Thank you, thank you to all the courageous supporters of Prop 8 for braving the bad weather and showing our community that traditional values are still valued. Our children will thank us one day for preserving and protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Moms, please vote YES on 8. Our children are depending on us :)

Look at this great youtube video of Yes on Prop. 8 grassroots support! Turn on your speakers for some background Beach Boys music.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=N-zWFH-PGeM


YES on 8!!!

Ok. Prop 8 supporters had a road protest; prop 8 opponents had a road protest, too. Now can the Danville police do their job and arrest anybody else who has a road protest? Both of these protests have slowed traffic and caused danger to drivers. Too bad both sides can't lose this amendment as a punishment for tying up traffic. Write your letters, post your signs, but stop messing up traffic.

I live in Oakland and was out there with so many others at four different locations(in OAKLAND), soaked to the bone like you guys. Just wanted to let you know that in OAKLAND its LIVE and we're ready to hit the booths strong come TUESDAY!!!

THIS AIN'T HATE VOTE YES ON 8!!!!!!!!!!

If the gay marriage proponents would stop STEALING the YES on 8 signs, then maybe we could just put up signs. Isn't it ironic that the NO supporters are pounding the table about their constituional rights, yet they are delighted to take away the constitutional rights of others.

Exactly the level of tolerance you'd expect from a No voter!!

Vote YES on Prop 8.

Veni and Stewart

Both are racist biggots, burn in hell!

Geez why doesn't Danville Weekly just come out an endorse Prop 8? Even Fox News is a bit more subtle.

Just how do you explain that Danville Weekly:

1. Made a "mistake" and called the NO on 8 rally proponents instead of opponents of Prop 8 in the title of last Friday's article. Took a whole day to fix the "mistake."

2. Printed the VOTE NO on 8 rally information without our permission. Smart advocates don't give the other side motivation/information for a counter-protest. But I think you knew that. Funny how none of the pro Prop 8 rallies were "outed" in the paper.

3. So did you forget about the VOTE NO on 8 rally on Saturday that you announced to the community? Because no one from the paper was there. Funny how the pro Prop 8 people had their rally just before ours and you only covered theirs. I'm sure this was also just a coincidence/mistake. Just so you know our rally was just as big :)

4. As for being poured on (where is the rain in your photo?)...you forgot to mention that the pro Prop 8 group had nice big tents to stand under and stay dry (too bad the tents were also MIA from the photo!). Meanwhile the average folks at the VOTE NO on 8 rally did actually STAND IN THE RAIN and were soaked to the bone!

5. Gave the pro Prop 8 article the largest spot/picture while the NO on 8 was relegated to a much smaller spot, between other articles. No favoritism there either, I'm sure.

6. Let's compare how you portray the support for either side. VOTE NO on Prop 8: "Many cars honked in support but others gave a thumbs-down as they passed by." In contrast you said this about the other side, "Bearing signs and banners, proponents of the measure waved and cheered at cars honking in support, smiling despite the driving rain and heavy wind gusts that plagued the event." That doesn't sound biased at all, does it?

7. Not only is your writing biased, but the content is not accurate. At the VOTE NO on Prop 8 rally we had honking, thumbs up and waving for virtually every light change and quite often the honking would last through more than one light change. For the two hours I was there that would make the support in the order of 1000 people whereas I only witnessed 9 total thumbs down and/or obscenities. In contrast I watched a portion of the other side's protest and there was a lot of silence out there through multiple light changes. The pro folks made their own noise, but then we know they support themselves. The most noise came when a tiny VOTE NO on 8 group got out there and many motorists showed support for them.

6. As to reporting a traffic incident better left to the police and portraying it in an opinionated, biased manner intended to somehow make martyrs of the other side - it just disgusts me. Wrong, shameful and you know it.

This biased reporting is purposefully throwing gasoline on a fiery subject and seeking to unfairly influence an election. Please take this article offline, apologize, and stay away from this topic for the next couple of days.

I'm a No Vote on Prop 8 and I think the Danville Weekly has worked hard to make their coverage impartial. I disagree with their support of Candace Andersen, but their coverage on Prop 8 has been fair.

To the Danville No Voters: Remember, Candace Andersen at the poling place. Not only did she support Prop 8 but she used her mayoral title when doing it, thereby putting Danville on record as supporting Prop 8. Her decision to use the non-elected mayoral title showed a total lack of good judgment. Don't you want a mayor who can exercise good judgment?

To the Danville Yes Voters: Candace may support your position but her decision to use a non-elected title shows poor judgment. How happy would you have been had some other town council member been mayor this year and then used the non-elected mayoral title to put Danville on record of opposing Prop 8? The mayoral title is simply rotated amongst the council members, so there could have been just an equal chance that Danville would be on record as opposing Prop 8. Being honest, how happy would you have been with that outcome? The mayoral title should not be used in controversial topics that are unrelated to city business. No matter how you slice it, Candace demonstrated very poor decision-making. Do you really want someone on the Council who uses their Council title to pursue their own personal agenda? When you answer this question, remember that next time the personal agenda of your council member may run counter to your own personal views. Council members should stick to city issues.

One interesting observation. In the photo for this article the people look unhappy about having their picture taken - they are not smiling and/or they are looking away. Take a look at the picture of the NO on 8 people in the other article - they are smiling and looking directly at the camera.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should always guarantee the same fundamental rights and equality for every Californian. I know it, you know it, and as their body-language belies, so does the other side.

Please join us in VOTING NO on Prop 8.

I don't really think it's my place to respond on this but since the statements about bias directly relate to my article I felt I should.

To answer your points:
1. Yes a mistake was made in the headline. The article itself was factually correct and spoke of the opponent's efforts. We didn't become aware of it until early the next day. We were in the process of moving offices and it took some time to get it done. I apologize for that. There was no slight or bias intended.
2. We didn't print when your rally would be in order to marshall any opposition to it. I was sent the information, nowhere did it say this is a secret. I mistakenly thought I was doing you a favor by letting people know where they could gather if they wanted to support the cause.
3. As for Prop 8 Yes rallies, I received an e-mail about the one on Saturday the day before. Other than that I've heard of no others so I can't print what I don't know. And not covering saturday's rally, I covered the one on Wednesday. I do the best I can to cover both sides, which is why I went to Saturday's yes rally.
4. I didn't see any tents. I went to all four corners of the intersection but only saw umbrellas.
5. The layout of the section wasn't deliberate. Halloween was over so the picture of the little girl with the pumpkin was out of date.
6. I am sorry if you interpret the way those articles are written as bias. I didn't think so. I said both sides had people agreeing with them and some not.
7. Reporting of a minor police incident. I am certain if it had happened at a No on 8 rally you would have felt differently. And if I hadn't seen it myself I would not have reported it. But I was directly in line with the auto that swerved out of the road. If he/she had not gotten back into traffic in time he would have gone over the curb and up into a group of twelve people. My job is to report what happened and how the people reacted to it. They were afraid and angry but they kept what they were doing. That takes a certain level of bravery and regardless of which side you are on that is worthy of respect.


During the course of this very divisive topic we have tried very hard to give both sides equal time, equal coverage. And I'm sure people on both sides feel they have been shortchanged or cheated in some way. We do the best we can.

I do have feelings on Prop 8 and other ballot issues. Unfortunately I can't discuss them in a public forum because our job is to be fair to both sides. I would be happy to discuss how I feel (and I feel very strongly on many of these issues)after Tuesday. Ggillette@danvilleweekly.com .

Other than that I will cover issues like these as best I can and hope that we have at least given our readers a look at both sides and allow them to make their own decisions on election day.

Thanks and Good luck.
Geoff.

As a former resident of Danville (my parents still live there), I am disappointed, but not surprised to see the provincial attitude still persists in this town. Do you people realize that there is a whole world outside the city limits?

Geoff, Thank you for your dedicated reporting on both sides of the issue. This has been a very emotional issue during a very critical election season. We are so proud to live in a country where "we, the people" have the freedom to express our opinions, evaluate both sides of an issue and vote our opinion. It is refreshing to see that journalism is "alive" in Danville. Thank you for covering both sides of this issue and for taking the time to photograph and report on both rallies.

Damn, if only that driver hit those worthless people.

Evolution will take care of them. ;-)

See Jason above. Exactly the poster boy I would pick for a stereotypical No voter.

The scornful attitude and name calling to silence those they disagree with is exactly what I have come to expect of the gay/lesbian agenda. Speak up louder, Jason, in fact, why don't you name call everyone who intends to vote YES on 8 -- you will make my point for me.

Let wisdom prevail on this important issue to parents and their precious children. Don't let the intolerant "Jasons" out there intimidate the silent majority who understand why preserving traditional marriage is of critical importance to our state, our families, our children.

Vote YES on Prop. 8!!!

NO on Prop 8!!

To everyone who is NO on Prop 8...

I've posted very infrequently in these forums, but I feel that I need to say something in this case. First of all, I applaud you (No on 8 supporters) for exercising your constitutional right to expression, and fighting for a cause you believe in.

I recently posted a comment in another thread about the tactics that are being used on both sides...and how disturbing they are to me. I spoke specifically about how people are supposed to be targeted individually.

Web Link

I was told by several friends that I shouldn't worry about it, and that it is just someone making noise for the sake of making noise.

Well, here's an email that was sent to the employer of a friend of mine. It was sent this afternoon at 1:56 PM from an ANONYMOUS Yahoo email address with the name of Joe Schmo.

The target of this email is a friend of mine. He is a good family man. He, his wife and children, have lived here in our community for many years. The business that his company is involved in is under tremendous pressure, and he is at a very real risk of losing his job. His family is struggling with some other issues that complicate things even further.

Now "Joe Schmo" (who evidently needs a spelling lesson) has decided to out my friend to his employer and business partners for donating to the yes on Prop 8 campaign. Why is Joe targeting him now, 1 day before the election? He can't possibly get my friend to take back his donation to protectmarriage.com. So what is his motive? I'm going to wager that it is to administer as much pain as possible to someone who disagrees with his position.

Awesome job, "Joe". Well done. Way to show the world that you can tolerate someone else's opinion. I'm glad you are showing how hateful Mr. Y is, and how tolerant you are. He truly is the "biggot" here. The best part of Joe's email is how he ends it with "respectfully".

I'll sure be glad when this election is over.

I agree that we should stop the hate. Vote whichever way you feel best about…but stop the hate.

-------------------------
From: Joe Schmo [mailto:twelveinchsurfer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:56 PM
To: Mr. X
Cc: Mr. Y

Subject: Mr. Y = Biggot / hate?

Mr. X,

If someone said "I wish they would outlaw marriage between blacks and whites," would that be biggotry? Of what if they said "I don't think it should be legal for Jews and Catholics to marry." Would you think that was o.k.?

Well that is how Mr. Y feels. He wants to deny the rights of two loving and consenting gay adults to marry. He feels so strongly about it that he has given $X,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign through protectmarriage.com. As I am sure you know, Prop 8 is the initiative, being backed heavily by the Mormon Church and its members, that would actually ammend the California state constitution to DENY rights to a group of people... Imagine that... people wanting to ammend the constitution - not for some noble cause or to ensure the rights of a minority - but to DENY rights they already legally have. That is what Mr. Y wants to do.

I just thought you might like to know about the people working with you and that are associating your company name with their biggoted cause.

Web Link

Did you know that every major paper in California is against Prop 8, including the most conservative editorial boards of the Bakersfield Californian and San Diego Union Tribune (both of whom are endorsing McCain). Most news outlets have pointed out what a ridiculously deceiptful campaign the Yes on 8 backers have run. This is a hateful and biggoted initiative.

Maybe you and your company share the beliefs of Mr. Y; I really hope not.

I hope YOU will vote NO on 8.

Respectfully,

Joe

I guess Joe Schmo also needs spelling lessons so he can learn to correctly spell "bigot" so he can repeatedly to slander good people in a grammatically proper way.

He's just another ignorant and intolerant "Jason" and, unfortunately, there are lots more Joes and Jasons out there -- I hope not in Danville, but maybe. Folks, this is the vocal face of the No on 8 movement. I'm not saying all No on 8 folks are like this, but way too many are. That speaks volumes about their cause. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes on 8!!!

Dear Yes on 8 people, and especially any undecideds,
A friend sent me this and I agree: You may have strong feelings about the rightness or wrongness of this issue based on your religious views, but please consider this: We are talking about civil not religious marriage. Nothing should impact a church’s right to determine its precepts for its members, or your adherence to such precepts. But in America, the separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of our democracy that sets us apart from so many of the divisive religious states we see in the world today. Same-sex marriage can in no way “threaten” traditional marriage, which seems pretty time-honored, stable and capable of surviving on its own. After all, marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple; it should should be available to all. Certainly my wife and I, in our 54+ years of marriage, do not feel so threatened. For us, it is an issue of fairness and equality, and a recognition of our shared humanity So please consider joining us in voting NO on Proposition 8.

A simple glance at this thread shows how divisive Proposition 8 is.

The bottom line is that gay people exist in our society and we can accept reality or we can band together and pass laws to hurt and marginalize them.

The four Republican-appointed judges realized that a marriage ban is unconstitutional. Hundreds of churches, ministers, priests and rabbis are performing gay marriages as we speak. Millions of Christians have reconciled their faith with their love for their gay friends and family members. You can too.

I believe the majority of Californians are fair-minded, live-and-let-live people and Prop 8 will be defeated.

Prop 8 is un-American, un-Christian, sanctimonious and really kind of mean.

Vote No.

Sadly, California has a long history of discrimination so this issue will probably be no different. The Prop 8 supporters are the same people whose parents and grandparents supported a ban on interracial marriage and put US citizens in concentration camps during the 1940s. I just find it a hoot that these same Californians think they're so much more advanced than Southerners.

Go and vote NO on propostion 8!

Mr and Mrs "Vote yes on 8" are posting they're yellow banners with the graphic blue family [Ironicly as this is basicly the same group that wanted to ban the Smurfs in the 80's..geez!] are at it again. If I hear one more time that "We don't dislike the Gays"..... Oh ya and.. its a threat to traditional marriage.... Really?
No one has given me one good reason as to how it threatens marriage.
First of all is "the traditional, as it has alway been" answer. Its not a reason! And its not threatening. Think about this, if same sex marriage existed when you all got married would you have reconsidered and possibly married someone of the same sex. NO you wouldn't. But if you would have...well then, you need to be more honest with yourself.
Here' the deal. Take a look at homes in Danville verses the Homes in S.F. Its simple, The homes in the city are decorated beautifully and usually owned by a gay couple. Where as it seems like every home in Danville is the same with some horrible fake "Tuscany" crap from the 80s! [really you need to move on] They're horrid. We simply need the Gays to fix'em up. Please.

Also think it through. Walk through West Hollywood sometime. There is more fat content in a single Golf cart in Danville than you'll find in a block or two of gay men in WeHo. Lady's, you could have these guys moving in next door. They're buffed and they love to shop. Perfect. And your husbands should think its great. Men that won't try to steal their wives and surely wouldn't try to steal your husbands because [with the exception of the fat% issue] they are a married couple as you are.

Stop the uglyness today. Do not hate the Gays or the Smurfs! [Really, move on] Stop it! And don't change our constitution. GO VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.

Well, folks -- it's all over but the votin', and fortunately, signs don't vote.

NO on 8! -- because a Constitution is a TERRIBLE thing to which to lay WASTE.

Exactly, Tom. A Constitution is a terrible thing to twist in order to pander to current political correctness. It's a document that should reflect the wisdom of many generations rather than be mangled by a minority of shrill and obnoxious voices.

YES on 8!!!!

No matter what happens tonight with Prop 8 it won't change how gay families feel about each other and that's proobably what disappoints Prop 8 supporters the most. I have two children thanks to a wonderful surrogate. My name and my partner's name appear on their birth certificates and Prop 8 won't change that. I am also blessed to have two wonderful step-children that lived with us all of their teen years until they both went off to college. The six of us are a family and always will be no matter what a Prop 8 supporter thinks or believes. So, in reality, gay families win either way. We are fortunate enough to live in a state that does not allow any form of discrimination when it comes to parenthood. Thankfu'lly, several adoption agencies have been booted from CA when they attempted to discriminate against gay couples. So, even if Prop 8 supporters win this battle they've lost the war because our state has laws creating and supporting gay families and there's nothing the Prop 8 supporters can do to change that.

But, I do wonder if these Prop 8 supporters who claim not to be bigots will support the effort to repeal the federal DOMA law which prevents the federal government from extending rights to domestic partners. I bet these people will be against it even though they claim that gays have domestic partnership so they should be happy. Hummm, you claim we should be happy with domestic partnership and that you don't support Prop 8 to be a bigot but to simply promote traditional marriage. Then, let me know if we can count on your support to overturn the federal DOMA law.

Hey, CandyAn, you said you oppose discrimination. Can I count on your support to overturn federal DOMA? I await your response. Perhaps the paper should ask her to see if she truly believes what she wrote in this paper.

Dear Stewart:

Current CA Supreme Court Justices, and who appointed them:

Chief Justice Ron George, Pete Wilson, Republican
Justice Joyce Kennard, George Deukmajian, Republican
Justice Marvin Baxter, Pete Wilson, Republican
Justice Catherine Werdegar, Pete Wilson, Republican
Justice Ming Chin, Pete Wilson, Republican
Justice Carlos Moreno, Gray Davis, Democrat
Justice Carole Corrigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican

There's your "activist" court. 6/7 Republican appointees. The more you know...

Please vote NO on Prop 8! A bunch of activist Republican judges can't be wrong!

Tom. SO WHAT? Your point is?

Assuming the Governator is a Republican, which is in doubt, Republican appointees can be as activist as Dems. Even conservative judges can get intoxicated by their own power, and these 4 judges are not conservative as I understand that concept. The point is they grossly overstepped their judicial role and became unelected legislators in this case. Any self respecting legal scholar such as yourself should be able to see that. I don't care who they were appointed by. If we're going to have gay marriage in this state, and the voters are still out on that question as I write this, the voters should make the decision, not judges. That way the "system" works as it was designed to work.

Tom, it's as simple as that.

Thanks for all your blogging. It keeps you out of trouble.

Proposition 8 just passed!!! It is a great day to be a Californian!!!

Congratulations, Yes on 8 folks. Though had this not passed your marriages would have been intact, through your efforts a sizeable population of people who love each other and want to build a life together and (gasp) raise families will be unable to have those same rights as you. Somehow your love must be better to merit the opportunity to marry the one you love.

Though I have been married to my husband for over 40 years, considering the company of other "marrieds" like you, the instituion itself is sullied.

Toni, I can assure you, the feeling is mutual on my part.

Why don't you turn a little of your invective on the wonderful 4 activist judges on the California Supreme Court which is how we got here in the first place. If they had acted like judges, rather than unelected super legislators, or benevolent demigods who know what is best for society, this would have been avoided and maybe, just maybe, in a few years, the garriage proponents would have won fair and square in the voting booth. Until they do that, any wins will be completely illegitimate and unaccepted by the citizens of this great state.

Figured you couldn't resist commenting, Stewart. Interesting that your anger at the Supreme Court has resulted in your backing of a proposition that hurts so many families. The few of my friends that supported Prop 8 had more heartfelt reasoning (though misguided in my opinion)that had to do with their core values, rather than the punishment of an entire group due to a decision that was made by others in a position of power.

Dear Toni:

Stewart continues to consciously misapprehend the role of the Constitution in our jurisprudence. It is not to rubber-stamp the will of the current majority (that's up to the legislature and the Governor), but to make certain that such majorities do not run roughshod over the rights of minorities.

It's fundamentally important to understand that distinction, which is the primary reason why there's a hierarchy in law: Constitution > leglslation > common law.

And who determines what the CA Constitution means? The CA Supreme Court, doing what it's meant and designed to do -- and what three Republican appointees and one Democrat did in the Marriage Cases majority last May.

They only assumed the Rove-ian mantle of "activists" when they had the temerity to disagree with one Stewart, the anonymous Danville blogger.

The CA Constitution has changed, for now, but Stewart-and-company must keep the pressue on because of challenges to the validity of Prop 8 that will be decided by the same Court. Frankly, as much as I'd agree with the outcome, I think it may be an uphill climb for this Court to invalidate the crusade. Earlier CA Supreme Courts were much more judicially "liberal" than this Republican-dominated body. And that latter fact, of course, makes the "activist" label that much more patently ridiculous and politically transparent.

What ultimately gives me hope is the Gallup poll that shows the Over-60s firmly opposed as a group to the unfamiliar concept of same-sex marriage, while the Under-30s as a group can't imagine why anyone would want to deny it to their friends and neighbors who are living comfortably "out" of the closet. Similar generational phenomena have worked their way through the culture on matters of race, religion and gender.

So, I'm quite certain, it will be for the ultimate achievement of this particular civil right. I only wich it had happened Tuesday -- but it'll happen. Freedom is like that.

Toni, believe me, there are lots of reasons to vote YES on Prop. 8 and Californians understood that. I'm particularly aggravated at the Supreme Court for overstepping its role and creating the situtation we now find ourselves in. It also could have stayed the effect of its decision until Prop. 8 was decided, but because it declined to do that, we now face expensive litigation over various issues. All around the Court's social engineering thinly disguised as law has just been pathetic on this issue.

Why have I repeatedly mentioned that particular issue? Because it is something fair minded folks on both sides of this issue should be able to agree on. If you can get beyond the issue du jour and understand that if the Court continues on this activist path they could be your best friend one day and your worst enemy the next, depending on the issue they decide to legislate on. The point is that is not the role of courts in our country. Courts have limited jurisdiction and a limited role in our system. Once they overstep that, it completely throws the delicate checks and balances of our system out of whack. I certainly hope they have learned their lesson because the passage of Prop. 8 is as much a spanking of this Court as anything else, and I hope they got the message loud and clear.

Tom, you seem to think you know a lot about the law and have spouted off in different postings the various precedents for what the Court did. I understand a bit about constitutional law too -- and I also know that constitutions are orignally set up by the majority -- and they can be changed by the majority. Do you think the minority emerged from the swamp and set up constitutional protections over the objection of the majority? C'mon Tom. Think it through. The constitution does protect the minority to an extent -- and only to the extent the majority is willing to allow that protection. Ultimately, on all issues, the majority (although sometimes a supermajority) wins. If you don't like the system, then move to a dictatorship and be at its mercy. That's just the way our system works, and it works pretty well if the institutions properly act their parts.

The very worst thing for your side is more litigation. Not only does it expose you as sore losers but it shows how little the LGTB coalition cares about the voice of the People and the essence of our democracy. Do you really think that course of action will win over me and millions of others in my camp? Hardly. It will merely harden our resolve to oppose those who would subvert our government and our country for their own selfish ends.

Tom, I paid you a compliment in an earlier blog about you being one of the more restrained NO siders on these blogs. Don't make me retract it by saying things like I "consciously misapprehend" how things work. That's using fancy words to say I am lying. And, Tom, that type of insult should be beneath you. Don't succomb to the unfortunate ugly rhetoric of many on your side.

Does it really surprise you why I am anonymous? Because of the hate filled bomb throwers on the No side. Do you really think I'd make myself, my house, my family, my car, etc. a target for those only too willing to cause me injury just because I don't share their opinion? But that is how "they" define tolerance -- tolerance they are happy to ram down your throat. Heaven help our society if that type of person gains any power -- and I fear your side is filled with many of those people.

So, please get over it and let the healing begin. It has been a difficult experience for all, but the People have spoken and you and I both need to respect that.

And Toni, one more thing. My aggravation at the Supreme Court is very very heartfelt. But my core values about traditional marriage, the protection of children, and religious freedom are heartfelt too.

The gay/lesbian (hidden) plans to indoctrinate kids in kindergarten -- and do so deliberately so their parents would not be informed and could not object or even opt out -- is beyond deceiptful and despicable. I deeply respect parental rights to teach their children about moral issues in the way they want to and when they feel the time is appropriate. I also respect religious rights and see this as a slippery slope where the gov't will increasingly treat traditional faith issues as discrimination and try to force those of faith to change their beliefs. None of this is hypothetical -- it has happened elsewhere. The clash between judicially protected classes and religious freedom is right around the corner if not already at our door.

So, forgive me for talking most recently about the Court. There are other extremely important issues at stake as well -- and I have "heartfelt" feelings about all of them. So, now, does that provide you with a broader range of names to call me?

Stewart,

You are starting to sound like a paranoid nut job. No gay person I know is looking to indoctrinate kindergarteners about gay marriage. That's your perverted fantasy.

I don't know if you have children, but if one of them turned out to be gay (and from my personal observation, that's a condition one is born with) I think you'd have a different take on this.

Dad, thanks for the name calling. I was starting to forget all the names your side has called me over the past few months.

Dear Stewart:

You know why I won't "get over it?" Because I woke up Wednesday and my life was about the same as it had been. But for 36,000 of my friends and neighbors who had tasted true freedom and full social inclusion for the previous five months -- their lives were thrown into turmoil. And hundreds-of-thousands of others in this state were relegated to the "gay" section at the back of the bus.

This isn't some tennis match -- this is LIFE. And if you think people aren't going to continue to fight for the vindication of their rights, then you aren't the student of history you purport to be. This is Churchill talking about fighting on the beaches and in the hedgerows for their way of life -- and never, ever surrendering.

The "sore loser" terminology frankly demonstrates how little you understand of the devastating effects your actions have had on those it affects directly -- or tells they're second-class citizens. You may be pleased to pack up your racquet and head to the bar -- but those you've so insulted will not join your company. That's a "real" lifestyle choice they actually "can" make.

I have less than no interest in your compliments nor in any "healing" that compromises my values. Freedom trumps politesse, you see, and there can be no community where one man stands on another man's head.

You speak of the hatred emanating from the NO side. In my own experience documented elsewhere on this board (the "assailant" posting), I can assure the NOs have had no monopoly on aggression. Yet when you put this issue in historical context, it's been remarkably civilized. There've been no lynchings, few batteries, no bodies in earthen dams and I've witnessed remarkable restraint. And yet the rights are no less important. I hope it stays that way. You can do what you wish to hide your identity, obviously -- I choose to stand up.

You know, you'd think that the lessons of "Scopes" might have endured. In that case, a person's right to "think" was on trial against a religious onslaught. Here, two people's rights to simply "be" full participants in our society is at-issue against a similar assault by those who want their Way to be prescribed by law for everyone. It's not right, and I am confident in ultimate vindication.

It may discomfit you to be called-out as acting in a bigoted fashion. But it is those actions, and not their proper descriptors, that need amending. There's a log in your eye, my friend, and it's blinding you to the nature and impacts and wrong-headedness of your position.

My wish for you is more Beatitudes, and a lot less "Onward, Christian Soldiers." You can find me in the hedgerows.

Well, Tom, I can assure you that the feelings of many of the YES camp are equally as strong as you say yours are. And, yes, the YES folks feel it's LIFE too -- for them, their kids, grandkids and society in general. So, don't think all your arguments don't cut the other way.

The Domestic Partnership Act gives gays exactly the same legal rights as hetero married folks. The respectability will come from their personal goodness and their interaction with others. You can't decree respectability.

I don't expect anyone to "join my company" -- whatever that may mean -- unless they want to and I want them to. My friends are friends based on who they are not what they are. I honestly don't care what people do in their bedrooms. I do object when people try to force on me something they think is good for me.

Tom, I've said over and over on this blog that the only way to change the law on this issue is by a vote of the People. That's what I mean by sore loser. We put the issue up for a vote and my side won and yours lost. That may not always be the case, but going to court now is for sore losers.

In response to your invitation, I happily retract my prior compliment.

You are able to "stand up" because the YES folks are overwhelmingly civil and respect your opinion and property. That's not the case for many of the Noes, unfortunately, and that's based on my personal experience over the last 3 months.

Tom, we're just not going to agree on much because I happen to think that not only is the "beam" (check your Bible) not in my eye, it's in your hands and you're pummeling me with it. It's not my place to judge you or anyone else, and I won't. I'm sure you're an OK guy generally, with the exception of your seemingly genetic propensity and capacity for countless hours of blogging, but we're never going to find common ground here and I have better things to do.

So, I'll say sayonara, adios, and adieu to you and sign off now with the hope that you will be able to find some consolation on this issue or at least another legal outlet to let off steam or I fear your anger will eat your insides or be directed at others.

p.s. Darn! I couldn't even get through a dialogue with you without you calling me a bigot! You're one of 'em, Tom.

I think I see Stewart's problem. He truly believes "The gay/lesbian (hidden) plans to indoctrinate kids in kindergarten." I know that absurd misinformation was used in the ads but, really, who would believe it?

But my question is: Just because a majority votes to change the Constitution, is it that easy? What if the majority voted to legalize murder (of the body, that is, not just the hearts)?

I'm so depressed. I feel like California has been taken over by aliens. (Start the creepy music ... "They look normal as they go about their business, but inside they plot against people who don't share their lifestyles or beliefs... their ultimate goal is to destroy the special place that is called California...")

Hi Marcy:

I think you're right -- hell, even Stewart's preferred translation of the Bible is the only one he'll accept.

As to the Constitution, it can be "amended" (minor change or changes) by popular majority vote, but if it is "revised" (big change or changes, according to case law) then there is a far more elaborate process required.

The lawsuits filed yesterday seek to invalidate Prop 8 because, the argument goes, the change it makes is "big" and therefore constitutes and requires a revision. I would be quite pleased generally, and specifically on this issue of fundamental civil rights, if the lawsuit wins. Constitutions "should" be difficult to change, in my view. Your mileage may vary.

Courts are defined by the political philosophies of their members, which roughly correspond to the liberal-conservative continuum in politics, generally. This Court is made up of six Republican appointees, and one Dem-appointee -- and it is fairly conservative in its approaches, esp. relative to prior CA Supreme Courts.

That does not bode well generally for the "revision" argument, but: three of the Republicans and the one Dem voted in the majority in the Marriage Cases, marriage has long been a so-called fundamental right in CA law, and a single important change "can" qualify as a revision -- so in the words of the zen master (Charlie Wilson's War): "We'll see."

Keep the faith! We NOs did win in Danville 55/45% or so, and the state-wide margin is down from 20+ to less than 5%. My mama once said that nothing good comes easily, and the Stewarts of the world will not cede their preferred perch without a fight. So be it.

Stewart (yes, of course you are still lurking) - there was not a point at which I called you a name, so why you make that accusation toward me I am unsure. Perhaps you are uncomfortable because I pointed out your obvious agenda around your anger at the supreme court, and your perception they had abused their power as the motivation behind your crusade to ban marraige to same sex couples. I didn't realize that you also believed that teachers were trying to recruit kindergartners toward a non-herero lifestyle. That level of paranoia is downright scary.

Tom, Marcy, Dad of 6 - so glad to have you as neighbors. I know the state of California and the rest of the world will come to their senses at some point, one heartfelt conversation at a time. Tom especially (met you at a rally) - in spite of some of the hurtful comments of some people supporting the "yes" agenda, you have really made me feel hopeful about eventually seeing the discrimination end and I feel really proud to support that with all of you.

So some of you are calling Stewart paronoid for mentioning parents are justifiably concerned that their children are being indoctrinated at a young age? Tell that to the parents of a kindergartner at an elementary school in Hayward who were shocked discover that "gay and lesbian ideals" were being taught to their daughter in kindergarten without their knowledge. Their daughter's elementary school intentionally did not inform parents about a school-wide "Coming Out Day" and other activities in celebration of Gay and Lesbian History month.
Web Link