Field Poll Released Today Still Shows Prop 8 to Eliminate Same Sex Marriage Rights in California Behind 44% to 49% Despite Massive Advertising Blitz

It is shocking to me how many people support the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but are opposed to making this a constitutional amendment.

It should be obvious to all supporters of traditional marriage that changing the constitution is the only way to uphold our beliefs and desires.

As we have already seen from the actions of the California Supreme court, the government does not care what the majority want. They are more interested in listening to the more vocal minority.

Do people really realize that changing the definition of marriage in California isn't beneficial to the same sex couples being married? With the exception of Massachusetts no other state recognizes same sex marriages, therefore these same sex couples married in California are no longer recognized as married couples when they leave the state.

These same sex couples should be instead pushing to receive additional benefits of domestic partnership acts (the right for pensions when a partner dies, be recognized in medical decisions and such). They would find more support for their causes in this pursuit of their goals.

By not voting for this constitutional amendment, you are telling our state judges that the majority does not matter and they should instead listen to the more vocal minority. You are stating that you want less control in your daily life; such as being able to control your children's education, requiring adoption to same sex couples, preventing instruction of biblical principles that will become hate speech.

This all brought about by the cowering of the majority to speak up and be heard. The homosexual movement is getting just what they want, acceptance and approval of their lifestyle instead of the toleration that the law provides.

Homosexuals have the right to make their lifestyle choices without requiring us to accept them into our lives. If they wanted to be married so badly, they can always go to Massachusetts for that blessed piece of paper. When you objectively look at the decision at hand you will realize that this is not about being labeled as married it is instead about the move to require society to accept the lifestyle choice made by homosexuals. There is a distinct difference between choices people make and circumstances that are put on people such as race and ethnicity.

Michael Tidd is ignorant. Being Gay is NOT a "Choice". No one is "forcing you to accept them". You however, would chose to change the constitution (to write in discrimiation) and force others to be treated unequally under the law. This is about equal rights for all citizens. Being married allows us an additional 200 rights that we do not get under domestic partnership. This is not about religion, this is not about children, and certainly not about forcing anyone to accept something that they personally disagree with. This is about Equality. Do the right thing and Vote No on Prop 8.

Michael Tidd is ignorant. He states "There is a distinct difference between choices people make and circumstances that are put on people such as race and ethnicity". Being Gay is NOT a "Lifestyle Choice", it is EXACTLY a circumstance that we are born with, just like race and ethnicity. No one is "forcing you to accept them". You however, would chose to change the constitution (to write in discrimiation) and force others to be treated unequally under the law. This is about equal rights for all citizens. Being married allows us an additional 200 rights that we do not get under domestic partnership. This is not about religion, this is not about children, and certainly not about forcing anyone to accept something that they personally disagree with. This is about Equality. Do the right thing and Vote No on Prop 8.

The reason we have a written constitution and an independent judiciary is to protect minorities from the prejudices of the majority. There is nothing undemocratic about the California Supreme Court interpreting the California Constitution to guarantee equal rights to a minority group, whether based on sexual orientation, race, religion, or other criteria. This race has been so painful for my partner and I to see. If you don't think the "blessed piece of paper" means anything I guess you wouldn't care if your marriage got voted down and your children couldn't get married.

"If they wanted to be married so badly, they can always go to Massachusetts for that blessed piece of paper. " This is the perfect example of discrimination from an extremely ignorant person. The fact that he calls homosexuality a choice futher shows his ignorance. One day he will look back on these archaic views and realize just how ignorant he is.
VOTE NO ON 8!!

Micheal T. What is really shocking is how many people think it's ok to vote to ELIMINATE the civil rights of a small group of citizens.

Just say NO!!!
VOTE NO ON PROP 8

I have doanted several times to the No on 8 campaign. I hope this hateful ammendment fails miserably. It's horrible to see people's right be put up for a public vote. I can't believe the people would take someone's rights away when it doesn't even affect them; it's sickening.

To Michael Tidd and others like you, my partner of 9 years and I got married yesterday. There's nothing you can do to reverse this. I'm looking forward to this incredible power we supposedly have to destroy your "traditional" marriage and of society as a whole.
My "choice" to be gay is about as likely as your choice to be straight. Though supporters of Prop 8 made their choices: bigotry and ignorance, both of which you've clearly shown to possess.

I applaud Michael Tidd for his eloquent rant and tell him that the silent majority hold his same beliefs. He summarizes the feelings of most Californians who feel that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. I hope their voice is heard on election day and not drowned out. Marriage is not a right, nor was it instituted by government for the benefit of its citizens. It was adopted by government from religion to create a contract bound by laws. Therefore, the government and all of its entities, judges and legislatures alike, should not be able to redefine what marriage is and is not.

As to those who say being gay is not a choice, I agree with you in part. While the feelings you have are not a choice, the lifestyle you live is. I should know because I am attracted to men, and have been since a young age, but I CHOOSE to live a traditional lifestyle with a commitment to a wife and kids. Is it difficult? YES! Is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY! If there is anyone who could truly understand both sides of this issue, I am him. I live it every day of my life. That's is why I urge you to vote as I am, YES on 8!

Michael Tidd needs to get a clue.

"As we have already seen from the actions of the California Supreme court, the government does not care what the majority want."

actually, what we have seen from the California Supreme Court is that they can recognize when something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It's sickening how much money is being thrown around in support of prop 8. The propaganda is offensive and idiotic.

What will REALLY happen if homosexuals are allowed to marry in California? The biggest argument I have seen from prop 8 supporters has to do with the school system, which really is all a bunch of B.S. Do you really need to freak out if your kid learns that it's "acceptable" for two men or two women to marry? Why? Because your kid might then think it's okay to become homosexual? GASP! Then what?

Will you love your child less? Seriously, what will happen? If your child learns to accept homosexuality, how does that effect anything negatively? The only negative outcome I can forsee is that your child may lose respect for their parent. That sucks.

Just because the "majority" believes something should never dictate how our democracy works. Remember, it used to be not only legal but perfectly acceptable to own slaves. The majority thought it was just peachy. Tired of hearing that argument. Keep your narrow marriage views in the church where they belong.

My partner and I were married on July 4th. There are over a thousand laws that pertain to marriage. One of these laws states at the Customs Office that a married couple can go to the counter together. At the time we took our first cruise, a short four day one to see if we would like it, both of us being seniors. We had a domestic partnership at the time. Wally has some dementia from a stroke a few years ago and needs assistance. He can get lost easily and confused. We've been together for quite a while and I went to the customs agent, telling him we had a domestic partnership and that my partner had some dementia, could we come up together?

No, was his answer, we had to come up singly, the Federal Government doesn't recognize domestic partnerships. Wally went first and it took quite some time. The more agitated the agent became the more confused and frustrated Wally acted. Finally, he let him by but wouldn't let me go up until my partner left the area. Once I was through I went frantically looking for him. Some people who worked for the cruise line were trying to calm him. He was crying, trying to board the ship thinking I was still on board.

Now it's true the agent didn't have to do what he did, but he did. The law was on his side and it's true the federal government doesn't recognize marriage except for a man to a woman. But how unnecessarily cruel it all was for two old people who only wanted to try and enjoy a cruise like so many other retired people do. We never went on another cruise. We're not afraid of going to other countries, but afraid of coming home to our own country. Is this the answer Christians have for compassion to gay people? Why must we be subject to any religious beliefs. This is suppose to be America where you are free from religious persecution, yet it is happening here. We don't need to go to war in the Middle East to fight terrorism, we have become the enemy with the religious right tearing our constitution to shreds. They want us, like the Taliban, to live under their religious doctrine and that will surely lead to the destruction of freedom for all of us, both straight and gay.

There is another solution. Dissolve all the laws that pertain to marriage, making it the same whether you are single or married. Either way, there should be equality for all, or freedom is just a word that has no value.

Regarding Michael Tidd's comments:

"It should be obvious to all supporters of traditional marriage that changing the constitution is the only way to uphold our beliefs and desires."

You mean, to enforce YOUR religious beliefs and YOUR religious desires - as they pertain to other people's lives.

"As we have already seen from the actions of the California Supreme court, the government does not care what the majority want. They are more interested in listening to the more vocal minority."

One purpose of a constitution is provide protection from the majority. The pilgrims left England because they were a minority having the religious views of the majority enforced upon them. Proposition 8 attempts to strike a direct blow against religious freedom.

Tidd's paragraph beginning with "By not voting..." is so poorly worded it would be difficult to respond to.

Part of Tidd's argument is that homosexuals can always go to Massachusetts for "the piece of paper".

Mr. Tidd, if there were no Massachusetts option for gay couples, would you then A) consider Proposition 8 "Unjust" or B) still consider it "Just"? Either is absurd - case A) The availability of the Massachusetts option "justifying" Proposition 8 in California, or case B) The availability of the Massachusetts option making Proposition 8 "more just".

"This all brought about by the cowering of the majority to speak up and be heard."

Again, the majority does not have the ethical right to enforce their religious views on others. Proposition 8 chips away at the ideal of religious freedom and is a small step in the direction of countries requiring women to cover their faces and be accompanied by a male relative when leaving home, stoning those who don't conform. The difference is one of degree.

[General Comment - Not directed at Michael Tidd]

This attempt by religious zealots to impose their religious beliefs on the lives of others is scary. It's one more reason an intelligence/knowledge test should be part of the voting process. A relative of a friend of mine didn't want my friend moving to "Silicone Valley", because of "all those breast implants". Yet, that person's vote counts exactly as much as that of a Thomas Edison, a Samuel Clemens, a Henry Ford, or a George Washington Carver.

Such a test (no matter how challenging) would not keep Proposition 8 from receiving votes, but could almost certainly keep it from passing.

Proposition 8 is unjust. It is unethical. It is wrong.

Brent....what you CHOSE is not everybody's choice. You cannot impose your choice on people who chose the other by voting Yes on 8. I think you are naive in making that comment. The Constitution states "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". My question to you is...are you happy in your chosen lifestyle? A person should be able to choose a lifestyle that they believe they will be happy in and that is not your choice but that person's. You do not choose it for him/her just because you do not agree with their choice.

If you and Michael Tidd think that MARRIAGE is a religious word then what if we change all the laws to replace the word 'marriage' with 'civil partnership' thus eliminating all references to religion/prejudice and rendering the DOMA law ineffective? Is this something you can agree on?

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.