Collegiate Times

Michael Savage said that "people who don't have families ... don't understand what the family unit is. It's the strongest bond on Earth," "which is why homosexual marriage is such a threat to civilization itself." And Jeffrey Feldman at FrameshopIsOpen.com distilled the essence of the Hard-Right Nationalists into the universal statement: "America is under siege from the outside and the inside by [foreigners] who seek to take control of our property, end our way of life, and destroy us." I added the brackets, because you can substitute [homosexuals] or [socialists] or just about any [other] with equal ease. Then you put that statement -- almost never spoken aloud -- behind the barrier of "Religious Freedom" and, bob's yer uncle, extremism is no vice in the defense of "Religious Liberty" (God, I love using Scare Quotes!)

The Mormon Church, except for a $2000 reimbursement, did not donate to this campaign. Members of the Mormon Church donated approximately 40% of the almost 30 million raised. Most of this came from Californians. Are you saying that Mormons can't donate and should not have a voice in politics? How dare anyone disagree with liberals or want to support traditional values.

"...the Mormon Church spent the staggeringly gross sum of $30 million..." The Mormon Church did nothing of the sort (please check your facts before stating them). Many persons who are members of the Mormon Church donated alot of money, which is nothing new, as Mormons donate alot of money to many causes in which they believe, including dozens of charities and non-profits. (Interestingly, Utah has the highest rate of charitable giving, as well as volunteerism, of any state in the country.) Also, more money was raised and spent by the No on 8 campaign, and more out-of-state money went to the No on 8 campaign. And Prop 8 still somehow passed. "A well-organized onslaught of negative television, robocalls and canvassing based around fear and misinformation." This actually refers far more to the No on 8 campaign, as here in California I saw far more twisting (and in some cases, hiding) of the truth from the No on 8 ads. "One wonders at the kind of people who are so insecure in their own life..." Answer: gay couples. Gay couples in California enjoy essentially all of the rights and responsibilities as straight couples. It would seem they need their unions to be called marriages in order to feel like their way of life is completely accepted and normalized by mainstream America.

Sure lets have all types of marriage. M/M/F, F/F/child, brother, sister, & uncle. Why can't I marry my daughter so I can pass on my estate. I love her & that's the only requirement. Right!!

The Church didn't hesitate to push the negative attention onto the African-American community. Where did this information come from, searching random news reports? The Church never shifted any attention to the African-American community. Find a direct quote from a spokesperson of the Church who is shifting this attention. At its best, this article is libelous.

I thought "A Few Observations" hit it on the head. Gays do have the same rights as married couples. This is about their insecurity and gaining mainstream acceptance. That's where Jeremy is a little misguided about the churches. Nobody said churches would be closed they just said churches (like the Boy Scouts) will inevitably be sued for discrimination against gay couples. Even if it's against religious belief or practice. As we've seen in the aftermath of Prop 8, this group will stop at nothing to impose their will on the religious.

The whole purpose of marriage in society is the declaration of a new breeding pair. I've never been anti-gayrights before but I don't see them as a hard done to minority this time, I just see them as being unreasonable. Stand together, protect the meaning of our ancient institutions, marriage is not a tax break or a ticket to citizenship or a fashion accessory.

The majority has spoken, just as it has in the presidential race. Could you imagine if people took to the streets to protest Obama's victory? They would be called racists for sure. Just like in 2000 and 2004, many people (liberals) refuse to accept defeat, and refuse to believe anyone would disagree with them.

This author uses misinformation to has created a simplified straw man that he handily defeats. At the very least, we could hope that he would be able to do the cursory internet search necessary to discover that the Mormon Church donated $2,000 with the rest of the Mormon donations coming from individual members of the church. Perhaps he could argue that this is still shady, but I believe that contributing to a campaign is America still legal in America. Of course, he wouldn't even know what the Mormons contributed that if it hadn't been for mormonsfor8.com efforts to round up contributors based on their religion. In other words, the issues are complicated and this article is very poorly researched and written.

Shame on you. Shame on you for targeting a single group of people, excoriating them for exercising their civic rights and participating in our democracy. Shame on your for your lack of honest research and journalistic integrity. There is much, much more to this story than the simple sound bites of fallacious reasoning co-opted from the talking points published by the losing side; pinning the outcome of an election on a religion rather than further examining the issues. I call on the owners and editors of this paper in the strongest terms available to publicly and loudly repudiate and denounce this kind of bigotry as well as censure its author.

Sadly, you have only succeeded in writing a thinly-veiled, unsupported hit-piece that more rightly belongs in a footnote on the opinion page of a backward and less distinguished paper. You cite no sources for your statements and present them as universally accepted and true whereas the evidence on the contrary is overwhelming. (Between Google and Google scholar searches all of the statements written here can be easily substantiated.) It lashes out at one church and one church only because for some strange reason in America, it is still acceptable for the Mormon Church to be on the receiving end of such yellow journalism. Substitute "Mormon" with any other religious group and this article would be soundly decried as thoroughly bigoted and prejudiced. But I suppose if your only exposure to the Mormon Church was through those bastions of truth and accuracy like "South Park", you could easily be forgiven. But you KNOW better, don't you.

Fact #9 - You smugly call for the revocation of the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status as if that made a difference in the election. Case law and jurisprudence clearly rests on the side of ANY organization wishing to participate in a non-partisan political effort without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Go down this path and you're on a slippery-slope to "punish" any organization that is at odds with your ideas, opinions, and beliefs. One day, it may be your own "beliefs" or organization on the receiving end. Oh…Looks like that 1st Amendment thing is getting in the way again… Fact #10 - Saying "gay marriage" doesn't hurt anyone is a bit premature. I think many in Massachusetts and even elsewhere in the country would beg to differ. The LGBT community has used gay marriage as a "bully pulpit" to silence and intimidate others to do that which goes contrary to their rights and their own opinions. The very term "Diversity" implies DIFFERING attributes. It's a two-way street. Same thing can be said about “tolerance.” It goes both ways and has never meant to "affirm". There may be some clarity after the first generation after the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts enters adulthood. Until that time I am personally leery of social experimentation that would redefine marriage. There is much much more that could be written about your fact-checking (or lack thereof).

Fact #8 - Governments in general and societies at large since the beginning of recorded history have a compelling interest to protect and shelter those institutions that will ensure the perpetuation of the human race. Marriage, between a committed man and committed woman, is the best (also academically substantiated) place to nurture the future generations of the human race. Society also recognizes other "arrangements" will exist - but we have never before called these "arrangements" marriage.

Fact #7 - Sexual orientation is not necessarily immutable. Granted, this is hotly debated. However, the preponderance of academic evidence in this regard is irrefutable and growing rapidly. Yes, I know...you'll start slamming me with all kinds of studies that "prove" the "born-gay" argument. Unfortunately, the majority of those studies contain questionable methodologies (sample biases, etc) and the rest draw unsupportable conclusions from the analyses, which has only opened the door to more scrutiny. The real bottom line is that science still can not say with any certitude the facts about the “causes” of homosexuality - except to say that a combination of experiences, choices, culture, genetic predispositions all MAY influence these outcomes. Further, many studies currently suggest that among the LGBT community, sexuality has a very fluid definition, moving in and out of hetero-, bi-, and homosexuality. For the civil rights argument to gain any LEGAL traction, the "born gay" idea must be solidly proven. And that’s why so much effort has been put into it. Unfortunately it’s losing ground on the science front. I have never known of a single instance where someone’s race can be changed…the same though is not true regarding the LGBT community.

Fact #5 - You allege that the Mormon Church "reached out" for the first time to minorities since 1978...What are you really trying to say??? I think that would come as a surprise to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation members of the Mormon Church that are also members of the "minority" you reference! And all while failing to mention more and more of these "minorities" are finding a welcome place within the membership of the Mormon Church. Your bigotry in this area is absolutely vile. Fact #6 - You also sound like you are a suggestive to conspiracy theories. Sadly, even using the most conservative estimates, MAYBE 2.5% of the total vote in California came from members of the Mormon Church and of that total probably contributed less than 5% of the "yes" vote for Prop 8. (Which means there were MORE Catholics, Evangelicals, African-Americans and others in sheer numbers of votes and voting percentage than that of Mormons by WIDE margins.) Oh that's right, that doesn't fit the premise of your article. Sorry, I guess I forgot.

Fact #2 - You failed to mention that the opponents to Prop 8 raised and spent MORE money than those backing it. Maybe their message just didn't take??? (At least a few more reputable news organizations are reporting this line.) Or maybe there is a majority of Californians that believe we shouldn’t be redefining the term marriage. Fact #3 - You fail to mention that California already has statutes on the books providing the same legal rights to registered domestic partnerships as marriage provides and Prop 8 does NOT undo them. … Oh. Oops! That might undo some of your arguments that this is motivated by hate. Fact #4 - You mislead (shall we call it lying???) your readers about "nothing happening" in schools since 4 judges invalidated Prop 22 (which was also passed by a wide majority of Californians 8 years ago). Are you afraid your readers might think differently if they found out first-graders (6 years old) are marched to a lesbian wedding 3 weeks before the election or the Kindergarten class (5 year olds!) that was forced to sign LGBT ally cards a week before the election. I mean, come on, these kids are still sorting out their ABC's - let alone knowing what LGBT means. I dare you, look it up on any search engine. But that would undo more of your argument, wouldn't it?

Ah Jeremy, Could it be that you are playing a little fast and swift with the facts and maybe you're even showing a sense of your own prejudices and bigotry. Nah...that would never happen, would it??? Or maybe you’re just repeating what you’ve heard or read because there’s no chance it could be wrong? Let's review a few of the things you’ve mentioned as well as those things you conveniently left out of your diatribe. Fact - The Mormon Church did NOT contribute $30 million to the campaign. Many of its members did (but still less than 50% of the money raised). Kindly direct your readers to the California Secretary of State's campaign finance disclosure website. Or are you afraid to do so???? Fact #1 - The Mormon Church did not enter the Prop 8 coalition of organizations and religious groups until THIS past summer and only at the request of the Catholic Bishop of San Francisco. The coalition had its roots in early 2006 with the Knights of Columbus and James Dobson's Focus on the Family. The grassroots organizing you decry was in the works for years before the Mormons decided to support Prop 8 and got involved. Explain that one...OK?

Here's a novel approach: get the government out of the marriage issue altogether. Treat everyone as an individual and leave the realm of marriage/unions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them where it belongs: with individuals and their traditions and beliefs.

Once again the CT proves itself to have the worst opinions page ever. How does this crap get published? I hope Obama places the Fairness Doctrine on newspapers, then maybe we'd at least have some equally horrid writing from the conservative viewpoint...

To Interesting: "For the civil rights argument to gain any LEGAL traction, the "born gay" idea must be solidly proven. " This is patently false. Can we deny marriages to people who are atheist? Isn't atheism a choice? To those who say "The majority has spoken," if the majority speaks to re-instate slavery but to use people of middle-eastern decent, would that be ok? To those who say pro-gay marriage is "redefining marriage," what definition are you referring to? The only definition I've seen referred to is a religious one, which has no place in our state constitutions. To those who say it is just the homosexuals being unreasonable and insecure, how would you feel if you were denied the right of having your loved one visit you in the hospital just because you were Christian, or atheist, or liked dark chocolate better than milk chocolate? Finally, it seems no one has provided an adequate answer to the question of, "who does gay marriage hurt?" The argument that gay people will start suing the church is preposterous. If a church is going to exclude someone because of their sexual orientation, why would that person want to go to that church in the first place? You paint a picture of gay people wanting to destroy religion. This is ridiculous. Get off your high horse and get over your homophobia. If Adam and Steve marry, it won't hurt you.

Perhaps the reason that nobody seems willing to argue my point is because it is so patently obvious that it would solve the entire problem. I feel like Ron Paul - present an elegant solution to a ridiculous problem, and minimize government involvement at the same time, yet get lost in the noise and bickering of everyone else as they debate which form of governmental regulation is best for us.

I agree with you, Jason - why is the state involved in marriage at all? That being said I'll stick with the current legal situation and say that if the state is going to be involved I definitely think same-sx marriage rights are crucial. Churches don't have to marry every straight couple that comes to their doors, so how would same-sx couples infringe on them? The only “non-religious” arguments I’ve heard are that marriages are for making kids and that straight marriage is a “tradition”. This response is getting old fast, but why are barren people allowed to marry? And can I point out some other traditions we used to have? What about women being treated like property, with no right to divorce? And only white men being allowed to vote? Thank goodness traditions change, and hopefully this one will soon.

I voted yes for prop8

We should also include in our state constitution that once married (man and woman) you cannot get DIVORCED. That would really support the institution of MARRIAGE. What's that? "None of my business what you do...."

Proof that God has a sense of humor: Mary Cheney

Crysta, I appreciate it, but that is exactly the problem. Nobody is willing to roll back government control. We constantly try to add stipulations and clarifications to laws that ought to simply be repealed in the first place.

This editorial and all comments below miss a key point. How can you justify spending millions of dollars for an abstract moral issue of this sort? It does not matter whether money was spent by the Mormon church, individuals directed by their church elders, gay support groups, or Muslim fundamentalists. Is it really a noble cause to spend 70+ million dollars on gay marriage issue when people starve to death, children can't afford education, and retirees can't buy medications? Is it really that important for a Christian heterosexual to prevent Adam and Steve down the street from having wedding rings? Is it really that important for Adam and Steve to wear them? It saddens me that so much energy and money is spend on hateful activities (name one person who actually benefited from Prop 8 being passed!), when so many obvious more worthy goals exist. Use your time, energy (and funds) to fight noble causes instead.

I'd argue that my comment doesn't miss that point at all. If the government were to simply butt out of the entire topic of marriage, people would be able to find some other relatively unhelpful cause to take up, in lieu of the truer problems that you mention.

Good point, Jason. I should have stated "most of the comments".

Well, to answer some questions, the reason government is involved in marriage currently is because of the legal bond it creates. If you aren't married under the government, then you die, or are unconscious in a hospital then your closest blood relative, not your spouse will be the one responsible for you, or your belongings. The legality of marriage is needed so that a person's spouse is next in line for these things and it's obviously needed. Why the government decided to figure taxes and all sort of other stuff into it is a whole different story. Anyways the simple way to open it up is ignore this problem that arises and implement what Jason T is suggesting is just increase the power of living wills and other documents and legal contracts. It creates more of a hassle for people, then again, like marriage isn't a hassle. People's personal business should be kept private, as should people's religious business.

There is a lot of talk here and nothing much said. I'll give you the solution that will make you all happy. The solution is to get government out of marriage. They have no business in the private affairs of individuals.

No church should be tax exempt. Ballot initiatives should be the sole source of laws. The legislature should be outlawed. Why do we need both? We can just have 20% of the population decide everything after a weeklong of voting. Think of the money we would save. No statehouses, no legislative costs, no taxes. Then think of all the money that would fuel the total ballot initiative process! Advertising, advertising, advertising and more advertising, and not to mention, advertising. Instead of hurling personal attacks, we could just attack the thing...the idea...the concept, presented in the initiative. C'mon, let's hold hands and do this thing!

A previous poster stated: "For the civil rights argument to gain any LEGAL traction, the 'born gay' idea must be solidly proven." I disagree strongly. From the perspective of the government, marriage is a private contract between parties, and under the jurisdiction of civil law, the ability to contract is most certainly a civil right. The government should have no vested interest in such a contract, and its only responsibility should be to uphold the contract in court. Thus, the debate over the origin of the homosexual orientation is completely immaterial to gay rights. Regardless of from whence homosexuality arises, the idea that the government can effectively deny the right of some class of persons to voluntarily contract among themselves is a dangerous affront to civil rights. Also, the same poster admitted ignorance of any instance where someone's race had been changed. I presume he or she was not familiar with a particualar pop singer named Michael Jackson.