I'm 100% against gay marriage and homosexuality in every form. Next thing we'll be allowed to marry animals! Fags should get back in the closet, the whole thing sickens me.

Why do they have to be "Married"?

Some people seem to forget what that means.

Why do so many people hate love? 

"Some people are shits, darling." (A 'wise old black faggot' quoted by William S. Burroughs.)

Since it's unconstitutional for a majority of American citizens to deny equal protection under the law to a minority, it's only a matter of time before justice prevails over popular evil.

California failed today.

Disappointed

This was just plain wrong.Its about civil rights and will be changed one day.So,continue fighting California.

Significant, but definitely NOT cool.

I am agaisnt this!

Wait. I think this is important, but It shouldnt have passed. Thats why I one Star-ed it.

Interesting in that the only way that this concept is imposed on the populace is by the unrepresentative, anti-democratic, and elitist court system.

This was BS

Changing the constitution... Just to deny one group of citizens recognition... Shame! Shame! Get over it you uptight, cheap bastards, give the people their say over one anothers lives (legally) & benifits, Who cares if they get married, they are already touching each other. The way I see it, just as long as there is divorce, pre-marital sexual relation and illigitiment births, marriage is a joke anyway.

I don't really have strong opinions on this issue, but you can pretty much count on me voting the opposite way of Dianne Feinstein, the Wicked Witch of the West.

i cant believe that they said gayz can marry!!!! its about love not gender!!!repect that ppl love each other im not saying im a lesbein.ohkay if u said yes on prop 8 ur made a bad desition...u suck!!!!!!

Ha, Ha they cant agree

If it passed that is a good thing. I am unsure... I thought it did not pass.

YEAH THERE DONT NEED TO BE GAYS GETTING MARRIED ANYWHERE ON EARTH!!! YEAH YEAH!!! GLAD THAT DIDN'T PASS IT!! I THINK IT IS SICK!! GAY PPL. NEED JESUS!!! I WILL PRAY FOR THEM!!!

This was startling - California, one of the strongest liberal players in the game voting against gay rights in any form. Wow.

The constitution shouldn't have included that anyways. It's not that I don't think that homosexuals should be able to get married, it's just that bills to legalize gay marriage had been voted down before. The only way it got legalized was by the decision of 3 judges (out of 30 million Californians). I'm just saying that majority SHOULD rule in a democratic government

I voted for it.

BOO MEGA BOO.

i am 100% for gay marriage

Sick of hearing about this stuff. California voted--deal w/it.

"THEY VOTED" would be a reasonable arguement if the margin of victory were a landslide, i.e. over 80% of a population agrees. In this case it was a very tight  vote. Also you had Millions of $ coming from outside (non-Californians) trying to influence the CA vote. I can' believe people who voted actually stated they voted YES because they don't want kids being taught guy marriages at school. Also others voted for religious/moral reasons, they didn't want gay marriages at their church... All of which had nothing to do with the vote.

It's fairly simple if some members of society can be "Legally" married, all members should be able to. This has nothing to do with "Religious" marriages (seperation of chruch and state) and has nothing to do with teaching kids...this is so logically if we seperate facts from myths. Fortunetly that's what the government bases their judgement on.

Government will not care if you feel this law will allow gay marriages in your chruch. Government does not care if you feel this will force teachers to take the kids on a field trip to a gay marriage (can't believe people thought this). Government doesn't care if watching two guys get married offends you (don't watch). All they care about is what the law says on paper and if in passing or not passing it violates the rights of any member of society. As you all know we have exsisting laws in CA making it illegal to discriminate because of color, gender, sexual preference, etc... 

Looks like the people of California have spoken once again.  This time with a State Constitutional Amendment.  Let's see the Supreme Court of California legislate out of this one. LOL

Prop 8 took something that was every citizen's right and made it into a "right".  Rights, by definition, are rights for all. If a "right" exists for some people, but not for everyone, then it isn't really a right at all.  It's a privilege.

If society doesn't outlaw homosexuality or the practice of it or can't find any reason to, then it has to accept it. You can't half-heartedly accept something. If it's not illegal, then it's legitimate, at least by law. Homosexuality could become a societal norm over time. It's happened before. The anxiety we have now over homosexual couplings brews from religious fears and homophobic fears of masculinity/gender identity/personal identity. We all care about social acceptance! And will calibrate our identities so that we are accepted. But the state/society should promote natural feelings of love and attraction, especially when such attraction doesn't harm anyone. In terms of families as  units of procreation, who needs more kids?? The world is overpopulated already. As for religious people, look deeper into the history of anti-homosexuality. A lot of the language in the bible is vague, and through hundreds of years of translations and re-writes, words are changed and meanings are lost/created, e.g. why do we think of the forbidden fruit as an apple? The bible today is a selective anthology, a canon...different people and influences have shaped it. Why would God create people who cannot reconcile with their natural feelings? I think it's more likely that the state at the time wanted to encourage families (with babies) and used religion to carry out what is best for the state. Anyways, I think prop 8 really sucks, especially since it nullifies previous gay marriages. what is "marriage" or this license or ceremony if it can be TAKEN AWAY AT ANY TIME? Imagine that was the case behind heterosexual marriages. Wedding anniveraries would be so precarious. "Oh happy 50th and thank god the state hasn't taken it away yet." "civil union" is not enough. if homosexuality is legitimate, than gay people shouldn't be treated like 2nd class citizens.

The people of california voted....THEY VOTED.....but that appears not to mean anything to some people I guess it's only a fair vote when it's their side of the issue that wins.Hate has also been mentioned this vote had NOTHING to do with hate... kicking and abusing old ladies at a protest  because she doesn't agree with you now THATS hate!

it's a bit ironic because republicans are big on not having government in their personal affairs, yet they want to screw with other people's lives. and now the gays are the new minority, fighting for civil rights. now they'll want a gay president! lol, j/k

So, if I understand this right, which I do, California is not opting to buy Rice-a-Roni's slogan...." The san Francisco Treat" ?

  Californians have decided that "civil unions" are quite enough for gay couples...they don't want marriage re-defined! There was far more money pumped into NOT passing the proposition that what was given to PASS the proposition. Let's not forget that 70% of the blacks who voted FOR Obama voted AGAINST prop 8. I think that gays are feeling a little abandoned by the people they teamed up with to get Obama elected!

It's certainly significant news, no matter which side of the issue you stand on. But like it or not, it's part of the state's constitution now, so unless the U.S. Supreme Court eventually says otherwise, it's now the law.

This is the latest dustup in the most recent civil rights struggle that picked up steam a few years ago. Majority rule says "we don't like homosexuals and aren't going to let them share in our concept of marriage." If the majority had instead said they don't like Asian-Americans and wouldn't let them share in their concept of marriage, or denied that right to Catholics, what would have been the reaction? When whites inevitably become a minority group (not that long from now), how would they react to a denial of rights to them by a coalition of nonwhite races? If the current 16% minority of religious nonbelievers becomes a majority and outlaws all religion in the U.S., or in one state?

This is about the CA Supreme Court saying it's unconstitutional under the CA Constitution to deny one minority group equal protection of the law, and then religious believers and other misguided folk taking that right away because of the prejudice that is our culture wars. This is a temporary setback for homosexuals that will again end up in the CA Supreme Court. I see this issue as: If the CA Constitution grants equal protection to every CA citizen, can a majority carve out an exception that denies equal protection to one minority group? I predict the Court will again say "no, the majority can't do that."

As this phenomenon spreads to the rest of the states, it will for certain end up in state supreme courts in those states whose constitutions grant equal protection. It's a toss-up as to the U.S. Supreme Court, because they have the option of deciding it's not a federal matter, it's a matter for individual states. So it's possible gay marriage will be prohibited in some states and allowed in other states, since state supreme court justices have often enough proved themselves to be almost as fallible as their citizens. It's even possible that the newly enacted Arkansas prohibition against gays adopting children (even if the children aren't wanted by any straight families and clearly would benefit more from having a gay family than no family at all) will spread to certain other states with the strongest prejudice against homosexuals and state supreme courts, particularly those elected by majority rule rather than appointed, that keep their fingers in the political winds.

The majority who spoke in the CA Prop 8 result and a few other states unfortunately don't see this as an issue of "equal protection for every citizen," much as the whole nation once failed to see the issue of blacks who were denied various rights by a white majority as an equal protection issue. In both situations minority citizens are and were lucky to be living in federal and state systems that are governed by wise constitutions that protect the rights of all their citizens equally. Those constitutions prevent majority rule from taking away rights from minorities. The founding fathers had experienced in England, and saw in other nations, the tendency for majorities to deny equality to minorities whose views were different. One of the geniuses of the U.S. Constitution and similar state constitutions was in predicting that the majority would do this, and ultimately preventing it. The Constitution isn't premised on majority rule. It's the final, last word in our carefully conceived system of checks and balances, which it created, that protects all citizens equally, regardless of the particular "flavor of the month" minority.

The basis for the citizen majority's discrimination against the homosexual minority group is entirely irrelevant. It matters not that religious believers view homosexuality as a sinful choice of lifestyle that gays should "repent" of and "come back to" being straight. It matters not that homophobes in the majority find gay and lesbian behavior abhorrent and disgusting. It matters not that others view homosexuality as capable of being "spread" and fear its spread to their children. It matters not that science is still pursuing an understanding of the origins of human sexuality – the quest to find an answer to the question, why are some humans gay and others straight? -- which offers the possibility of eliminating what can be the most oppressive of cultural forces, the prejudiced social norm.

This issue rises and falls on the most basic of moral principles: the Golden Rule. Do people really believe in it down deep? Do the religious really believe in it, since it's a foundation of all religions? Do those who consider themselves moral and fair really believe in it? Do others in the current majority care at all, except as it applies to them? Quite obviously the majority of our citizens do not truly believe in the Golden Rule, even as they vigorously proclaim otherwise. This is consistent with the majority's basic selfishness in caring only about themselves. Fortunately we had founding fathers who did believe in the Golden Rule. In some ways we haven't advanced much since the Bill of Rights was signed in 1789, in other ways we have. We haven't yet cured ourselves of the selfishness that is the prejudice of social norms and culture wars. Eventually we'll become more enlightened (though it took more than 200 years for whites to become so about blacks), but in the meantime yet another minority group has to go through years of struggle for full equality. At least we're fortunate to have enlightened constitutions, even though the majority of our citizens aren't.

Should be a 4 but it's a three in the present news cycle that is really enjoying the media blitz of the election.  I gotta hand it to the zealots and goofies- this was a real shrewd move on their part.  Bros and Latinos are notoriously (as a rule) not kind to pro-gay initiatives.  Thus, the huge voter turnout for Big O flipped this one.  I found it clever- but be careful what you wish for.  In other words, see you in court.  Eventually state supreme court(s) or the one that matters will decide this once and for all.  And 'denying' or 'preventing' rights of couples is something that courts aren't wont to do.  It's a loser in court thus the homophobes do these election-day rallies.  Yes, the voters have spoken- to deny rights.  That won't last and it doesn't make it right.  See you in court- the intelligent and the moral have an irritating habit of not taking things like this lying down.  If the courts cannot provide temporary resolution(s) there's still the court of public opinion- in the court of public opinion, Cally isn't too proud of itself and if only those darn protesters would know their place!  This will be resolved with the ballot box or through the courts.  It's not a matter of if but when.

This is America and the people of California have spoken. If the voice of the majority is not upheld and respected, no other voting issues will be safe. We lose our democracy and our freedoms. Will we allow gay agenda to bring our nation down?

Let's not forget- this is California...hardly the mythological right wing, uneducated, toothless bigots from "the toilet bowl regions" of the USA about whom so many here love to babble. This is not about hatred, it is not about discrimination, and it is not about Libertarianism. This is about one group trying to redefine the institution of marriage, while forcing someone else to accept their agenda. The people of California and 29 other states have spoken. Get over it.

i think people should be aboul to marry who the fuck they want!!!!

If you have a libertarian bone in your body, this one should give you chills.  The Church of the Latter Day Saints out of Utah dropped $22M into the effort to change California's Constitution to deny equal protection under the law for gay Californians.

My take is any time that you are amending Constitutions to take rights away from tax payers, you will probably be on the wrong side of history.

And to the LDS: mind your business.