Protest over Prop 8 in San Francisco 15,Nov. 2008

Thank you for this eye witness piece.

What is Prop 8?

Great coverage and photos! Yes its sad Prop 8 got passed. I hope it will get overturned one day soon.

Are the folks still married who united while it was still legal?  And this is not to upset anyone, but I just want to know:  Why are civil unions not enough?

I see nothing wrong with folks getting married who want to get married.  That is their business, and congratulations on finding someone to love that much.  But I am concerned about the civil employees who would have to choose between facilitating those marriages against their religious beliefs or possibly face losing their jobs.  Marriage takes many folks working, from the judge who declares a couple "united in matrimony" to the secretary who types the license.  Would it not infringe on those civil employees' rights to force them to participate in uniting John with Bob and Sue with Ann if they have strong religious objections?

Just for discussion.  No harm intended.

Mary 

Most laws cannot be made retroactive.

Gay marriage in CA was banned by the legislature and by referendum, then declared legal under the CA constitution by the CA supreme court.  Now it is banned by constitutional amendment by the voters.

In 1972 the US supreme court ruled that states can ban gay marriage through the legislative process without violating the US constitution.

Isn't real marriage a personal commitment between the parties?  Folks can still have their friends and families over to celebrate their union and even have a ceremony without going downtown, right?  I thought the purpose of getting the government to validate a matrimonial union was only to legitimate children, address property issues, and ensure spousal rights under the law.  If those civil functions of government can be accomplished under a civil union for the gay community, what more is there?  Frankly, I don't think I would care enough to march about it.

The CA Attorney General has said that marriages that happened before the amendment was voted on, will still be valid. This will probably be challenged in court, for various reasons. As it is, four different lawsuits have been filed to block Prop 8. Among the reasons is that if gay couples can have their marriage rights removed by a simple majority, so could interracial couples, or non-religious couples, or disabled couples--any minority group could find itself without its civil rights.

Civil unions ("Domestic partnerships") in California offer most, but not all, of the rights & protections given to married couples, and the laws for them are applied in a way that implies they are not equal families in the eyes of the state--which is discriminatory.

Why aren't civil unions enough for straight couples? Why don't they--even atheist couples who don't care about a religious blessing--just file powers of attorney, wills, and various other property contracts instead of getting married? A: because it's not the same. Because there is no set of other laws that provides all the protections of marriage, even on a state level (ignoring the federal discrimination issues), and because the hassle of having to explain to everyone exactly what your rights are as a "domestic partner," when they already know what a "spouse" gets, is part of the discrimination.

This is sad, the fact that anyone questions whether allowing marital rights to same sex couples impeads on someones religious beliefs. 

Because someone works for the state and are required to carry out state responsibilities, like filing paperwork on behalf of a newly married same sex couple, in no way implies that that person is condoning of that process.  I am an advocate for equality, and it is my belief that every person has a right to their own religious beliefs.  However, those religious belief stem from what is to be a personal relationship to their own god.  In no way are you, as a state employee, responsible for the actions of others.  What one chooses to do and how they live their life in no way demeans my marrage or the sanctity of my heterosexual marrage.  More importantly, as an American, we have all taken a pledge to keep church and state seperate.  Therefore, denying any person the opportunity to marry based on religious beliefs has already been deemed unconstitutional.  We have a responsibility to our great nation that we will make decisions for the good of the people, not your church or your doctrine.  If anyone would take the time to read what the Constitution says regarding equal rights, Amendment 14, section 1, it is not possible to deny any person the right to choose their spouse.  When will we finally stand together to demand from our government what we were promised through the Constitution of the United States?