Proposition 8 - California - November 4, 2008

[khrystaaal]

BRITNEY SPEARS had 55 hours

Me = Never??!!

Gay, Lesbian, Trans, Bi, Strait, Black, White, Brown, Animal, Disabled, Vampire, Oger, Cartoon, Alien...

NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, OR WHO YOU WANNA BE, You have the RIGHT TO MARRY. THIS IS NOT JUST A PRIVILAGE, THIS IS YOUR RIGHT. "do not do unto others what others don't want to do unto you"

vote NO on Prop 8.

[VASH2b]

PREACH! ^_^

[sammyisthename]

It looks like three more states voted permanently against same-sex marriage, even though we were outspent, 2-1, which brings the total to 30 states, now. In addition, Arkansas, voters passed a measure barring adoption for same-sex couples. Thank God. This is just the beginning.

[gwpyt]

VOTE YES ON PROP 8!

This is Great!

It is not hate, it's only Prop 8.

Prop 8 detractors, are the haters, not the supporters.

Yeah for Prop 8!

[pohai85]

why do you guys care so much about people of the same sex getting married. how does it even effect you personally?

[ChaosNanite]

Voting Yes on 8 is a step back into the dark ages. It is legislated, enforced bigotry, and it's just flat out wrong. This is a civil rights issue just like with Women, and then African Americans in the last few decades. It is shocking to think that people in 2008 still believe that not everyone is entitled to the same civil rights. STOP THE HATE! VOTE NO ON 8!

[sk8allnight123]

vote yes on 8

[dudepunkrocks666]

Why should people have to marry someone they don't like? In the olden days people had to marry the person their parents choose, this is the same basic principle. If a woman loves another woman and wants to have her support and partnership they should be able to marry. As much as marriage is about the girl having her parts and the guys having theirs, a person needs the support of another, and if they love their own sex they should be allowed to marry. It will also bring money to our country :)

[LiluBob]

Enough is enough! Only the facts will answer everyone's questions and opinions. Please view the facts at: .com/watch?v=4JZIJnJWZBQ

[lizisFREAKINGawesome]

people can vote that couldn't in 2000, open minded people, loving people, times change, equality for all: NO on prop 8!! :]

[BrownCrusader]

Civsuccess2 you are 100% wrong. Does it matter if they get married with the same sex? Even if they dont it doesnt mean they will be forced to marry the opposite sex and have babies, if that happend the birthrate of california will increase dramaticly. If they are allow to marry it will not affect the birth rate of cali because they are still with their partners either way.

Vote No on Prop 8

[Civsuccess2]

There are two type of gays. Clinical gays and normal people who are bisexual. Clinical gays cannot be changed. However, normal people who accept bisexuality can be affected.

If teachers teach children gay behaviors are normal behavior. Some heterosexual children would perceive homo sex as normal. If general population consider homo sex as normal, a lot of people would consider have gay marriage. It would further lower heterosexual marriage rate, therefore lower birth rate.

[plastikmanfan]

Civsuccess2 said: "therefore lower birth rate"

Soooo HOW does the decline in birth rate damage humanity? That's the same mentality as saying if a guy jerks off he's lowering birth rate. OH NO...one less baby in this VASTLY expanding populous world.

China doesn't even allow families to have more than one baby. What are your thoughts on this horrible "lower birth rate" there?

[plastikmanfan]

Regardless of birth rate, it's still unfair to deny humans the social acceptance of sharing the bond of marriage due to shared LOVE.

[xlntlife]

Setting the definition of marriage is not a right. I'm yes on 8. I don't hate anyone. I just believe that there is a difference between the two definitions - and our society needs mothers and fathers.

[LatinAce103]

vote yes on 8 please

[pheramones]

If you vote yes and tempt God, your children will reveal they are gay when they grow up, or your wife or husband, or Mom, Dad, Aunt, Uncle, doctor, Priest, best friend. Many fighting to canonize discrimination will be sorry you did, in the future as someone close to you turns out to be gay. It's not a choice anymore than it is to be straight. When did you decide to be attracted to the other sex? You didn't and neither did we! Don't pollute the CA Constitution with fear Vote NO!

[yesonproposition8]

Lindsay Lohan, Pamela Anderson, Matt Damon, Gavin Newsom

What do they have in common besides being morally bankrupt?

They all agree. Marriage should be open to ALL!

Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin

They all agree. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

VOTE YES ON PROP 8!

Vote against Hollywoods moral standards.

[pkiverson]

And there are far more morally bankrupt heterosexuals than homosexuals. What's your point?

Besides, both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are against Prop 8.

[nbarbee36]

VOTE NO on 8 why do you care???????

[aleksapovseksa]

15 years ago marital rape was not a crime in every state because in the millennia-old "tradition" a wife was obligated to have sex with her husband whenever he demanded it. What are you fighting for? Most of the traditions we assosciate with marriage are farely new. Sweet "tradition". Don't take away freedoms. If you would like to go backwards please do not waste our tax dollars by calling 911 for help when your husband beats you or rapes you...because "traditionally" that's his right.

[greenview14]

Vote no, come on don't be lame

[Jeffrey12342001]

Marriage in the great State of California is a legal contract between two people and the State of California. Over 1,000 laws, rights, and obligations come with the legal marriage contract. Civil marriage in California has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with the law. All residents of the State of California must stand before the law as equals. VOTE NO ON 8.

[CBlargh]

Mormons from out of state are contributing millions to change the constitution of the state of California. Why? What's their angle?

What does it have to do with them?

Personally, I think we should control our OWN constitution, so I'm voting No on 8!

[mwalwynn]

rob 1746, sources please?  The current california family code states domestic partnerships have ALL the same rights as marriages so I'm not sure where you get off saying most of this. As for families being at risk if they leave the state, this would be true whether same-sex marriages are legal in California or not due to federal laws (DOMA). Sorry.

[weho1]

SEPARATE by DEFINITION is NOT EQUAL the Supreme Court figured that out out years ago. If you think it is then when do I get to vote on your marriage?

[oxoxMusicxisxlifexox]

NO ON PROP 8!Equal rights for all!

[rob1746]

They want you to believe that the same rights are alloted to all couples if Prop 8 passes. That is not true.

PROP 8 TAKES AWAY RIGHTS

* Eliminates same-sex couples right to marry

* Public employees excluded from long-term care insurance

* Spouse of veteran can no longer collect all state benefits when veteran passes away

[rob1746]

* Spouses can no longer share property

* Joint tax returns banned

* Transfer of assets over $11,000 no longer tax exempt

* Can not change family name without court order

* Parenthood of same-sex couples threatened if family moves out of California

* After a spouse's death property and house values can be reassessed (meaning taxes can skyrocket)

VOTE NO on PROP 8

[EternalSSA]

Wow, that is a cruel thing to do to people. I know i am not supporting prop 8. Vote No!

[tmlstraveller]

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8

[tmlstraveller]

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8

[MeetTylerDurden]

77% of all funding for this piece of legislation comes from a cult known as the LDS "church."

That's Correct! MORMONS from all over the country, not just California, are funding this! That is what the anti-Prop 8 commercials mean when they say most of the funding comes from out-of-state special interests.

The funding comes from out-of-state Mormons!

[mwalwynn]

Wrong, zero funding comes from the LDS church. But, a lot of LDS members have contributed. BIG difference.

[EternalSSA]

Not Really. They are still affiliated with LDS.

[0lord0kinbote0]

Okay this is interesting. I have tried to comment on over a dozen 'yes on prop 8' clips. They are all shut out or moderated.

On the other hand I have commented on neutral and 'no on prop 8' clips. Those comment sections are full of spam from 'yes on prop 8' PR company spammers.

This says a lot about the people pushing this thing.

[danimo17]

Yep. Quite a bit of the You-Tube-based supporters clearly don't have a day job or any other rights to fight for because all I've seen them do is post dozens of videos and delete the NO-ON-8 comments, have comment wars with us NO-ON-8-ers, rate every NO-ON-8 video with 1 star before watching it to completion, and use the same hackneyed and FALSE arguments that have been spewed at them by ads. Have they ever checked who funds those ads? Hint: They're bigots.

[0lord0kinbote0]

Yah unfortunately I did find out who is supporting it. Creepy stuff.

[JoeyBoya]

"1912" Blacks use the fountain to the left, Whites use the one to the right- "2008"Gays get civil unions Straights get marriage? HAVE WE NOT LEARNED OUR LESSON? SEPERATE BUT EQUAL DOES NOT EXIST "VOTE NO ON PROP 8"

[NOtoPROP8]

VOTE NO on PROP 8

PROP 8 TAKES AWAY RIGHTS

1. Eliminates same-sex couples right to marry

2. Public employees excluded from long-term care insurance

3. Spouse of veteran can no longer collect all state benefits when veteran passes away

4. Spouses can no longer share property

5. Joint tax returns banned

6. Transfer of assets over $11,000 no longer tax exempt

7. Can not change family name without court order

8. Parenthood of same-sex couples threatened if family moves out of California

[kkai88]

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8

[tannerlittleton]

vote no prop 8

[darkwitchtori]

NO ON PROP 8!

[Neicyp01]

slb190...I have no interest in fighting. I really am trying to understand and maybe you can help me. I don't understand why this is considered an "important" issue. If I am gay, it would be important to have the right. If I'm not gay, why would I care if gay people can legally marry. I don't really see that it's any of my business. It's not diminishing or infringing on my rights so why should I think I have the right or responsibility to tell adults what they should do?

[0lord0kinbote0]

You don't understand the motivation because you don't hate homosexuals, to be blunt.

[docquinn119]

The funny thing is that Prop 8 doesn't change any of the rights same sex couples have. They retain the benefits of marriage; the only difference is the name is domestic partnerships. Voting Yes on 8 means that religous organizations don't have to fear removal of their tax exemption status if they don't perform same sex civil unions. If you want to know more, see what's happened in MA since they allowed same sex marriage.

[Neicyp01]

California can't even meet their payroll. Don't they have more important things to worry about than whom someone else chooses to marry?

[slb1900000]

We shouldn't give up one important issue just because another has come to our attention.

[AequitasVeritas7777]

From watching this clip I think you need to change your title to "Proposition 8 opponents hate my guts" remember Proposition 8 is a good thing and some people may misunderstand your clip. Well done by the way. :) God bless America!

[CAguymasc]

The IMMORAL backers of prop 8 (polygamists Morman cult and child rapist enabling leaders in the Catholic church) trying to preach morality is a sick joke. I hope Californians see through their lies (but again, they are so moral) and CA votes NO on this mean spirited sickening proposition.

[DaniDivine2000]

The words of a good person give life, like a fountain of water,

but the words of the wicked contain nothing but violence.

(Proverbs 10:11 NLT)

[Permaglo]

"For anatomical reasons if none else you may want to leave "logic" out of this."

??????????

"allowing professors the ability to speak and publish without..."

Publishing in law journals is fine, but when you appear on an televised state-wide, that's a bit different. If the title had just said "Law Professor" no problem. But he chose to use the name of Pepperdine to bolster his imaginary arguments.

"Practise" is a proper spelling. Look it up, and while you're at it, look up "smug."

[kabul24]

writing English is not much important then your language, you need to learn how to post a comment. a lot of poeple read this.

[kabul24]

I am not smoker that's why I understand marriage only between a man and a woman,

what kind of brain is that to accept marriage two man or two woman.

[ggillisp]

Shut up and learn how to write in English.

[reaper06221986]

Its all a bit of a personal view and really its not going to be hurting anyone or anything those who believe they are are intolerable to a great degree and allow to ask you this would you disown your own son or daughter just cause they are gay and lesbian? if not then voting for prop is exactly the same thing as doing such, plus children will grow up falling for whoever they want, regardless of sex or of ethnicity regardless of upbringing and religious views

[kabul24]

YES on 8, just think use your brain marriage only between a man and a woman period.

[projexi]

My brain says homosexual marriage is just fine. WTF are you smoking?

[sidiggy1]

What's next, reinstating the ban on inter-racialmarriage? How about saying that poor people can only marry poor people? Jews can only marry Jews? Blue-eyes people can only marry blue-eyed people? Think I am being crazy - until 1934, it was, in fact, illegal to marry someone of a different race.

Equal protection is simple. No rational legal argument would extend pedophiles the right to marry children. Try studying the law, rather than just spewing ignorance.

[N8Vine]

ok, ok let's be fair, tying Nazism to conservative ideals on a practice dating back to the dawn of recorded history is about as crazy as what djhectorb said.

Everyone knows that society isn't perfect and progresses, but progress without regard to the consequenses (in this case especially freedom of religion) is reckless and needs to be checked by the majority via a vote.

[sidiggy1]

I am not tying anything to the Nazis. California banned inter-racial marriage, not Germany.

And allowing gay marriage does not infringe on anyone's freedom of religion. You are free to practice your religion regardless of whether gays can marry. What you are asking is that your religious beliefs be imposed upon everyone else.

Would you contend that allowing people to work on Saturday infringes on the Jews' freedom of religion? Of course not, as long as we don't make them work on Saturday.

[N8Vine]

It does infringe on religous freedom. Churches in Canada have already been sued and lost their tax exemption status for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Any church not wanting to lose it's tax exemption status would be forced to let the government decide what doctrines are appropriate. I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone, I just want to restore marraige to what it always was up until four months ago.

[sidiggy1]

I do not know anything about Canadian law, but I know a lot about U.S. law, after three years of law school and practicing law for 12 years. In the U.S. Churchses cannot lose their tax exempt status for preaching that homosexuality is a sin. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a higher law than the California Constitution. It protects freedom of religion. I have studied the case law; the tax exempt status of churches is not in danger. This is a fallacy, pure and simple.

[N8Vine]

Saying that just because this is the U.S. that it can't happen to our religions is a complete contradiction of most of your side of the arguement; that other countries (like CAN, EU, etc.) already have this law and they are just fine, so get with the times.

please google "when gay rights and religious liberties clash" from NPR 06/13/08 and then say there is not threat to U.S. churches.

[mwalwynn]

What about for teaching things that might be against the law, like that marriage between same-sex couples is not equal to marriage between a man and woman? No, I don't think they'll lose their tax exemption, but society would have people think they're bigots just because of the religious beliefs. And, I don't think churches will be attacked for not marrying same-sex couples, whether anything will come of it or not.

[mwalwynn]

I mean I DO think churches will be attacked for not marrying same-sex couples.

[sidiggy1]

Society will think they are bigots, or not, regardless of what the law says. And, sorry to say, enacting a bigoteed law so that churches can teach bigotry without being called bigots is not something that ought to be supported.

[sidiggy1]

If you do not believe me, I encourage you to study it. There has to be a legal paper on the issue available by now. The TV commercial saying the opposite cites to a law professor who has publicly said that he never said what is attributed to him, and that it is just wrong. legal experts agree that this argument is a scare tactic with no legal validity. I do not expect you to agree with my position on gay marriage; I just don't want you casting your vote out of fear your church will be affected.

[N8Vine]

I will definitely study it and get back with you.

Just to clarify, are you saying that Dr. Peterson of Pepperdine Law School(who appears in person on several "Yes on Prop 8" commericials) publicly said that he didn't say what he says in person in the said commercials? Or are you referencing someone else?

[sidiggy1]

My understanding is that Peterson cited someone else's work as support, and the person Peterson cited said Peterson got it wrong. I'll look it up in the morning to be more specific.

On the U.S. v Canada point, it is not a contradiciton; our federal Constitution is our highest law; it prohibits governments from penalizing churches for teaching religious beliefs, whatever they may be. No California law can override the U.S. Constitution, regarless of what they do in Canada or the U.K.

[sidiggy1]

I found what I was referring to. Peterson is an assistant professor at Pepperdine. The ad cites as authority an Op-Ed written by Robert DeKoven, a professor at California Western School of Law. DeKoven says "I never, ever, ever said anything about if churches do not perform same-sex marriages that you'll lose your tax-exempt status." DeKoven said he was never contacted by Peterson, adding: "Frankly I'm shocked that he would be involved in a political commercial with such distortions in it."

[Permaglo]

Pepperdine's President requested that all mention of Pepperdine be removed from the ad. The makers of the ad said they would comply, but Pepperdine's name is still on the ad.

[N8Vine]

Pepperdine's President was over-ruled by it's board of regents. Several thousand of us emailed them asking why a University that espouses "...to forward Christian ideals" in it's mission statement would leave one of its own professors to the wolves.

There are so few Christian schools in that echelon of accomplishment that it was refreshing to see they board, realizing the glaring contradiction, recanted their request to omit its name in the ad.

Yes on Prop. 8

[Permaglo]

Perhaps a Unviersity wouldn't be happy if one of their professors went off and acted in a commercial using the University's name without their approval. After all, they are in effect speaking for the Univeristy. Maybe he should have cleared it first.

Speaking of echelon of accomplishment, I'm not sure that Pepperdine would fall in my top law schools in the United States. Maybe that's because many Christians don't use logic, a fundamental of practising law.

[N8Vine]

For anatomical reasons if none else you may want to leave "logic" out of this.

Pepperdine has continually ranked in the top 100 law schools in the US- google it if you don't agree with me, and allowing professors the ability to speak and publish without getting every other official to agree is vital to any kind of institution of higher learning.

Also, when criticizing a school like Pepperdine Law, you may want to invest enough time to run a spell check on "practising".

[N8Vine]

Thank you for the information, did Dr. Peterson reference the op-ed piece, or was it just included in the rolling montage?

Also, I just checked my book on recent supreme court cases. It seems to me that more and more the left leaning judges are turning to international precedents (like the ICJ in the Hauge) rather than the just the constitution. Do you with all your experience agree? If so, how would that not constitue a present threat to religous freedom?

[sidiggy1]

I have not actually seen the ad, so I cannot say. What I read was unclear.

I am only aware of one Supreme Court case that considered international precedent; the issue was cruel and unusual punishment (not saying there are not more, but I don't know them). I have never seen international law cited in a First Amendment case. Our country pioneered religious freedom, so it would seem odd to turn to international law in this area. Also, our law is very developed in this area, so there is no need.

[eademe]

A lot of gay couples have children... in fact california encourages gay couples to adopt children in foster care because it has been shown they provide loving homes. The only threat to these children are hate mongers like you attacking there families. NO ON 8

This vote will not change the fact that gay couples can, have been, and will continue to have and raise children. All it will do is damage there families and hurt these children.

Do you want to do that? That is what you will accomplish.

[bigodin]

why so stupid ?

[starbelliedboy77]

Please...a slippery slope arguement?! Be sure to read "If you give a mouse a cookie."

[chessman83]

YES ON 8! YES ON 8!

[xthatwhiteguyx]

I vote yes on you shutting the fuck up, you worthless pile of human shit.

[N8Vine]

Hurling swear words like an angry middle schooler at another person because they don't say the things you like to hear smacks way more of intolerance than this proposition does.

[patrickuhri]

Please vote yes on prop 8. I you vote no then you are voting against my right to religious freedom. Not only does it take away the religious freedom but it is a direct attack the the Unites States constitution. This does not do one thing or ad one thing to homosexual right.

[xthatwhiteguyx]

Get an education before using the internet, please.

[Permaglo]

Prop 8 is a direct attack on the CA and U.S. Constitution. It says the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitutions doesn't matter. And it writes discrimination in for the first time in history.

[patrickuhri]

Equal protection not exceptance! So by what you say is if it make you happy it should be protected. So lets say I want to marry my house because it make me happy is that ok. Maybe it make me happy to be married to little children should that be protected.

[Permaglo]

Go back and read my last comments.

[N8Vine]

I know this might sound shocking, but discrimination has been written into thousands of laws since 1776. Luckily, in this case this bill does not discriminate against anyone. It merely re-establishes a centuries old definition of marriage to protect those of us in California who belive in heterosexual marriage exclusively from being forced to change marriage from a method of ensuring families are protected and cared for to a validation stamp on an alternative lifestyle granted by the gov't.

[Permaglo]

This isn't a bill, it's a Constitutional Amendment! BIG difference. And it most certainly discriminates! It establishes gays as second-class citizens, basically saying to gays: "Your relationships aren't as good as heterosexuals'" Tell that to the gay couple who have been together for 40 years.

Or did you mean that it doesn't discriminate against anyone who matters?

I don't quite understand what you want protection from? I guess all straight couples will divorce if gay marriage stands.

[N8Vine]

I realize it's an amendment, 61% of voters (4MM voters) wanted this law 8 years ago, then it was over-turned by 4 who decided all four million of us didn't know we were discriminating.

We aren't saying gay relationships are in any way inferior to heterosexual ones. All we are saying is we want marriage defined as between one man and one woman.

Everyone matters, that's why we all get to vote, and we want protection from a government forcing religions to teach what it deems appropriate.

[Permaglo]

The judges didn't didn't care if you knew you were discriminating, all they cared about was the law passed banning gay marriage in conflict with the CA Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which it was.

You aren't saying gay relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones? You just think that allowing gay marriage will "destroy" marriage.

[sidiggy1]

It does not forece you to do anything. You can still marry whomever you want.

Until 1934, the law banned inter-racial marriage. Before then, marriage was between a man and woman of the same race. We changed that. It did not violate anyone's rights to do so. Rather, it protected people's rights to marry the person of their choice. That is what the Court did when it threw out the law banning same sex marriage. Telling certain people they cannot marry who they want disciminates, plain and simple

[sidiggy1]

You have that backwards. Your religious freedom affects what you do, not what others do. Or do you believe that allowing people to work on Saturday violates the religious freedom of Jews? Does letting people work on Muslim holidays violate the religious freedom of Muslims?

And how do you think voting against Prop 8 attacks the U.S. constitution? Or did you even think about that before saying it?

[goodasyou]

Defeat the beast of bias! NO ON 8!

[N8Vine]

cute alliteration, but Prop 8 isn't biased, it just protects marraige.

[burgess0513]

Vote YES on 8. So Billy and his two Dads won't be read to our kindergartners.

Oh, and the polls haven't even started there, sparky. :S

[Lnickolas]

Lol Prop H8 won't pass, guys. Look at the polls.

[jerrydoubleu]

Vote no on 8. Vote no on hate. Vote for love.

[Permaglo]

The main arguments FOR Prop 8 involve religious opinions which should have no bearing on the law. The main argument AGAINST Prop 8 is that it write inequality into the CA Constitution and essentially makes gays second class citizens.

Everyone in this country, including polygamists and inbreeders, has the right to marry SOMEONE they love. Gays are the only ones who cannot marry someone they love, because the likelyhood of falling in love with someone of the opposite sex is close to 0%.

[patrickuhri]

Well you can't marry your dog or any other animal, chiildren, a house, a tree, a rock, a dead body, a car. All these could make someone happy as well. The main concern that I have is the it would other that do not believe in same sex marriage to have it force on them. I am talking about churches. There is a Doctor that would not preform a artificial insamination for a homosexual couple. because of his religious beliefs. This is government forcing a religion of none religion on other.

[Permaglo]

Of COURSE you can't marry any of those things patrickuhri, none of them can legally consent to marriage. Glad to see you've thought your argument through.

Your religion doesn't give you free reign to do whatever you want. Maybe my religion finds black people offensive, so because of my religion I refuse to do business with them.

Church is different in that it's NOT a public place. Think of it more like a private club. Thus its doors aren't nesessarily open to anyone.

[patrickuhri]

I have not been to a church where any person has been refuse entry. I do say that God could but he is the judge of us all. Churches are the fabric of our world. Your religion could and is seen different in every persons eyes ,and could even be the religion of no religion.

[patrickuhri]

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

[sidiggy1]

Patrick,

The point is that you have the right to marry the person of your choice. Everyone should have that right. Your ad absurdem argument goes both ways, but the other way is more realistic. Why not ban inter-racial marriage; blacks ccan't marry whites? This was a law, until the California Supreme Court held it unconstitutional. That ruling did not lead to people marrying dogs.

What about a law requiring people to marry within their social class? Let people marry who they want, simple.

[mwalwynn]

No, it's illegal to marry your sibling so the inbreeders comment doesn't work.