First of all, some finer points that Farhad Manjoo's article fails to point out: the Survey USA poll that is being repeatedly cited as evidence of a shift in voter sentiment is not the most reliable historically. It is the same polling organization that predicted a win for Green candidate Matt Gonzalez in the SF mayoral race not too long ago.

The Field Poll is far more respected as a gauge of public opinion. It has been polling the gay marriage question for 30 years. As recent as September 18th (granted, an eternity ago in politics), it showed Prop. 8 trailing 38-55.

Now SurveyUSA shows it leading 47-42, essentially within the margin of error. Even the director of SurveyUSA cautions: "I wouldn't want to jump on that as conclusive proof of anything." The shift is no doubt linked to some very effective (and misleading) ads by the Yes on 8 campaign; however, both sides are still below the 50 percent mark, with a sufficient number of undecideds to swing it either way. The latest internal polling by the No on 8 campaign (Equality California) shows a 44-44 split, in response to their own wave of advertising aimed at older voters and single women, both decisive blocs. California is a very divided electorate on the issue of gay marriage, and opponents of Prop. 8 never claimed defeating the measure would be easy.

I find it irresponsible and divisive to prematurely blame support for Prop. 8 on socially conservative minority communities, as Manjoo suggests. This is simply not true, and there is no statistic evidence for it, either in the ethnic/racial breakdown of the poll respondents or anywhere else. On the contrary, the most thorough survey of Asian-Americans ever done in the history of polling, released today, shows that 57% of Asians in California plan to vote NO. The reason? "the ability of gay-marriage proponents to frame it as a major civil rights issue. Many Asian-Americans have faced discrimination [themselves]..." Is it possible that other minorities might perceive it the same way?

This is an emotional issue for me. I am gay. I am married. I want to stay married. I want to live in California and feel proud of my state. I do not want to wake up on Nov. 5th with the legality of my marriage in doubt. It is literally keeping me awake at night and consuming my thought each and every day.

So naturally, it irks me to see a journalist writing the storyline on why Prop. 8 is likely to pass when the verdict is still out.

Interesting to see you write about the Asian-American vote. This demographic, which I belong to, doesn't get a whole lot of attention. But you're right that in California, there are a fair number of Asian-Americans.

Certainly, like any community, there is heterogeneity in the Asian-American community when it comes to views (e.g. American-born vs. second generation, Chinese vs. Vietnamese, etc.) but here's two reasons I am voting NO on Prop. 8. and the first may shed light on your point.

1. My family is not Christian. We're not "religious" in the sense of believing in an all-encompassing God. I was brought up under a Confucian-Buddhist-Taoist mix of ethics/ philosophy. So arguments against homosexuality based on church teachings don't work with me and I see it more as further pressure by certain Christians to push their beliefs on others and codify it with law. In some sense, I feel like I can see where Christianity influences American politics better than many people because I was not raised in a Judeo-Christian tradition. I respect other religions but believe in separation of church and state.

Interestingly, I read an article about a media source recently polling people in China about their views on homosexuality (among other things). Although China is socially conservative, most people, while not supporting homosexuality, thought it would be odd if their gov't tried to do much with this. It was sort of a non-issue; there were more important issues to be dealt with.

2. I didn't have a view on homosexuality until a male classmate (popular, smart guy that I used to have fun verbal spars with on many issues) was thrown out by his parents in HS because he told them he was gay. Luckily, another classmate's parents took him in for remainder (2 yrs.) of HS.

Since then, I have had many professional colleagues that are lesbian, gay, etc.

Bottom line is, if people actually got to know someone homosexual in a work or mixed social setting, they might find, other than in the bedroom, they're not all that different.

Heck, I'd go one further and say they might already know someone who just hasn't come out of the closet yet for any number of reasons.

Frayeditor5,

I hope that when you wake up on November 5th you'll find you're marriage is safe and that anyone else who is gay can marry who they choose in California just like we straight folks can.

I recently found out that my oldest brother was gay. This didn't come as much of a shock to me or most of the rest of my family. He's in his late 40s and has never been married or had a steady girlfriend as far as I know.

He does have a boyfriend now and I'm happy for him. They do seem quite different though so I doubt they'll choose to marry but they should at least have that option.

This is a simple matter of fairness and equal rights. Some churches feel thatbeing Gay is a "sin." I thinl that their wrong but this is a free country and they have a right to that belief. A church should be able to choose who they allow to have married in their church but their belief cannot be used to deny the right to civil marriage to homosexuals.

If you don't like gay marriage then don't have one.

Thank you for your post.

I am a 21 year old gay man and I have only recently come out and started dating men. I'm from Massachusetts, but moved to Philadelphia 3 years ago. I hope that one day I can marry whomever I want, wherever I want. I hope I wont be forced to move back to New England, if that's not where my life takes me. I'm terrified that if Proposition 8 passes, it will be a huge set back for progress nation wide.

This article made me tear up because of people just like you. I'm glad I read your post because it gives me hope that the right thing will happen can still happen. I hope that you can wake up on November 5th and know that your marriage is guaranteed. The nation has been asleep on this issue, unfortunately, but I think that people will wake up and start donating to the ad campaign.

Best wishes

I could give three flying f*cks about anyone being gay or getting married as gay... but I prefer to keep that influence away from my 11 year old. That's the crux of the matter and the problem that gay people have in America is that there are too many gay attempts on the children finding news slots for the straight folks like myself to feel comfortable with progressive changes to law.

I don't live in California, but if I did, I wouldn't vote on the matter. Reason being, I think gay couples should have the same tax rights as straight couples (I believe in economic fairness)... hence, I think that translates into allowing gay unions. But, there is the social consequences, and you can bet that I am one of the parents who would be aghast at those commercials. If Adam or the author of the article thinks the commercial is technically unfair; they really are missing the boat on this issue... the bottom line to Christian parents is the social consequences to our children.

You fail to realize that gay people are going to exist no matter what the laws are. Your 11 year old son has just as equal chance of being gay if he lives in a "good Christian home" or was adopted by gay parents. My parents raised me with the notion that being gay is wrong. Guess what. I'm gay. My brother's girlfriend and my best friend were each raised by gay couples. Guess what. They're straight. Research has shown that this does not have any bearing on the child's sexuality. Hell, if you're so concerned about children, you should be in support of progressive laws. The highest rate of suicide, in any population, is LGBT youth.

Your son is 11. You don't even have any reason to believe he isn't gay. Would you want him to live in a society that would accept him or one that would reject him? Think about it.

I want to ask you. If a civil union is the same thing, why didn't you get one?

Let me spell it our real slow so you get the point. Straight parents do not want any homosexual influence bearing upon their children from the schools. Your idea that research has proven it doesn't matter means absolutely zero to me or any of the millions of voters who carry the same concern.

I'm not failing to realize gay people exist, quite the contrary, I realize they exist, I reckonize their right to equal treatment from our tax laws and I also am wary of homosexual influences being exerted upon my 5th grader.

Your perspective that it is a healthy influence in no way has altered my desire to keep it away from my child. My child is having a hard enough time just dealing with puberty. The sooner the gay community reckonizes the rights of straight families to raise their children according to their own preferences, and figures out a way to gain equal access to marriage rights without infringing upon the educational system, the sooned Adam can breathe easy at night and not worry about the state attacking those rights. It's all about the children.

"Let me spell it out real slow so you get the point. White parents do not want any black influence bearing upon their children from the schools."

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

"I'm not failing to realize that black people exist, quite the contrary, I realize they exist, I recognize their right to equal treatment from our tax laws and I also am wary of black influence being exerted upon my 5th grader."

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

"The sooner the black community recognizes the rights of white families to raise their children according to their own preferences, and figures out a way to gain equal access to marriage rights without infringing upon the educational system, the sooner Adam can breathe easy at night and not worry about the state attacking those rights."

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

If it's all about the children, then help us out: Just what are you afraid is going to happen to your child? Be specific. Your first post, if read in a certain way, hinted that your child would be molested ("slots on the news"? Why would there be any news story?) Is that it? Help us out.

What, specifically, will change in your life?

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

because, silly, it is not a racial argument ... why would sexual orientation have to work the same as racial equality? Sexual orientation is not racial equality, (nor segregation, as your crossover argument appears) it is sexual orientation, plain and simple. It has it's own quirks, it has it's own politics, it has it's own realities. There's no reason family values have to pass mustard inserted into segregation arguments; an apple doesn't have to possess an orange peel.

If it's all about the children, then help us out: Just what are you afraid is going to happen to your child? Be specific. Your first post, if read in a certain way, hinted that your child would be molested ("slots on the news"? Why would there be any news story?) Is that it? Help us out.

What, specifically, will change in your life?

A little help for ya: many people believe homosexuality is a sexual orientation that can be attained through personal choice. Whether or not it can also be due to hereditery genes doesn't matter to me, all I care is that it isn't presented to my son as a viable choice before he is of age. What am I afraid of? I'm afraid it will have an undue influence at a tender age; one that we prefer to not recommend. The slots on the news wasn't so much about molestation as it is pointing out that news stories put this fear front and center in parents' minds... we do not want the schools presenting this as a viable alternative to our children ... especially while in elementary or middle school years.

If you are so blind that you are not aware of the desires of Christian families to guard their children from homosexual influences, you really have your head in the sand. Obviously, the thing that we don't want to change is the sexual orientation of our children, which is something we believe is possible. Even if you came up with a slew of professional studies that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is 100% the result of some gene in the DNA chain, we still have our own experiences in real life that tell us otherwise and we still have the scriptures to which we attach more authority than modern science.

So, now I've explained how family values works in the mind of Christian parents. Again, if proponents of proposition H would square themselves with the legal threat to public education's consequences, and eliminate those threats from the law(s) intended for passage to keep homosexual marriages legal, they would find themselves much more successful in their endeavors. But if the consequences of making or keeping homosexual unions legal have repercussions that threaten to bring homosexual influences into the public education system, then opposition will gain traction in a huge manner. Like I said to start: it all boils down to the children.

You haven't answered the question:

If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? What is it about sexual orientation that is so threatening to you compared to everything else?

You're afraid that your son will "choose" to be gay? Well, as a wiser friend of mine than I said:

If your fundamental outlook on life can be changed by somebody talking to you for ten minutes, then that wasn't really your outlook to begin with.

Here's a hint: The overwhelming majority of gay people were raised by heterosexual parents and presented with nothing but heterosexuality their entire lives. Up until recently, being gay has never been presented as acceptable. And yet, there were still gay people.

I am not blind to the desires of parents. I am simply pointing out that we don't accept this "desire" with regard to other aspects of our lives, so why are we picking on sexual orientation? By your argument, Christian families should be allowed to forbid any mention of any other religion in school lest their children become "influenced" by, say, Jews. Now, religion is clearly a choice. So if it would be a crap argument to insist that schools only follow one religious choice, then why does it suddenly gain legitimacy with regard to sexual orientation? What is it about sexual orientation that is so threatening to you compared to everything else?

At any rate, there is already a solution for this: Don't send your kid to public school. If you do not want your children exposed to the full complement of our population, then you need to step up as a parent to control the environment your child grows up in. Our government is responsible to all of our citizens and must provide for them all. That means gay people are to be given the exact same presentation as straight people. If you wish to give your children a different message, then you are responsible for giving it to them.

"Threat to public education"? You mean like teaching about that evil, nasty Jewish holiday that we just had?

If it's a crap argument when applied to religion, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

If it all boils down to the children, why do you wish to make the lives of children more difficult? Gay people have children, you know, and they don't need you making their parents' lives harder.

If you truly want to make things better for children, then it is clear that Prop 8 must be defeated.

Daysman, as a gay person and a parent, let me say that I respect your desire to shield your children from influences you see as undesirable. You would rather your child not know about the possibility of being gay in case just knowing the possibility is there causes him to develop differently. I really do understand that - you think being gay is a terrible fate and/or an incorrect and religiously invalid choice. And as you've said, no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from that belief.

The problem is, most people have awakened to the idea that there's actually nothing at all empirically wrong with people like me. So it makes no sense to pretend that we don't exist "for the sake of the children" - it's really for YOUR sake so that you don't have to work as hard to sell your worldview to your own children. Well, that's not the aim of the public education system. The public education system has to reflect the world as it really is, not the world as you wish it were. If there are children of gay parents in the school system - and there are - then it is not fair to them to require that no mention of their family structure, whether it's legally sanctioned or not, ever be made.

Not only is it not fair and blatant censorship, it's impossible. My children are going to talk about their two moms; your children are going to hear. If you recognize my right to exist in the world, then you must recognize my children's right to truthfully speak about their lives. They are going to draw us into family pictures. They are going to ask us both to come to events. They are going to introduce you and your children to their moms at these events. They are going to refer to us as married, since we are religiously married, even though in our state we can't have a legal marriage yet. When your children say "You can't have two mommies, two ladies can't marry each other" - my children are going to enlighten yours, because no way am I going to teach them to be ashamed of their family for YOUR comfort and benefit.

The sooner you realize this and either pull your children out of school or deal with the fact that your kid is going to know about gay people's existence, and that the school cannot be expected to suppress that knowledge or disparage gay families for your benefit, the sooner you can come to terms with the fact that this is rather a ridiculous objection to our legal equality.

Here, geniuses, what I wrote was very clear and spelled out, so why can't you read it? What on earth is all this dribble about your compassion for my narrow world view? wtf? Read the god damn posts. I begin very definitely by stating I could not give a flying fuck about same sex unions... but I am laying out the political battle you face in getting those measures made into permanent law... duh, duh, and duh. Save me your sorry pathetic condescension to my small position... I was never offering my small position, I don't even have a small position to offer, I have lived all over this country and have dealt with plenty of situations, there's nothing happening out there I'm not far too aware of, I've also been hit on too many times to recount, I have a gentle nature that some men find appealing, but none of that much makes a damn, what you are facing is a political legal battle to compromise your beliefs in order to find political groundf that will enable the laws you seek. Daysman doesn't even live in California, my personal disgust, dismay, and distrust of your social structure isn't the battle, nor is my conviction that laws ought to be fair to all men regardless of social considerations going to aid you one iota, prop H is facing an uphill battle because it is running head on into territory that puts children at risk of exposure to gay situations at school. The moment you go there, your opposition becomes fierce.

My child is being taught in measure as he is ready to handle life. My child is light years ahead of what the average American family social structure teaches to their children about the real world. My 11 year old knows more about life than most the posters on this board, I'm not sure he doesn't understand God better than I do. However, I have very good reasons for wanting him to be able to attend school and not have to be forced into making value decisions that agree with homosexual behavior... there's a reason we use the word, "tender".

As far as social interaction, that is entirely a different matter. I am speaking about what legal ramifications these laws will have on school curriculum. Socially, my child lives over 2000 miles away from your child and is never going to meet your child or his two moms, neither am I. Your line of reasoniing down this blind lane is a moot point. We deal with our social lives as we see fit, it is a free country, I am free to be open minded or closed minded on as many opinions as my meager intellect can handle. Whether I am popular and asinine or withdrawn yet enlightened or hardened but fair or genius but obnoxious, whether I am generous or a snob, whether I can't read but show compassion, or can sing but have no heart, or secretly scared or openly drunk, whatever my social condition, it isn't your concern. Neither does it object to your legal equality. But when you cross the line into school curriculum, even if it is nuances, it becomes a battle because we send our kids to school and we hope that nothing harmful happens. I'm sure you don't perceive exposing elementary children to homosexual behavior as harmful, but it really matters not whether you perceive it, what matters is that millions of families do perceive it as harmful and it will immediately become a roadblock to passage of laws if you can not calculate a legal entrance that allows same sex unions without affecting school curriculums. It is tough to do, because the state is anything but an agile beast and you are dealing with a boiler plate legal structure than tries to keep laws uniform throughout, something that has always made the state a pain in the ass to deal with. You might well have to write a law that explicitly states it has no bearng upon school curriculum or school philosophy and exists solely for the tax purposes of same sex unions.

But to that end, if two people are living in union financially, and for some reason want to file joint, they certainly should be entitled to it as they are financially bearing up the same burdens as married couples. Sex should not be an issue. Those rights need to be reckonized by the state. Hammer that out and leave the children out of the picture and the majority of society is going to see your cause. We might think it is a stupid cause, but it is still your right and should be your right within the law.

"However, I have very good reasons for wanting him to be able to attend school and not have to be forced into making value decisions that agree with homosexual behavior..."

You mean like acknowledging my children's family's existence? Like not forcing them to be silent about their lives for your comfort? That kind of "value decision"? No, you don't have very good reasons to want him not to have to do that. What kind of "value decisions" do you foresee your child having to make in school, were same-sex marriage legal everywhere? Describe just ONE scenario where your child would be forced to do anything but co-exist peacefully with my children.

By the way, if you live 2000 miles away from California, you could very well live next door to me. Where did I say I lived in California? Not that it matters - your children do live near SOME kid with two moms, I promise. It could be my kids, it could be someone else's, but the reasoning is the same.

" I'm sure you don't perceive exposing elementary children to homosexual behavior as harmful"

It's not "exposing them to behavior" to talk about our families.

Today we're going to read a book about Jacob and his family going to the zoo. Mary and Susan are Jacob's moms. They're married to each other just like Kayla's parents, Jennifer and Steven, are in the book we read yesterday. There are lots of different kinds of families. Some kids have a mom and a dad. Some have one mom, or one dad. Some have step-parents. Some have two moms, some have two dads. Some live with their grandparents or other relatives.

There's nothing about that that children shouldn't be "exposed" to. It's the truth, it's child-appropriate, there's nothing sexual about it, and no, there's absolutely nothing harmful about it, no matter what your "perception" is. Your child is not asked to make value judgments about the behavior of divorced parents, single parents, or gay parents. What your child might be asked to make value judgments about is whether or not it's ok to ostracize, bully, make fun of, or otherwise be mean to people (like their classmates!) because of how their family looks. If you're not ok with your child being taught that such behavior is wrong, then I don't know what else to say - you're just evil.

"But to that end, if two people are living in union financially, and for some reason want to file joint, they certainly should be entitled to it as they are financially bearing up the same burdens as married couples. Sex should not be an issue."

Yes, we should have equal access to legal, civil marriage. (Tax filing status, by the way, is not even CLOSE to being the only practical implication of legal, civil marriage.) And when we have access to legal, civil marriage - or even a "separate but equal" legal status, because that works so well - then schools can't pretend that same-sex headed households don't exist. They can't even really pretend that now. Get over it - you can't protect your children from the existence of my children. You can tell them whatever you want about us, but the schools are going to treat us like we exist and like we aren't pariahs or weird, and they are going to include families like ours in the curricula in an appropriate way.

Your problem is that when you think about gay people, all you can think about is sex, not families. That's a ridiculous and bigotted attitude, and kids don't have your dirty mind. It's no more inappropriate to say "Sally and Jane got married" to a Christian kid that doesn't believe that Sally and Jane can get married in the eyes of God than it is to say "Mary Catherine and Gideon got married" to an orthodox Jewish kid who doesn't believe Catholics can marry Jews in the eyes of G-d.

"Those rights need to be reckonized by the state. Hammer that out and leave the children out of the picture and the majority of society is going to see your cause."

What does that mean, "leave children out of the picture"? We have children. We can't leave them out of the picture - they are affected by whether or not their parents are legally married. You're asking the impossible - for us to be legally equal without anyone ever talking about the fact that we're legally equal, at least in front of the kids. That's not equality. It's like if you supported the rights of interracial couples to legally marry, just so long as it was still understood and taught to children that people of two different races CAN'T be married, that marriage is only between two people of the same race.