Comments on: Church and state collide at this polling place

By: oc res

oc res — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:13:07 +0000

If Prop 8 passes, it is an embarrassment to California. I’m embarrased to be part of it.

Marriage is taught at home, not in schools. No churches will be forced to marry anyone. You can hold and teach your own beliefts to your children, but the state and the church should be separated.

Protect marriage?? Why don’t we start with divorce, The Bachelor, Who wants to Marry a Millionaire, Who wants to Marry a Midget, etc.

What a joke. I am embarrased to be a Californian this morning. I thought we were better than that.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:46:24 +0000

Prop 8 Wins

At this point roughly 478,370 votes remain uncounted. These votes come from various Counties which only 3 seem to be against the Prop in current results (Santa Clara, Monterey and Yolo) which will gain roughly 53,636 No and 44,452 Yes Votes. This is not enough to counter Kings, Imperial, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Benito and San Diego yes votes which will add 389,240 Yes and 228,718 No Votes.

The Prop Wins! It is amazing how OC Register cannot put these numbers together and are still holding on to hope that Santa Clara, Monterey and Yolo Counties will shock the State.

By: bob

bob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:56:47 +0000

all you so call church people can not even keep marriage by a man and a women sacred, divorce is at it highest rate all the cheating and changing of partners makes marriage a joke, it is now just a piece of paper used to get a bigger tax break. marriage in the country is a joke, more people that go to church are divorced than married.

By: Jim and John

Jim and John — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:08:29 +0000

If prop. does not succeed, will it be legal for me to marry my brother John? This is a serious question. Thanks, Jim

By: luke

luke — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:58:28 +0000

Leave marriage alone

By: Rita

Rita — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:16:35 +0000

At the end of the day, it comes down to equal rights. EVERY American should have equal rights, not just those you like or agree with. EVERYONE!!

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:48:17 +0000

I was blocked on my way into a polling place with “No on 8″.

I thought it was illegal for people to block or intimidate people from voting.

People need to allow the voting process to happen.

By: DJ Snicker

DJ Snicker — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:29:48 +0000

To piggyback really quick on what Crazy 8 said: The law is interested in registering relationships where two people have a high probability of bringing more people into the society. It shouldn’t have to be concerned with registering every relationship where two people say they like each other but that does not mean it is saying that straights are better than gays. It would be like me complaining that the government won’t give me a gun license when I don’t even own a gun; no, the law doesn’t think that people that own guns are better than me, it’s just saying they are the ones that need the gun license. But nowadays people misunderstand the marriage issue as the law conferring a “privileged status” on married couples.

And there’s nothing stopping gays from coining a term that describes a gay union but they seem to think their union won’t be valid unless they can hijack the term “marriage” and change its definition.

By: DJ Snicker

DJ Snicker — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:11:24 +0000

“The Yes on 8 team has littered our streets and hope to litter our Constitution.”

Wow, that makes a lot of sense. First, in May 2008 four judges overturned the expressed will of the people so to rectify the situation some people get Yes on 8 signs (and are not the only cause with signs - why do you think Yes on 8 people are the only one with signs?). Then those signs are methodically stolen and damaged and uprooted and thrown out in the streets and then the Yes on 8 people get blamed for it? That makes so much sense.

And while some have discussed this here in a religious manner and while I have my own personal religious belief on the matter, as far as Prop.8 goes I have only discussed it with others from a legal point of view and there is good legal reason to restrict the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman.

“By separating the two groups, yet allowing them access to the same rights, they are still discriminating.”

Yes, Yes on 8 supporters are being discriminated against because their unions are called “marriages” but they want them to be called “civil unions” because “civil union” is obviously better. Can you see the bad logic you are using? If both sides have equal rights then why is one side saying the other one’s label is better?

And, yes, heterosexuals could certainly stand a little strengthening of their own marriages That doesn’t mean gay marriage should be allowed.

By: dan

dan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:19:35 +0000

During the civil rights movement, there was justification for discrimination guiled by the phrase “separate, but equal.” That was eventually determined to be WRONG and in fact discriminatory.

Why can’t all of the Yes on 8 supporters see that a “civil union” is another form of discrimination. By separating the two groups, yet allowing them access to the same rights, they are still discriminating.

If we want to strengthen marriage, why don’t we BAN divorce? Doesn’t that weaken marriage?