» SB Resident wrote on 10/07/08 @ 08:57 AM

News is supposed to be fair and unbiased.

This is not.

But while we’re on the subject of you, Mr. Sorensen, attempting to sway the vote of the community in favor of your own agenda....

So what be it of the “two wonderful human beings who are both women” or the “two exceptional human beings who are both men”?

Why are they denied the right to a family over a man and woman who may not be as good of parents as them?

Shouldn’t the best parents get the child?

I’m sure the adoption agency doesn’t discriminate against race or religion, why sexual preference?

Also think of all the gay couples that are already married.

What if a California vote declared your marriage to Allyson null and void? 

I understand this is a point of view article, and you have the right to your terrible opinion, but please have a little respect and think about the thousands of people this proposition would crippling.Denying them the right to have a beautiful family like yours.

» Amy wrote on 10/07/08 @ 09:54 AM

Paul,

What if one of your adorable children, Madeleine, Amanda, Christopher, Ashley or Jared were gay?  Would you not want them to be afforded the same rights as a heterosexual person?  Would you love them any less?  Would they deserve anything less?  Voting Yes on 8 makes gays and lesbians second class citizens.

» Jay Ballou wrote on 10/07/08 @ 10:33 AM

Mr. Sorenson wouldn’t have to worry so much about being labeled a bigot if he weren’t one. As for the rest of his piece—what a bunch of intellectually dishonest claptrap.

» Peter Haws wrote on 10/07/08 @ 10:41 AM

Thank you Paul for these profound and true insights that shed light on the true nature of this issue being decided. Its all about the world our children will inherit. We contantly see the tragedies young people experience when families don’t function effectively to raise their children. Street gangs, teen pregnancy and emotional problems all increase when the culture at home comes up short. Setting a template that marriage is between a man and woman will benefit our children and ensure an effective, peaceful world for our children.

» Arturo Tello wrote on 10/07/08 @ 11:03 AM

I think that this is a red herring, but even if it was not, and we took the writer at his word, he has not “searched his heart” deeply enough. Take a look at the family picture next to the article. The writer is thinking: “If my wife an I are missing for some reason I want my children to be adopted by a heterosexual couple”
The article talks about protecting our children and promoting the fundamental right to a mom and a dad. But now take another look, what if one or two of the children pictured are gay, what then? Don’t they have the right to grow up to be “wonderful human beings who meet and marry other exceptional human beings” Don’t they have the right to grow up to be moms or dads to some very lucky orphan? I am voting no on 8 for all the children! Please join me.

» Morgan Harris wrote on 10/07/08 @ 11:37 AM

I totally agree with the perspective above.  Prop 8 is not about denying gay people certain “rights” as they already enjoy all the legal rights afforded married couples.  It is an effort to protect the “rights” of children to be raised in as much of an ideal situation as can be.  How many of my gay friends who are smart and talented and well rounded and productive citizens were raised by a mother and a father? - all of them.  I wonder which parent they would be willing to exchange?

» Dave Bramsen wrote on 10/07/08 @ 11:50 AM

Paul is right on in a couple key areas. Wanting to protect the millennia-old definition of marriage and protect something that is actually sacred to millions is NOT bigotry, yet that’s the big deception of the NO campaign. The well-above 90% majority that is heterosexual is been extremely accommodating of the gay minority in signing legislation for equal domestic rights and much more. Yet that minority wants to rip out of the culture of that accommodating-majority something so precious and fundamental as what marriage means. There’s no sense of regret for bigotry the majority RECEIVES at having marriage assaulted and associated freedoms threatened (that will come of 8 doesn’t pass). And the basic reason for gays wanting to force legal gay marriage is not about rights, it is semantic:  they will force us to say, “homosexual marriage is exactly morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage.” Sorry, but it is NOT exactly the same, as Paul Sorensen nicely points out. ALL compassionate people can vote YES on 8.

» Dan wrote on 10/07/08 @ 12:35 PM

Thank you for this article! My wife and I have many homosexual friends, we love all people, and we feel responsible to society to do the right thing (and the hard thing) and support proposition 8 despite being blindly labeled bigots.

» Jon wrote on 10/07/08 @ 01:00 PM

“Proposition 8 Ensures Equality for All Children.” In what way, exactly, Mr. Sorensen? Where are your kids getting their education? I’m sure that even if it is our local public school system, they’re in one of the “better schools.” How does Proposition fix that inequality? In what activities are your kids able to engage after school and in the summer? Probably expensive music lessons, sports leagues, camps, skiing, surfing, etc. Not exactly on a par with boys and girls from the other side of town. Did your five offsprint all get new clothes for the start of the school year, from somewhere other than the Alpha Thrift Shop? Is Proposition 8 going to give every California parent unlimited credit at Nordstrom and Saks?

Are you socking away lots of money for college educations? You can do that when you’re business is taking a piece of each paycheck from thousands of hardworking, largely underpaid temporary employees who’ll be lucky if their own kids can pick up a partial scholarship to a community college.

Equality for all children? We can’t even get decent health care for hundreds of thousands of them, let alone the high quality medical attention your kids are accustomed to when a sore throat hits or someone’s bumped a head.

Equality is not in the equation here. To the contrary, it aims to preserve inequality by denying same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities the rest of us enjoy. It’ss a bigoted proposition, pure and simple, and anyone who supports it should expect to be labeled a bigot, like it or not.

» Loving Mother wrote on 10/07/08 @ 02:03 PM

I really don’t quite believe that there are still some people who are so homophobic that they are using the issue of children’s right to support Proposition 8. I am sure, Mr. Sorensen, if you did a little research about this you would find that since divorce is so rampant in this country that our children are not being raised in that idealized family atmosphere that you think is appropriate and the right of every child.  Are you saying that the single parents are bad parents?  I would much rather have some of the children have the love and support of two same sex parents than none.  Have you ever met a child that was raised by same sex parents?  I have and they seem the same as all other children, besides being a lot more open-minded than people like you are. I agree in 10-20 years we will look back on this and laugh and realize that same sex marriage is as natural as anything else. I understand that some people cannot accept homosexuality (like yourself) and I truly believe that is the basis for your support of 8 and many other people’s support also.

» Mike Smith wrote on 10/07/08 @ 02:29 PM

Paul:  Thanks for writing this editorial.  I am voting YES for Proposition 8 to show my support for:
1) the preservation and protection of the institution (and definition) of marriage and traditional family values,
2) each child’s God-given right to both a mother and a father, and
3) parents’ right to teach their children about same-sex couples where, when, and how they see fit.

» BV wrote on 10/07/08 @ 03:23 PM

I appreciate Paul’s comments, but there are a couple points on which I respectfully disagree.

Let me start by saying that I am not out there to convince anyone of anything.  I respect all of those who pursue fervently what they believe in, and so I hope that you’ll understand why I have to at least say my peace.  The following is (a) a clarification and (b) the most significant reason why I do not support Prop 8.*

- Catholic Charities closed its doors voluntarily in Massachusetts because it was using government money and they were told that if they wanted to continue to receive government funding in that state, they had to follow the laws of that state.  Catholic Charities has not shut down (http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=193).  It should be noted that many other adoption-support agencies still practice in Massachusetts, and those that do not accept government funding may still elect to only send children to heterosexual homes (I have been told that LDS Family Services is one such organization).

- Paul, your preference question is logically inconsistent.  As an orphan, the question is not solely limited to whether children would prefer to go to (a) a heterosexual couple or (b) a homosexual couple.  You left out an entirely large subset of children - the children that SHOULD be the focus of this issue - those that go unadopted each year.  Each year, there are 120,000 children in America alone that go unadopted.  That means there are 120,000 children each year who have neither a mother NOR a father, and who certainly do not have any photos on their dresser with them standing on a porch overlooking the beach with four of their brothers and sisters.  Sure, allowing homosexual couples to adopt a child means that some children will have both a mother and a father and some will not.  But the kids who go to homosexual couples are kids who would otherwise be unadopted.  No sitting around the fireplace reading at night with their families for these kids.  No big family holiday dinners.  No parents to teach them and guide them in their youth.  The PROPER preference question to ask is whether these kids would rather (a) be adopted by a homosexual couple or (b) not be adopted at all.  When you are asked the proper question, would you still choose not to go to a family?  Family is more than just a mother and a father.  Sometimes, a family is a mother and father and lots of children like in the photo above, but sometimes a family is just a mother and a child, or a same-sex couple and a child - even if Prop 8 passes and a same-sex couple cannot marry in California, you cannot take away their right to be a family, because “family” transcends a slip of paper issued by the State of California that says you have a license to wed.  To get back on point, all of the heterosexual couples who want to adopt (and are financially and emotionally prepared to adopt) are able to adopt.  But they are not enough.

Also, consider the child in a single parent home.  According to the logic that I am responding to, should that child (a) be removed from a single mother’s care until she gets married or (b) put immediately into an orphanage until a picture-perfect, God-fearing, mother-father-sister-brother-dog-goldfish, chicken-in-every-pot, car-in-every-garage family decides that they want to adopt the poor kid?  That’s what it seems.  Otherwise, if you are okay with a single mother raising a child, why would you not be okay with two mothers raising a child?

Let me ask the readers something.  Are you married?  If so, how many orphans have you adopted and if not, do you plan to when you are married?  If you haven’t adopted any children, then YOU are part of the reason why I personally believe, that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.  To make up for the fact that you are not picking up your share of this problem, why would you deny others who are willing to pick up your slack the opportunity to serve mankind?  I will concede that I would not want to give up my mother or my father.  I would prefer to have a mother and a father, because that is what I had growing up, and if there were enough of YOU heterosexual couples to adopt all of the children in the world, then this might be a completely different issue.  But that is not the case.  I love both of my parents and I am who I am because I grew up in a home where I knew that I had parents (who cares what sex they were!) who loved me and supported me… for being me!  I am not who I am because my father was a male and my mother was a female, or because I have 2 younger brothers instead of sisters.  I am who I am because I was protected, supported, and loved.

Because I had a family.

*I have plenty of other reasons why I stand here on my soapbox, but I know that many readers may disagree with me flat out, so I chose to limit my discussion to the point in the article.

» Shauna wrote on 10/07/08 @ 04:11 PM

Thank you for taking a moral stand for the children.  I care more about them and their future than other’s misguided judgments.

» Jamie wrote on 10/07/08 @ 05:00 PM

Good for you for stating your opinion in such an intelligent and respectful way! I am so sick of people yelling “Bigot” at everyone who supports Prop 8. I have heard more hateful and spiteful comments from the “no on prop 8” folks than from anyone supporting the issue. Thank you for being a positive example. I am voting yes on prop 8 for similar reasons, although I love and respect the rights of all homosexuals in my life.

» matt wrote on 10/07/08 @ 05:18 PM

I admire Paul for tackling this politically sensitive issue, especially knowing that there would be a loud minority who would take pot shots at him. Their means involve intimidation and stereotyping those who support Prop 8 as “bigots” (sad given that this is just the type of behavior gays have had to deal with in recent history). I too feel that Prop 8 must be supported to protect the family structure as it is paramount in promoting a safe and prosperous society. As Paul clarified, supporting prop 8 is about promoting family, not disparaging or discriminating others. Though I understand the knee jerk reaction is to assume I and others like me are being intolerant, the truth is we simply must not compromise nor make exceptions when it comes to the sacred nature of marriage and families.

» Greg wrote on 10/07/08 @ 05:44 PM

Paul does an outstanding job of giving voice the class of citizen most frequently denied one; children. It is in our societies best interest to given them the best foundation for success, and he acurately points out that that foundation is best headed by “two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”

To respond to “This is sads” comment, to borrow a legal term, it needs to be noted that the ‘burden of proof’ that same sex couples can offer the exact same support as a heterosexual couple lies in the homosexual camp. In the interst of the children, gays need to prove to heteosexuals they are in some way equal or superior parents, not the other way around.

» Lynette wrote on 10/07/08 @ 06:10 PM

Thanks Paul for standing up for a principle that is not popular or politically correct in todays world.  I sometimes long for the days of “Father Knows Best” and “Leave it to Beaver” where a family with a mom and a dad was the norm and they always were able to solve all the problems of the day.  I know we live in complicated society with many social ills, but it does not make me question what I know to be right any more than I did 40 years ago.  Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.  That is the way we should bring life to this planet. No other kind of marriage will ever make sense to me.  I’m voting yes on Prop 8!

» ordinary mom wrote on 10/07/08 @ 07:28 PM

Why are the no on 8 so full of hate?  Isn’t this exactly what they deplored 20 years ago?  Intolerance of their rights?  Wow, look what it’s like when the shoe is on the other foot.  thanks, Paul, for speaking up when it is Politically Incorrect.  If I had been undecided I think I would vote for 8 just because their side is being so much more civilized, even though polls say they are losing.  Imagine what will happen if the proponents of Prop 8 start winning? Will we get rocks through our windows if we have a yard sign?  Will our cars get keyed because of a bumper sticker?  this country was founded on tolerance, whose being intolerant now?  Same sex couples say that their children are as well adjusted as any others, how do they know?  Have there been studies like there have been for heterosexual couples?  If we redefine marriage now, who do we redefine it for next?  Bigamists, siblings that want to marry each other, minors, pedophiles?  Aren’t they all entitled to marry the one they love?  Who gets to decide when the redefiniton ends?

» David wrote on 10/07/08 @ 08:43 PM

Hear, hear.  A NO vote is bigotry against innocent children, in a way.  When did our lifestyle choices beome more important than the welfare of the next generation?  We must look beyond ourselves.

» Larry Hixon wrote on 10/07/08 @ 09:10 PM

Paul is right. Those of us in favor of Proposition 8 have no particular quarrel with gay or lesbian couples. As I see it, our quarrel is with the California Supreme Court justices who took it upon themselves to overturn the will of 61% of us (2000’s Prop 22) and legislate from the bench. They are the ones who took away from us that which we hold so dear. I do not agree that this is a matter of civil rights. Rather, it involves protecting children, not just my children and grandchildren, but all children, including those who are not yet born.

» mike wrote on 10/07/08 @ 11:21 PM

thank you Paul for your editorial. Many comments here fail to grasp that prop 8 does not interfere with the rights of gay partners, it only defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

» Remember wrote on 10/07/08 @ 11:35 PM

But the question is, is a single parent better than two same-sex, loving parents?
Because there are a lot of single parents out there...and that poses financial strain as well as a more divided attention?
Isn’t it true that studies have shown children who have parents that have more time to devot to them do better off?
How can you factor this in?
You can’t control whether people become single parents are not. That’s not the job of the law. So why take away loving parents from children? Why?

» ktaylor wrote on 10/08/08 @ 12:57 AM

Rather than respond to the many comments made so far, I’ll just respond to Mr Sorenson’s article.
I wouldn’t accuse him of being a bigot, but I would say he isn’t being honest about the reasons he supports Prop 8. That will strike many as a similarly harsh judgement, but I make it because he is obviously intelligent enough to think this through, and yet he hasn’t. His, and others’ claim that it’s about saving the children rings hollow; the issue of a child being denied the right to a father/mother family is a sort of “straw man” argument. Moreover, his outrage at heterosexual couples somehow being denied favoritism in adoption cases is untested (in California) and therefore irrelevant, as well as almost laughably audacious. When it comes to protecting children he ignores the elephants in the living room: the landscape of America is strewn with unfit heterosexual parents! I have two children, and of all their friends only a small percentage live with both biological parents. This is the reality of American family life. If opponents of gay marriage were serious about protecting children their efforts would be better spent on educating parents and teenagers on how to stay in a committed relationship. By trying to stop a few gay couples from adopting a child they only hurt the children who might have been adopted by them.

Mr Sorenson is wrong when he claims Proposition 8 is not anti-gay. That’s pure denial, and he doesn’t even try to support the claim. It would attempt to *permanently* disallow gay people from entering in to the legal institution of marriage, *permanently* pidgeon-hole them into a second-class status. How on earth is that not anti-gay? There is no logical reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry each other, other than an irrational belief that gay people should somehow be punished or shunned. These reasons that people give like protecting children, or protecting the institution of marriage are without true logical and moral merit. In most cases, people just aren’t ready for gay people to join the club, plain and simple. They are afraid, because they haven’t really thought about it objectively.

I believe that marriage is a vital, stabilizing force for strength in our society. My parents and my wife’s parents have both been married over 50 years, and hopefully we will be together that long, too. Two gay people getting married-legally and spiritually uniting in a public ceremony-will only add another thread of strength to society. There’s nothing to fear from it. I won’t claim that Mr Sorenson is a bigot, I don’t know him at all other than this article, but I do believe he is afraid to tell the truth.

» Alex wrote on 10/08/08 @ 03:40 AM

Would any of you who disagree with this article exist today without your parents? One is a man and one is a woman, in case you hadn’t noticed.

» 35 forever wrote on 10/08/08 @ 11:01 AM

Please vote “NO” on prop 8 and leave the church and children out of this. This is a matter of civil rights, churches may bless as many wedding ceremonies as they want, but the only legally accepted marriage would be the civil union.
In many countries the marriage takes place at city hall first and then on to the church for the blessing.
This country is supposed to seperate between state and church, hard to believe nowadays, the church is brought into all kinds of civil matters.
As far as adopting, most of the gay couples I know have no desire to be parents, the few that do are great ones, providing a loving home for their children.
When I became a citizen I thought I was signing up for equal rights for everyone. Sadly this does not seem to be true, so I must ask you to please vote “ NO” on prop 8 to protect these rights.
Gay marriage does not scare me one bit,however injustice and hatred do terrify me.

» Kathryn wrote on 10/08/08 @ 12:34 PM

I appreciate Paul’s opinion and the well stated points in this article.  Prior to reading it I was not aware of U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child or President Clinton’s support of traditional marriage. 

I can see from the comments that many people want to make Paul and other ‘Yes on 8’ supporters out to be closed minded and hateful and that’s just wrong.  This article shows that Paul is not hateful but truly believes with conviction that ‘Yes on 8’ is best for out society, and he gives the outside studies to back that up.

I agree with him and many others who will be voting yes on 8 and I disagree with those who assume that this means we are homophobic. Whether or not you love and care about homosexual people is a different issue than whether or not you support traditional marriage.  It is fine to call people who hate homosexuals bigots.  It is not fine to call people who support ‘yes on 8’ bigots.  Many of them, myself included, love and care deeply for their homosexual friends and family members.

» puddlejumper wrote on 10/08/08 @ 08:51 PM

This letter is disturbing. The author assumes that having a heterosexual couple is better for children than having homosexual parents. I was a foster kid and I was adopted by a heterosexual couple. I was also abused by them. I was also abused by my biological parents, also a heterosexual couple. This is why I eneded up in group homes and eventually, in the foster system. It is too bad that Ohio in the seventies did not allow gays to fost-adopt. Maybe I would have had the attachment and nurturing I needed and deserved. Thinking that heterosexual parents are automatically better than homsexual parents is absurd. Last I checked, your own personal sexuality had very little to do with your ability to take care of a child and make her feel loved, valuable, and cared for. By the same token, it does not automatically follow that homosexual parents are all good or all bad, either. The writer seems ignorant, regardless of whom he happens to find himself attracted to. I am a heterosexual woman married to a wonderful man. I think that we will be good parents one day and that has nothing to do with our sexual orientation. It has to do with our hearts and our empathy and our values. This is what we need to assess in prospective foster parents. I am voting NO on prop 8. And frankly, people are calling you bigoted because you clearly are. I sincerely hope that we look at the deeper human rights issues here and keep church and state separate. NO on 8. Wake up.

» SED wrote on 10/08/08 @ 10:33 PM

Why must you all beat up on the gays? I simply don’t get why you would care so much. Are gay people disturbing or scary to you? They’re just people, not any different than you and me. And gay marriage has as much love as any other heterosexual marriage.

I want to make it clear: NO KIDS ARE BEING NEGATIVELY AFFECTED IF YOU VOTE NO ON PROP 8. SO DON’T MAKE THIS ABOUT THE KIDS. STATE YOUR OWN HOMOPHOBIC OPINIONS FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND DON’T MAKE THIS ABOUT THE CHILDREN.

I am just wondering, why is there SO much hatred towards the gays? Why should it matter? How can someone be so hateful towards a whole population of really wonderful people? I have many LGBT friends and gay godparents. I love them so much. They are such amazing people. It hurts me to see them being treated with so much skepticism and fear. Please, just try to step outside of your usual close-mindedness just once, and see someone else, not for their sexual orientation or anything else like that, but for who they really are, and love them for just for that.

» Spencer wrote on 10/09/08 @ 12:15 AM

Puddlejumper is just one more who wants to call Paul a bigot for holding such a universal view.  There is no state in the united states that has voted to give homosexuals the right to marry.  Almost every state from the east coast to the west coast has laws similar to proposition 8.  Both presidential candidates and there vice presidential candidates support proposition 8.  It starts to make you think Californians are the only ones confused about this issue.

Those that oppose proposition 8 keep talking about tolerance.  Reading through the posts on this site it is clear which side is intolerant.  Those posts that are using personal attacks, name calling, demeaning comments, etc all seem to be from those that oppose prop 8. 

This issue in the end is about a definition.  It is not about rights being removed from the minority, but of forcing the majority of people to accept this new definition and to accept all the consequences it will have on the charities, non-profits, churches, schools and individuals who don’t want to see this definition change.

» TYPO wrote on 10/09/08 @ 03:25 PM

Christi Hansen:

“You try to take God out of the schools...”

If God is being “taken out of the schools” is it only because the Constitution clearly states that religion has no place there. The First Amendment lays this out quite clearly (private schools, of course, are free from this restriction).

Dave Bramsen:

“There’s no sense of regret for bigotry the majority RECEIVES at having marriage assaulted and associated freedoms threatened (that will come of 8 doesn’t pass).”

What freedoms of yours, precisely, will be threatened in the event of Prop 8 being defeated? I certainly can’t think of any.

S Adame:

“Instead of creating there own concept of marriage they have to intrude on others rights from what has been law since the bginning of time!”

For the record, the traditional idea of marriage has not been law, or for that matter existed, since the beginning of time. Regardless, it is absurd to claim that the mere longevity of an institution justifies its existence. Are monarchy, patriarchy, or slavery good things simply due to their time-honored nature? The very spirit of this country was built upon opposition old and unjust traditions that restricted the rights of others.

Dorothy:

“It is a covenant from which children are a natural result, unlike gay partnerships where children are not a natural result but perhaps are a sought after addition.”

You are confusing the definition of Christian marriage, which often has such child-centric objectives, with civil marriage, which does not.

Gary:

“Of all manifestations of hubris, the worst is from secular elitist who assume enlightenment above those who hold strong to traditional Judeo-Christian values like marriage only between a man and woman.”

My view of hubris is people who seek to impose their opinions and values, Judeo-Christian or other, on other people against their will, restricting fundamental civil rights in the process.

Sam:

“Why is it that the gay community continues to ignore studies where the “science is settled” to use a term from the global warming debate, that is:
1. Children raised in a one man, one woman hetrosexual marriage perform better in every way measured (academically, behaviorally, etc).
2. If homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, why are thousands of formerly homosexual men and woman now living happily in hetrosexual relationships after some therapy? It is a choice!”

1. It’s hard to recognize studies that don’t exist. Furthermore, there are studies concluding quite the opposite; that is, that children of same-sex couples do quite as well as those of heterosexual couples:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

2. Such “therapy centers” only force innocent people to repress what is natural and accept a lifestyle that is in direct opposition to what they know is true about themselves. Homosexuality is not a choice, and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.

Greg:

“it needs to be noted that the ‘burden of proof’ that same sex couples can offer the exact same support as a heterosexual couple lies in the homosexual camp.”

That is a willful and flagrant perversion of the legal idea you posit. That is equivalent to claiming that any group (blacks, redheads, etc) should not be able to adopt until they can prove it is not damaging to the child. Such an assertion flies in the face of the ideals of equality inherent in the Constitution. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion is also contrary to the idea of “innocent until proven guilty.” The onus of truth is firmly upon your shoulders. Until you can prove harm, you have no right to take away anyone’s rights.

Concerned Father:

“My religious and moral values are consistent with how marriage has been defined and practiced for several thousand years. The idea that the schools can teach something so contrary to my religious beliefs is alarming.”

Why is that? Freedom of religion is the idea that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and public schools, as government-sponsored institutions, must follow this. Under no circumstances should schools inject the values of any one group into their teachings. Religion may be taught, not preached.

Larry Hixon:

“As I see it, our quarrel is with the California Supreme Court justices who took it upon themselves to overturn the will of 61% of us (2000’s Prop 22) and legislate from the bench.”

The judges of the Supreme Court did what the judicial branch is designed to do; act as part of a system of checks and balances and protect the rights minority groups from the majority that would take those rights away. Mobocracy is a dangerous thing indeed.

No Gay Marriages Please:

“For our childres sake--- Many gays try to convince children they are gsy-- its really sick [sic].”

Such a statement is unfounded, patently false, inflammatory, and characteristic of the worst forms of intolerance still in existence in our society today.

Kathryn:

“Prior to reading it I was not aware of U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child’s ... support of traditional marriage. “

That would be because it is entirely untrue. Read the document for yourself:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf

Lori:

“We can not keep changing the constitution, it was set in place for a purpose and should be respected.”

Allow me to relay the exact wording of the intent of Proposition 8:

“Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.” (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm)

A vote in favor of Prop 8 is in favor of changing the Constitution.

» Jim Leonard wrote on 10/09/08 @ 05:00 PM

Paul, you did a great job at addressing a very controversial topic.  Most of the people against Prop 8 are not against gay rights or bigots, granted there are a few.  The basic premise of morality is challenged by current legislation defining marriage to also include same sex unions.  Marriage between a man and women is the most effective way to continue our human existence and nurture and develop strong and healthy children. Men and women each have unique characteristics to allow the optimum balance to raise balanced children.
Somehow we as a society are starting to disguise immorality under the blanket of tolerance and diversity.  Sin will always be sin regardless of how it is, or is not accepted by society.  Fornication, Adultery, Bestiality, and Homosexuality are not acceptable morale behaviour according to laws in nearly every state, and of course in most religious scripture.  I suppose next society will attempt to include, addictions, steeling, and lying all as acceptable under the umbrella of tolerance and diversity because some people a have very strong inclination towards them.

» Prejudice is sinful wrote on 10/09/08 @ 10:51 PM

Jim Leonard,

You just trapped yourself in your own rhetoric. “Most of the people against Prop 8 are not against gay rights or bigots, granted there are a few”, you say, and then go on to say that homossexuality is immoral, sinful and not acceptable, and then compared it to lying and stealing.

Sounds like a bigot you are, and a scary one at that.

It’s too bad narrow-minded, prejudiced people like you try to impose your religion on other people.

» Mike wrote on 10/10/08 @ 03:05 AM

I came across this commentary and just have to throw in my two cents. Essentially, we all have our personal reasons for either supporting or not supporting the proposition and they can all be debated based on our beliefs but one thing seems inarguable. How do four judges rationalize legislating the moral values of an entire state and overturning the vote of the people? Eight years ago in California 4.3 million people or 61% of voters made their voice clearly heard on this discussion; marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. That’s what the people decided. There is no disputing the outcome of the vote and the voice of the people.

» Mom And Dad only wrote on 10/10/08 @ 11:11 AM

Have we lost our country to liberals and misfits?

» Randy wrote on 10/10/08 @ 12:04 PM

Even France rejected same-gender marriage in favor of children.  They cited the United Nations Convention on Children proclamation Paul referred to in his post in doing so.  Even Rome at its worst never legalized gay marriage. 

For millenia the meaning of “tolerance” was that one tolerates the individual but does not have to agree with his/her ideas or practices.  In true tolerance, we can have an intellectual debate without using harsh, hateful labels merely because one has a different idea.  In short, we can disagree without becoming disageeable. 

But isn’t it odd that the 10% of Californians that are gay call everyone else homophobic merely because others disagree with their lifestyle even when we accept and love them as individuals?  And further, isn’t it odd that they are the most homophobic of all when anyone disagrees with them? They use hateful and harsh labels to anyone who disagrees with them, just as in the comments on this piece below.

This behavior has been called a “tyranny of tolerance” and rightly so.  Tolerance is not a one-way street.  The gays today have said the price of tolerance is to condone their lifestyle, not just accept them as individuals.  Yet, the majority who are not gay have more than “tolerated” gays by enacting laws that permit gays to have all the rights of marrieds (all that California is capable of giving them).  But 61% of all Californians who voted for Prop 22 in the year 2000 felt that such accommodation stops at allowing them to redefine marriage for everyone else.

Let’s love and appreciate our gay neighbors and friends, and do our best to get along with them. But that doesen’t mean we have to accept their beliefs any more than it means they have to accept ours.  After all, in our Constitution, we are not supposed to discriminate against anyone based on race, color or creed.  Creed means one’s set of beliefs.  Let’s not lose sight of that in this debate. 

There any many good reasons why Prop 8 should be passed.  Paul has touched on some.  There are many, many more.

» John wrote on 10/10/08 @ 01:23 PM

A well worded article.  I commend Paul for expressing his belief in marriage between a man and a woman.  Remember, tolerance is not a one-way street and so each should be entitled to his belief without subjection to threats or animosity.  I am voting yes on Proposition 8.

» Joseph Smith wrote on 10/11/08 @ 12:12 PM

Paul,

Nice pioneer clothing you dress your little daughters in. Between you and your FIVE kids and your brother Steve (CEO of Select Staffing) and his EIGHT kids, you guys definitely qualify for a BIG LOVE compound. Oh, you neglect to mention how many “sister wives” you have?

» mrs. r wrote on 10/12/08 @ 02:06 PM

well said! i whole-hearted agree with you.

» Meredith Morin wrote on 10/14/08 @ 12:59 PM

these articles hurt so many people. This shouldn’t even be up to “the people”. If we put every right up for the people to vote on there would still be segregation, woman wouldn’t be voting, blacks would be in the back of the bus, there would be no interracial marriage, etc. etc. etc. It is ridiculous that a RIGHT is turned over to people who vote not on what is right and fair but how they personally feel about something - good or bad. It doesn’t make sense. There is no anger really simply sadness that another person could try and persuade others through lies. This won’t hurt children, it won’t have any effect on the economy, it won’t ruin marriage, it will simply legitimize so many families out there today. Think about it.

» D.Maler wrote on 10/15/08 @ 03:09 AM

FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HATE AND DISCRIMINATE=
VOTE NO ON PROP.8

» JB wrote on 10/15/08 @ 05:16 PM

Here’s a thought.  Let’s just ban marriage all together.  There’s over a 50% chance it will end in divorce anyway…

» Do you feel the hate wrote on 10/15/08 @ 11:30 PM

Wow!!  Isn’t it incredible how we are all supposed to be tolerant of each other’s views, but if it doesn’t agree with yours then let’s look find ways that we can attack and hate the other person and try to squash their freedom of speech.  Who cares how many kids he has?  Are you anti-kids?  Who cares what religion he is?  Someone said this shouldn’t be a proposition that is “up to the people to decide”.  Last time I checked we live in America and not in Germany during the days of when Hitler ruled.  Give me a break.  Look in your heart...vote...and stop attacking others views.  Let’s have a civil discussion....you are definitely swaying those on the fence to vote yes on 8.

» Katrina wrote on 10/16/08 @ 03:52 AM

“PROP 8” What’s the Big Deal?

Why are those who support Prop 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as “only between a man and a woman,” opposed to the legalization of homosexual marriage?  Isn’t that intolerance?  Can’t everyone live the way they want in our free society? 

At first sight it appears so, but the issue goes deeper.  The opposition claims that legalizing gay marriage is about “equality for all.” Sounds good initially, but what are they really talking about?  Under the State Civil Union Family code law, homosexual couples already enjoy ALL THE RIGHTS that married couples have: they can adopt children, have visitation rights in hospitals, have rights to inheritance, etc.  Indeed they can and do live their lives as they wish to and nobody is stopping them. 

So why does the opposition want society to recognize homosexual civil unions as “marriage”?  What’s in a name?  It’s clearly because it about more than legal rights (which they already have) and more than tolerance (which they already have).  It’s about social acceptance of homosexual behavior.  So what’s the big deal? 

The problem is, there are many (a majority of the people in fact) who although they tolerate it, they do not accept homosexual acts as morally equivalent.  They deeply believe that marriage is intrinsically between a man and a woman as nature intended and that this is more than a physical reality, but also reaches deep into our psyche.  It affects the way children are raised and the way we and interact with each other.  No one here claims that all heterosexual marriages are perfect, or that all homosexual unions are not meaningful.  This is a bout a setting a standard for society.  Some view acceptance of homosexual lifestyle as “progress.” But remember “progress is not always progression!”

To those of us who believe that marriage between a man and a woman is a time honored and tested standard for our society, anything other than that is unnatural and less desirable.  It is not equal in value.  Some may disagree, still it is our right to believe as we do.  This is what makes America great!  Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman as nature unequivocally indicates, does not make one mean or intolerant!  We treat everyone with respect.  We just want to live according to the dictates of our own conscience, especially when it comes to raising our children and performing in our careers.  This is what is threatened as will be demonstrated later. 

We do not mind homosexuals having equal legal rights (which they already do), but we DO mind losing our own right of conscience. We do NOT want homosexuality taught to our young children in school (in graphic ways) as totally acceptable and equally desirable sexual behavior. We do not want the words “father” or “mother”, “husband” or “wife” removed from school textbooks as “offensive and discriminatory.” We do not want state mandated homosexual education to be forced upon us (See case 3). We do NOT want to be forced to do things that are contrary to our beliefs or risk losing our jobs…. Wait a minute, what do you mean “forced?” No one is forcing any one to BE homosexual!  Well not really, but let’s look at a few recent cases that unfortunately reveal a different story and are only too true. 

Case 1:  A lesbian couple asked a physician to inseminate one of them and was referred to another physician in the same practice because the initial physician would not perform such a procedure as it violated his own belief system.  Should the lesbian couple in this case impose their “moral code” upon the physician?  Reality check:  They tried.  They sued the physician and the judge went as far as to tell him that may be he “shouldn’t be in that line of work”.  What is he supposed to do?  Abandon his free exercise of conscience, or abandon the career he has devoted his entire life to?  Do we really want to live in a society where the choices of a few are imposed on the majority of others? 

Case 2:  A gay couple planned their “wedding” ceremony and solicited a photographer for the occasion.  The photographer referred them to another professional, as she would not participate in an event that was contrary to her personal belief system, which she IS entitled to… or is she?  Besides, what’s the big deal?  Shouldn’t the gay couple be “tolerant” of those who believe differently from them? Shouldn’t they respect her different belief system and allow her to choose whether or not to participate?  They did not. They aggressively sued the photographer and she was fined over $6,000!  Why is their definition of tolerance only mono-directional?  After all no one would even consider suing a restaurant owner in Vegas for not offering slot machines in his establishment.  If he does not believe gambling is moral, he shouldn’t be forced to participate in this industry, should he?  Then why do homosexuals try so hard to impose their “moral code” on those who do not share the same beliefs!  Preposterous indeed, yet sadly real! 

Case 3: We already now know that the California judiciary is actively promoting the homosexual agenda when with a 4-3 vote they overturned Proposition 22 earlier this year (Prop 22 passed with 61% in 2000.) Now the California Teacher’s Association (CTA) just donated $1 million to the “No on 8” campaign.  This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars already pumped in to the campaign by the CTA in the last few months.  Opponents of Proposition 8 claim that it’s all lies when we warn that your children will be indoctrinated about same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

They claim that you’ll be able to opt your child out of class when same-sex marriage is taught or discussed but case law already shows that parents are losing their rights ….  Last week the US Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a father in Massachusetts who tried to opt his kindergarten (!!!) child out of a classroom discussion about homosexuality.  A lower court ruled that parents had no right to be notified when such discussions take place, nor will the children be allowed to opt out of the class.  The father in that case was sent to jail!

With the help of the powerful CTA the homosexual agenda will be pushed in every classroom.  Parents will be helpless to protect their children because the government and judiciary have banned them from doing so! This IS already happening in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal.  Is this really what you want in California?

THESE ARE NOT LIES OR SCARE TACTICS-this is the truth, it IS already happening. (visit http://www.YesOnProposition8.com to see for yourself

Are you still wondering which side is truly intolerant?.  Is it the heterosexual that disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle but allows others to live their own lifestyle, or the homosexuals who attempts to force acceptance of their lifestyle upon others and demands the participation of all others in their cause? 

No-Fail Test:  A Tree is Judged by its Fruit.  It is worth noting here that after posting “Yes on 8” signs on my personal property, they were “removed” by trespassers in the dark of night, just as several of my “Yes on 22” yard signs mysteriously disappeared night after night.  Needless to say, there are a couple “No on 8” signs currently posted in my neighborhood as well but I would NEVER for a moment even consider removing them.  What audacity!  In the news yesterday, a man putting up a “yes on 8” sign was physically beaten and verbally abused by a “tolerant” passer by, campaign’s signs were being stolen and burnt in church buildings….  Ask yourself, “Who is truly tolerant here?” Who is showing their true colors! 

Opponents of prop 8 resort to a lot of name-calling by labeling Prop 8 supporters as bigots, hate mongers, and intolerant.  It is indeed a sad observation that they apparently accuse others of those traits which they themselves exhibit—an all too common phenomenon called “projection.”

On a personal note, I have friends and some close relatives who are homosexual.  I love and cherish them in many ways.  I openly disagree with them on the moral issue of homosexuality, but I respect them and treat them with equality in all things.  Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be the case with those who are seeking to impose their lifestyle on others as morally equivalent. 

Don’t let mischaracterizations unduly influence you.  “Yes on 8” IS about rights:  The right NO TO BE FORCED to accept as morally equal a lifestyle which is unquestionably NOT to most.  It’s about our right to live and raise our children and perform our jobs according to the dictates of our own conscience.  Homosexuals are free to live their lifestyle the way they wish to, couldn’t care less personally, but I DO CARE when they act to impose it on others which is what will happen as it already is in Massachussets.  Don’t be deceived, consider the unintended consequences of a law that may not be what it seems to be.  Please, vote “YES on 8”

» Gaydar wrote on 10/16/08 @ 04:56 AM

$10 Paul Sorensen has had homosexual thoughts.

» Mike Spears wrote on 10/16/08 @ 09:33 AM

My family is my only real asset in this world.  Paul has shared from the heart what his means to him.  It all started with a marriage between a man and a woman long ago...and it is the one and only way to go...yesterday, today, and the future.  May we vote Yes on 8 and continue to have families like Paul’s to bless future generations with children who have a father and a mother.  And that parents have the right to teach their children when and where and how they want about marriage, family and life...and leave the government and schools out of the picture!  After all, who knows the child best, his parents or legislators and educators?

» Bigotry is as Bigotry does wrote on 10/16/08 @ 11:24 AM

Ninety years ago it was any lame, religion-based excuse to deny civil and equal rights to women.

Fifty years ago it was any lame, religion and cultural tradition-based excuse to deny civil and equal rights to American blacks and other ethnic groups.

Today, it is any lame, religion and cultural tradition-based excuse to deny civil and equal rights to gay people.

Blacks, Jews, and now Gays are the scapegoats of bigots.

» Jennifer wrote on 10/16/08 @ 10:19 PM

Proposition 8 is about Amending the State’s Constitution to take away fundamental rights that Californians have. 

What many of you bantering in this article may not know is this:

On May 15, 2008, in a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court recognized same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry.  In a 4-3 split, the court declared that the California Constitution requires the state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. 

In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry – and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life as a full member of society – the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.  (Marriage Cases, supra 43 Cal.4th at 820.)

The Supreme Court decision ruled that sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” like race or gender. 

…[A]s issue of first impression, sexual orientation is a suspect classification for purposes of state equal protection clause, and thus statutes that treat persons differently based on their sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny analysis. (Marriage Cases, supra 43 Cal.4th at 828.)

In doing so, the Court concluded that unequal treatment based on sexual orientation should be subject to the so-called “strict scrutiny” test, the most difficult legal test to pass.  Under the strict scrutiny test, the majority justices could find no compelling state interest in upholding disparate treatment under the law. The Supreme Court held that by excluding same-sex couples from marriage the State was violating two different rights of individuals who wished to marry a person of the same gender:  the fundamental right to marry and the right to equal treatment. 

…we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantee same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all the of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.  (Marriage Cases supra 43 Cal.4th at 828.)

While opponents to same-sex marriage argued that same-sex couples could register as domestic partners and thus obtain most of the protections of marriage, the Supreme Court ruled that the term MARRIAGE matters.

While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.  …[B]ecause of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples – while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples – likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.  (Marriage Cases, supra 43 Cal.4th at 854.)

NO ON PROPOSITION 8 ensures that none of us will have to fear that we will lose fundamental rights as the result of extremists - no matter who were are!  We cannot amend the constitution to take away rights!