Last weekend I was raising money at the Remember the Red Party in San Francisco for the fight against Prop 8. I was very proud to have raised $475 for the cause, only to read an article in The Sacramento Bee the next morning about a fine Mormon couple who donated $50,000 in favor of the initiative. The weekend before, I was at the gay wedding of one of my closest friends and his partner of 18 years.

I, too, believe Prop 8 is going to pass. I make phone calls twice a week from a phone bank and one can hear the shift. BTW, those kids who attended the wedding on SF all had permission from their parents, btw, so the conservatives don't have anything to be upset about: their parents wanted them to learn about gay marriage. I also think a young girl discovering she doesn't need to marry the prince, but can marry the princess, is exactly what this fight is about, only, of course, I think her knowing that is a good thing. I can only imagine how much better I would have felt in high school if I knew that Joey on the football team was a suitable crush for me as Susie the cheerleader.

People are going to vote on my rights. It is a weird thing, to know that one's rights are so fragile, so malleable. The Constitution doesn't mean anything, because the President can break it with impunity, holding people without charge and without any apparent interference from the Courts. The laws don't mean anything because they can be reversed through a signing statement. We can't have socialized medicine, but I gather socialized banking is good, as long as the government only coughs up money and doesn't try to stop the yahoos that got us in this mess from continuing to run things. Now, we just vote on who is a full citizen and who is second class. The Mormons, whose rather strange views on marriage used to get them strung up from a nearby tree, our now pouring money into insuring others differing views on marriage are strictly forbidden.

Manjoo, glad to see you are stretching your wings a bit from the tech stuff. You are evolving from a good tech writer into a great writer. Good stuff.

I'd say the bigger issue on the "field trip" if it was done during school time is that is it really of that great an educational benefit? I don't see how having a class field trip to attend any personal function for the teacher is really appropriate on instructional time, be it a gay wedding, a straight wedding, a birthday party or some sort of civic award presentation.

I'll be voting no on Prop 8 myself, and think it's ridiculous that anyone feels the need to take this to such a level in the first place.

I sort of like Bill Maher's idea of just getting the state out of the business of being involved in marriage for anyone (largely because I'm not much interested in whole concept of getting married myself in the forseeable future), and at some level wish that I had the excuse of lacking the legal right to marry myself sometimes. But if it's going to be avaialble, I can't see the possible harm in allowing it for whoever wants it.

I am voting YES on prop 8 because it isn't just about gay rights, its about religious rights. Read the NPR article linked below for more details on the following situations:

<link>

1. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities, the oldest adoption agency in the United States had to close its doors to avoid being forced by the state to violate its belief that adoptions should only be made to heterosexual couples.

2. A family photography business in New Mexico was sued and forced to pay over $6,000 because, due to their religious beliefs, they chose not to photograph a homosexual committment ceremony.

3. A California doctor was recently sued for declining to provide invitro fertalization services to a lesbian couple becuase it was against his relegious beliefs. The doctor lost the lawsuit.

A vote of yes on proposition 8 protects religious freedom and freedom of thought. That is why I am voting YES on Proposition 8.

I think that gay and lesbian couples who choose to be a part of a civil union should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples, but redefining marriage is NOT the answer. I invite you to join me in voting YES on Proposition 8.

None of the cases cited above will be affected by Prop 8. Rewrite all of them into racial issue and you see why the Courts ruled (when they have, not all the cases have been resolved) as they did. They have to do with anti-discrimination laws and not marriage.

First, Catholic Charities has not had to close its doors. It is still open and serving a wide variety of clients (they are at 75 Kneeland St, Boston, MA 02111) for a wide variety of issues. They have, however, had to stop offering adoption services under a state contract because they could not comply with the conditions of the contract requiring they offer their services on a non-discriminatory basis. They are free, however, to provide adoption counseling without money from the State of Massachusetts. I think if a second-hand store run by a church tried to operate so that it served whites only, the courts would, rightfully, recognize the business operation of the church must confirm to the same laws as other businesses. They could not discriminate on the basis of skin color. If a church decided to operate a soup kitchen for whites only, using state funds from the Ag. Dept. surplus food program, the courts would rightfully step in.

Churches may practice all sorts of discrimination in the operation of their church functions (women can't be Catholic Priests, blacks can't be ministers, opps, now they can, etc.), but must obey the laws of the land when they choose to enter the market place.

Again, the photography business, the doctor, et al,l are businesses and must conform to the same non-discrimination laws as other businesses. If someone wants to enter a particular business, they have to serve the general public. This has been the basic enforcement of civil rights law since Lester Maddox had to sell his restaurant rather than let blacks eat in it. That the photographer was SO STUPID as to say why they didn't want the gig means I am having some trouble feeling sympathy for them. A simple "we're not available" would have done, rather than "not for you lesbians."

Homosexuality is simply not a moral issue, however much ignorant bigots want to make it so. One's sexual orientation is as much a choice as skin color and considerably less so than one's religion.

Churches will not be forced to conduct any kind of marriage they don't wish to. Catholic churches cannot now be forced to marry non-Catholics (or even Catholics they don't like) in their facilities and the same will be true for gay marriage. However, if the facility is not a church, but a restaurant open to the general public that rents spaces for weddings, then the facility can be forced to host gay weddings, just as it can be forced to host a Jewish wedding, even if the restaurant is owned by a church. Once one choose to enter the public market place, one must conform to the rules of the market, whatever one's private beliefs. Don't want to play be the rules, don't play the game.

There aren't any religious rights here. One's religion does not give one a free pass on the rules others must follow. However much your religion forbids you paying taxes, you must. However much it commands one to have sex with underage girls, you can't. If your religion forbids you giving blood transfusions to blacks or fertilization services to lesbians, then don't be a doctor. If your religion forbids charging interest, don't be a banker. If you're an Orthodox Jew, I think being a food taster at Honey Baked Ham is not the job for you. There aren't many Amish NASCAR drivers, nor software developers.

"The Mormons, whose rather strange views on marriage used to get them strung up from a nearby tree..."

Yipes. As someone whose ancestors hung from said trees as punishment for "rather strange views," I can say you lost my sympathy with that gem.

Really, MacAdvisor. How you can moan that your "rights are so fragile," then swing around and display Michael-Richards-at-the-Laugh-­Factory insensitivity about the fate of a group that suffered similar discrimination? Or is inequality only wrong when it's happening to you?

Mormons were brutalized for their religious views; that is a historical fact. There is a common history of persecution between Mormons in the 19th century and gays today, on the issue of marriage.

MacAdvisor's allusion may have unfairly generalized lynching and failed to recognize its particular historical context in the South, but I do not think he was belitting blacks or somehow suggesting that history is comical.

You're right at the end -- with all the important issues facing us as Americans today, we cannot afford to splinter off into identity-based interest groups and worry only about the advancement of our own individual causes.

So I hope you will vote NO ON PROP 8 as a civil rights matter.

If you vote no on Prop 8, where does it stop?
What other life style choices will crop up as so called civil rights matters?

Everyday, people use their "religious beliefs" to sheild themselves from the consequences of their bigotry. It's wrong, yet it's a longstanding social norm.

What is the reason behind denying others the right to marry, other than personal disagreement with their lifestyle? Call it religious beliefs all that you want, but it does not change the fact that it's nothing more than predjudice. It's designated exclusion that explicitly denies others the same rights out of fear and/or the desire change your perspective. It's no different than racism, sexism, anti-semitism, or any other ism. It's wrong, plain and simple.

I did not mean in any way to imply the horrible treatment Mormons received was in any way justified. They held different views on many matter, marriage being one, and suffered cruelly because of those different views. They were hung, tarred and feathered, shot, and had their homes burned to the ground, often with them inside. This country's treatment of Mormons is shameful. If living in Utah is a better alternative, then one is clearly being mistreated. Many died in the settlement of Utah, not the lushest of landscapes, and it was only necessary as a way to put enough distance between the Mormons and their persecutors.

However, one would think the Mormons would then understand the importance of tolerance and acceptance of those that are different. Instead of using their experience to help others who are suffering, they are now pouring vast sums of money in to a campaign to persecute another minority. I am rather glad they are not subjecting us gays to the same physical abuse they suffered in their early days (though I have a creepy feeling they would if they could), they are hardly helping to achieve the tolerance for alternatives they so desired.

At the very least, their early days proves marriage has not historically been between a man and a women (in their case, it was between a man and several women), but has had many variations from community to community.

Homosexuality is simply not a moral issue, however much ignorant bigots want to make it so. One's sexual orientation is as much a choice as skin color and considerably less so than one's religion.

Where is your proof? By everything I have read it has not been proven to be genetic, but environmental. If it was Genetic then Identical twins would share a sexual orientation, and they frequently don't.

While there have been studies to change the sexual oriantation in animals, this only seems to prove that it would be a genetic defect, not a normal part of the genetic code.

With the little evidence that is out there it is very reasonable to conclude that it is a choice of character, not of genetics, and therefore it can be regulated by law.

I have to agree. I am a little predjudice. I am predjudice against those who murder. I am predjudice against those who steal. I am predjudice against those who lie, or commit fraud. I am predjudice against many choices that people make.

Now, why am I predjudice against these acts. Because I believe them to be wrong. There are those who disagree with me on every choice I have listed. However, because the majority of society agrees with me these acts have been made illegal.

Now, there are other choices I am predjudice against, but they have not been made illegal. Among these are adultery, abortion, drinking, smoking, sex-changes, etc. Homosexuality is also on this list.

Now, I am predjudiced against these choices for the same reason; I believe them to be wrong. And just like the first list, there are those who disagree with me. With these, hoever, the majority of society does not agree, so they are legal.

Now, I do not believe the Federal Government, or any other government (except perhaps local) has the right to outlaw any of these choices. This being said, I also do not think the government has the right to try and force me to accept them. I will tolerate them, as they are legal, but I will never except them.

As to it being no different than the other isms you list, I have to disagree. The isms you list are predjudice against things that cannot be changed, or chosen. All the choices I have listed and just that, choices, and are therefore of a different type of ism.

First, the examples you gave all have an adverse affect to them, i.e. there are victims, which is why they're outlawed.

Secondly, you think of homosexuality as a choice; every gay/lesbian that I know does not feel that way. As one such friend put it to me once: "Why would I choose this? Why would I choose a life of discrimination, hate, and ridicule. It would be a million times easier to be straight."

All that aside, gay marriage harms no one. It just doesn't fit with the accepted definition of marriage. It's an antiquated perception, just like slavery.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints, I must say a few words regarding this.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are wondering on what basis the LDS church opposes homosexuallity when we were persecuted for our views on marriage?

First, the LDS have never "persecuted" homosexuals in any way and would never inflict the abuse they suffered on anybody, regardless of the reason.

Second, you reason that the LDS should be more sympathetic to homosexuals because of the abuse they suffered. With this you must also conclude that those that tormented the LDS in the 1800's should have been sympathetic to them, as they had been persecuted in Europe for the same reasons.

Third, the LDS understand the importance of tollerance perfectly well. This can be shown in the fact that anybody, regardless of race, ancestry, creed, tongue, or life style is welcome to our worship services. We help all people with our humanitarian aid with equal zeal. We live quite comfortably among those of all religions.

So I guess since there is not a genetic or environmental link to autism, it must also be a choice.

I agree there is not yet definitive proof of what causes one's sexual orientation, however, there is much evidence that orientation is well fixed very early in life, perhaps even prenatally. I suspect there will eventually be a set of genetic and uteral hormonal changes that create one specific orientation over another.

All of that aside, unless one is heterosexual and believes one could just decide to be homosexual, then I think the idea one is homosexual and could just decide to be heterosexual is clearly ludicrous. One is stuck with one's sexual orientation, just as one is with skin color or ancestry. Moreover, one's orientation is clearly well before one is responsible for one's moral actions. Both Christian and Judaism (I am not conversant enough in other religions to know, but I assume) make a distinction between actions before moral responsibility. "Today, I am a man" means "I am now responsible for the moral choices I make."

One can, however, easily convert from one religion to another. A Christian can just decide to become a Muslim (there is some work involved, but nothing overly burdensome). One's religious beliefs are absolutely a choice. I wouldn't want someone discriminated against because of their religion, a matter of personal choice, so I don't want people discriminated against based on their sexual orientation (or skin color, or ancestry, et al).