This doesn't pass the smell test. What a laugh, as if people aren't aware of thin wedges....of course the state would, in time, force churches to do ceremonies against their will.

Susan, you just sadden me.

Well like Republicans are being told by Democrats, just get over it.
But, they could look at it from the glass half full viewpoint:
At least they won't have to become part of the 50% marriages that fail and make lawyers very rich.

In your article "Obama won election, and so did all his supporters" you referred to the name Tina Fey as being a heartbeat away from the presidency. I believe the persons name who was really in that position was named Sarah Palin - being referred to as Tina Fey is insulting and demeaning. It is people like you that perpetuate this ugliness and disrespect running rampant in our nation. Because of this attitude I seldom get my information from newspapers anymore, although I do subscribe to one which carries your editorial but I will no longer be reading yours. Freedom of the press has dropped to even newer lows in this election. Sylvia Knight, Lodi, CA

Why not just call it Civil Union? Those of us who support traditional marriage would not object to the same legal rights, however, marriage is one man and one woman - two of the same gender is different and needs a different name.

Why can't liberals accept that we are not a true liberal nation? If we had rioted over McCain and all the ACORN crap, we would be told to get over and accept it. Gays need to accept the will of the people. I have a gay brother and him I love very much. He and I are close but I still think marriage is between men and women. Obama got elected becaues of 98 per cent of the black vote and all the young college students and a sour economy. That does not equate to we'll accept anything and everything in America. Civil unions, perhaps. Marriage, no!!!!!!!!!!

Well, Susan, it's like this:

African Americans turned out in larger than ever numbers to vote for Barack. Hispanics did too.

Both groups are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. They voted this way.

Its ironic isn't it. You got the messiah elected, but at a cost to what gays wanted.

You are obviously ticked because a major current component of liberal ideology (gay marriage) has been defeated by the will of the people in California. You've interpreted the will of the majority with ..."Proponents of Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage, had waged a shrewd, well-funded and deceptive campaign to overturn the recent state Supreme Court decision barring discrimination against gay couples seeking marriage licenses from local officials." You are definitely the one who is wrong. Had it been the other side who won, you with your 'lawyer hat' would say the will of the people have spoken, but when those who hold to sound reason won, then you label them 'shrewd' and 'deceptive.'
Susan, take just take a pill. After B. Hussein Obama's inauguration, most likely some of the liberal judges will retire, (carefully orchestrated) so that B. Hussien Obama will appoint more liberal-leftist judges to the Supreme Court bench. They will be just like the other life time liberal judges who are LEGISLATING from the bench (their duty is to be judicial, not legislative). This will be plainly seen when a democratic nation has its populace vote overturned by a this/these coming legislators/judges who veer away from the Constitution intent and obvious interpretation of morality (not the Hollywood Californication sort) as well as the will of the people.
This in turn will spawn a much needed revolution where sound reason and decency will wake up. Sadly many will see after the inauguration, when B. Hussein Obama's chameleon cover will dissipate, and the socialist, leftist leaning will be much more apparent. Then the damage will commence. May God have mercy on us as a nation. I for one will not sit around and give up. There will be a lot more calls and e-mails to my representatives as well as a procedure which may be foreign to you - that of prayer, so that the tide of our nation may turn to those morals and reason.

Maybe I'm mistaken on this, but "marriage" is a religious term indicating a man and woman are joined "in the face of and with the blessing of God" to be helpmates to each other and produce their own biological offspring. What does it have to do with love? Seems the law of the land is taking the Biblical reading of marriage as between a man and a woman. So be it. So if they can't have marriage, due to the definition, what is it "love relationships" want from the land? If they want religious blessing, there's always someone out there with a religious title willing to bless their union. If they're trying to get us to change the meaning of the words of The Bible, forget it. Never happen. They can have a big wedding to celebrate their love union, why not? If they want legal rights, then yes, the law of the land does need to be changed, but not to include them under the "marriage" umbrella, but definitely to provide them with the legal and civil rights of a protected union and to give rights to whatever children they may have. I'm all for "love marriages" and allowing the people in these relationships to adopt the unwanted offspring of all the "hetero" couplings that have soured. I've searched a lot of holy writings, nowhere does it say two people of the same sex can't raise a child. For those who are conservative, think of legalized gay unions as a way to deal with the throwaway children left by all the hetero couplings that found it so easy to have a child and get married if they chose. I don't know why people are homosexual, I only know they are and I know that there are all forms of sexuality. Putting that aside, when two people are fortunate enough to find love, it should be honored, not despised. Children, friends, neighbors, family, health, all benefit from love relationships. Society benefits from stable unions with equal rights. Give these relationships the same legal rights as you would have for yourself.

In your article your characterize Propostion 8 as 'divisive and mean-spirited.' What a sham and how utterly ignorant of the history and skimming over of the facts of militants homosexuals endeavoring to force their fringe veiwpoint on all of us, always trying to usurp the will of the people - the majority. Those militants are the epitome of division, and certainly mean-spirited.