Love, Honor Cherish raises $250,000 in fight against Prop. 8...

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not taking away anyone's rights. The definition simply distinguishes a union that is biologically capable of producing its own children. Whether a married couple has children or not, I feel like this deserves a separate name--even the potential is kind of a miracle.

Actually this definition can be seen as the ultimate expression of equality our society has to offer: it takes one man and one woman. One could see a lesbian union as a marginalization of men, or a homosexual union as a marginalization of women.

Equality is especially important when it comes to raising children. Children deserve/need a father and a mother. Neither parent should be marginalized.

Yes, many children are already growing up in single-parent homes. Prop 8 should be a reminder to everyone that as a society we need to assist and strengthen families as much as possible. Really, as a society we should be most concerned with the success and health of our families.

http://emiliadelmar.blogspot.com/2008/10/legislation-and-social-issues.html

peace out.

You homophobic spam troll, you keep leaving this argument all over pro-equality, pro-civil rights, pro-GLBTQI postings all over the internet and don't even have the courage to come back when people respond to you.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is taking away the 1,049 federal rights granted to married couples from same-sex couples. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court recognized that marriage was a fundamental civil right. Denying same-sex couples the right to marriage is taking away that right.

_The definition simply distinguishes a union that is biologically capable of producing its own children._

Okay, what about infertile couples? What about heterosexual, sterile men or women? Should they be allowed to marry? Since in their cases, it's not that they intend to not have children, it's that they actively cannot have their biological children, should their marriages be dissolved? What about couples that choose to adopt rather than having their biological children? Should their marriages be dissolved and considered false because they actively chose not to follow through on the "potential [that] is kind of a miracle"? Same-sex couples are perfectly capable of having children, whether through sperm donation, surrogacy, or adoption. As long as every child is wanted, loved, and cared for, the genetic connection between them and their parents is less important.

_Actually this definition can be seen as the ultimate expression of equality our society has to offer: it takes one man and one woman._

HAHAHAHA. You are aware that in the past, married women were considered the chattel and property of their husbands? That they were not allowed to apply for jobs, apply for credit cards, hold bank accounts in their own names, or own property without the consent of their husbands? That they were not allowed to own property and everything they possessed was legally considered the property of their husbands? That husbands could legally rape their wives? That husbands could beat and abuse their wives and it was considered a "private" affair by the law? If you think that defining marriage as being between one woman and one man is the "ultimate expression of equality," then you're completely ignorant of the actual legal history of heterosexual marriage and willfully distorting it.

Gay marriages only marginalize men if you think that marriage requires the participation of a woman. Lesbian marriages only marginalize women if you think that marriage requires the participation of a man. If you are open-minded and accepting of everyone's humanity and equality under the law, you wouldn't be making outlandish cries of marginalization.

It sounds like you're nothing more than a garden variety homophobe trying to convince yourself that you're not really a homophobe, you just don't think that GLBTQI people and their relationships are the same as heterosexual people and are inferior to them. Does that plain statement make you uncomfortable? If it does, perhaps you should reconsider your position on marriage and Prop. 8. If it doesn't, then stop hiding behind false justifications and have the spine to own your homophobia.

Marriage has never been defined by our constitution as that of a union capable of biologically producing a child. And should laws be legislated that define marriage that way the constitution as read and ruled by the Supreme Court would strike down that law.

Our State Supreme Court ruled that you cannot deny marriage based on sex by understanding and ruling based on the Constitution. Same sex marriage is a civil right of the people of California.

Regardless of your specious argument that children in a one parent family are not as well off as in a two parent household, you are not speaking to the constitution or the law.

Proposition 8 is an effort to alter our constitution with your ammendement and it will take away rights.