affords would affect all of us equally and would surely be met with near universal opposition.

YES on Prop 8!!!! You only wish it was loosing....we'll see.

Proposition 8 does not discriminate. It is a simple definition of marriage. People can scream that it is intolerant and hateful, but they are ignorant. Homosexual couples are fundamentally different than heterosexual couples and should not be labeled the same. They are psychosocially and physically different.

What would you call two loving adults in a committed relationship? Marriage? What if I told you these one of these two people gave birth to the other one? Well, it may be a mother-daughter/son relationship. We can not and should not make assumptions.

Marriage in my mind is very blunt and clear: A man weded, committed, in a contractural relationship either before God or Society or Both to a woman. Their pyschosocial dynamic is fundamentally different because of the emotional make up of a man and a woman.

That psychosocial dynamic changes completely when you put to women or two men together. It is a completely different type of relationship. To lump them together is to do a disservice to both.

Vote Yes on 8! Stop the Maddness

PS...you can see the liberal media blazing mad as they have come out with a whole new slew of anti-8 articles.

The United States are a big ? mark. Yea for the fact that the polls show the Prop 8 is going to be defeated, on the same page, the government's intolerance is apparent with the raids on so called illegals. Tolerance is tolerance, and should be shown for all.

WMB wrote:

YES on Prop 8!!!! You only wish it was loosing....we'll see.

Ok Jimmy, It's time to grow up. You're no longer the school bully, so stop picking on the sissys already and mind your own business.

...

Reply wrote:

Marriage in my mind...

Nuff said right there.

Reply wrote:

Proposition 8 does not discriminate.

Like hell it does!

Reply wrote:

It is a simple definition of marriage....

A definition that willfully discriminates and institutes inequality.

Reply wrote:

People can scream that it is intolerant and hateful, but they are ignorant.

No one is less ignorant of intolerance and hatred than than the people who are subjected to it.

Reply wrote:

Homosexual couples are fundamentally different than heterosexual couples and should not be labeled the same. They are psychosocially and physically different.

"Labled", what a poor choice of words. You make it sound as if society should give our humanity a different price tag.

Reply wrote:

What would you call two loving adults in a committed relationship? Marriage?

Yes, a committed relationship in which the two unrelated partners have taken vows to one another.

Reply wrote:

What if I told you these one of these two people gave birth to the other one?

I'd say there is no use to granting them them rights of kinship because they already have those rights.

If I'd seen this in person I would probably say the same thing and leave stunned after having grown up in the South and having not seen this happen even once.

Reply wrote:

Well, it may be a mother-daughter/son relationship. We can not and should not make assumptions.

Of course this is not something either of us support- incest that is.

Reply wrote:

Marriage in my mind is very blunt and clear.

In my head there are only two things blunt here: The sharpness of your mind, and that thing your smoking.

Reply wrote:

A man weded, committed, in a contractural relationship either before God or Society or Both to a woman.

I can already get married before God with the partner of my choosing, so that's not the issue. I'd like to be married in front of Uncle Sam too, because you're all allowed to, why shouldn't I? We're equals are we not?

Reply wrote:

Their pyschosocial dynamic is fundamentally different because of the emotional make up of a man and a woman.That psychosocial dynamic changes completely when you put to women or two men together. It is a completely different type of relationship. To lump them together is to do a disservice to both.

Well, everyone has a different psychological makeup so every couple will be unique. If you want to go strictly by statistics, a 50% divorce rate should tell you that half of all married men and women don't have a pyschosocial dynamic that is conducive or fufilling to one another. If you're trying to say gay couples all have bad relationships, please explain first why half of the heterosexual community is also having bad relationships.

Please Vote Yes on 8!!!!To save tradition!!!Stop the madness!!!!

Yes on 8 wrote:

Please Vote Yes on 8!!!!To save tradition!!!Stop the madness!!!!

Translation: Vote yes on hate!!!! It is tradition!!!Obey the madness!!!!

No on 8.
Love does not discriminate.

Vote Yes on 8.
This country is already "going to h...in a handbasket"Why make it worse.

"Vote Yes on 8.
This country is already "going to h...in a handbasket"Why make it worse."

Bitter, party of one? Sorry you hate the gays cause you married one, but everyone deserves a chance at love. Anyone who hides behind the notion that marriage is for men and women is living in a time that has long passed. Go move to Iran or Saudi Arabia if you want to live in a religious ignorant society.

Jesus would have showed people more compassion that half of you so-called "christians"

FTB is lazy. They trail behind IRS every step of the way. The same sex marriage blasted FTB hundreds of miles behind IRS and that is not progress. Does everyone know same sex marriage people have to generate THREE tax returns? 1=state joint which is (REQUIRED) if you are same sex married, 2= pro-forma state tax return which is prepared to file the federal return, prepared as if there was no same sex marriage (i.e. how else could you apportion deductible items) and 3= federal return.

Secondly the biggest danger is that the same sex married community accepts it as if "it is the same". It is not the same. Under estate tax, a spouse has an unlimited deduction for property by gift/descent. Feds will not recognize this for same sex marriage. Same sex marrieds who assume its "the same" will learn, after its too late, that its not the same.

Right now "domestic partners" KNOW that they have to do a LOT of estate planning, tax planning and other contractual fix ups to get done what they want to get done. That is a healthy perception, and needs to continue.

ONLY AFTER the federal system makes some provision for same sex marriage, will it not work a burden on those who seek to avail themselves of it. Its better to continue to do what you want to do with smart planning and mindful realizations, than to be fooled that a simple marriage ceremony and state based parity will constitute "sameness" for federal purposes, and in the U.S. today, the federal system affects us 70% with state & county left with the other 30%.

Congress needs to address the issue once and for all.
These are just two

divorced a gay man wrote:

Vote Yes on 8.
This country is already "going to h...in a handbasket"Why make it worse.

ONE word:
DISCRIMINATION

devareaux wrote:

God created man and woman to be together, not man and man or woman and woman.

The problem with this kind of statement is that in 1959 a Virginia judge said something very similar to justify upholding the state's anti-miscegenation laws:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."
But perhaps you don't worship the same God as that judge did.
I'm sure you will say: "But this now is different." Could you please explain how, and explain how the difference is relevant?
Additionally, for those who support domestic partnerships but not civil marriage: it's very tempting to say, "Why should it matter what it's called as long as these same-sex couples get all the same benefits?" But the resistance in that question shows that it DOES matter!(Otherwise, why the resistance to using the same word across the board?)
Words DO matter. And I think it would be a shame if the people of California end up denying marriage to those same-sex couples who are as intimately committed to each other as any opposite-sex couple could ever hope to be. In our culture, such monogamous commitments are themselves becoming rather "queer." If we value monogamous commitment--so much so that we want to encourage it by providing the benefits and recognition of the civil marriage institution--we might do well to let on board anyone, and any couple, who wants to go for the ride.

Yes, on 8.

The Bible condemns homosexuality. We don't have to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran. The law of God , if you believe in him tells us homosexuality is wrong and sinful. The is nothing ignorant about that.

Leave homosexual, bisexual discussions out of the schools.

Yes on 8