On other postings, there have been references to the LA Times poll and the Field Poll on the issue of gay marriage. Predictably, Mongo Flamo cited the LA Times poll which showed a bare majority opposed to the recent Cal Supreme Court decision and in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. What Mongo Flamo did not write about was that the results in favor of the ban included "leaners" not just those who affirmatively answered with their approval. None of the other LA Times recent surveys that I read used "leaners." There was no explanation for the use of "leaners" for this one survey, but it is clear that "leaners" do not hold opinions as strongly as those answering "yes."

What Mongo also ignored and which is frequently ignored by others in the use of polls is the margin of error. Employing the margin of error of 4% (as I recall), those voters polled could actually have been evenly split on the amendment 50/50 to the amendment (or even 58% in favor of it): the range was 8%. That's the problem with polls.

For me, the most important point is that there has likely been a very strong move in favor of gay marriage since the 2000 presidential primary in which Prop 22 passed with a 61% majority.

And since the public as a whole is more favorable to gay marriage than registered voters, the increase in voter registration, particularly amongst the young, should swing the numbers even further in favor of marriage between consenting adults, whatever each's sex.

The L.A. Times poll's results showed 54% in favor of the November ballot measure overturning the State Supreme Court's recent ruling. You can spin it any way you want, Sarge, but that's what the poll says.

BTW, what you failed to mention, is that only 35% said they were against the November ballot measure. There was 11% undecided.

I strongly favor gay marriage. I don't see how expanding marriage rights takes anything away from anybody else.

I'm a 48 yo female, professional, college educated, married, mother, grandmother (for your stats)

I favor gay marriage and support love and commitment by any two people. How can love between people drag down other people? Sounds paranoid to me.

This could be seen as a matter of religious liberty. I don't see why the state continues to enforce one religion's interpretation of marriage over another's. I thought the 1st amendment was supposed to prohibit the establishment or promotion of one religion over others, yet that's what's happening here when people say same sex marriage is against their religion. There are many religions against which it is not, but I don't see anyone trying to protect their idea of marriage. In fact,

I would be happy to see this constitutional amendment if it meant then that (in order not to discriminate), it meant the state were forced to abolish marriage for everyone. Then the state legislature could enact some laws expanding current domestic partnerships to include heterosexual couples, ending the current sexual orientation discrimination that was written into that law as well. Once everyone in California has access only to DPs as a civil contract (whereas marriage will be church-only and have as much legal impact as baptism), then the federal government will either have to get out of marriage altogether (and leave all definition up to the states) or cover domestic partnerships for all couples, ending the highly bigoted DOMA.

I am in my early thirties and I support Marriage Equality. Our society should encourage love and commitment to others.

I think, when it is possible, children should be raised by two people committed to each other through marriage. Adoption is already legal for gay families. This ruling and the way the legislature voted twice will help enshrine their protections and duties to families.

This is a family values issue.

I don't think it would be fair to allow people to marry and then allow others to take it away by voting against them.

When voters realize that gay people are trying to create loving, stable, families their hearts will warm to Marriage Equality.

This will be a summer of love!

Beyond the two parent families, which I think are extremely important, I think it's also really important to have male and female role models as parents. It provides an important counter-balance to the child's physical and emotional development.

"It provides an important counter-balance to the child's physical and emotional development."

All evidence to the contrary in your case, Mongo/Gibson/Jill Dominique, if we are to assume that your upbringing was in a "traditional Ma & Pa" family.

"It provides an important counter-balance to the child's physical and emotional development."

All evidence to the contrary in your case, Mongo/Gibson/Jill Dominique, if we are to assume that your upbringing was in a "traditional Ma & Pa" family.

It is already legal for gay families to adopt and raise children.

Are you against people who adopted children together from getting married?

Yep, unless it's a man and a woman.

Personally, I'm against gay marriage or civil unions because the statistics seem to tell us that children do better in a family that is hopefully stable and with a father and a mother.

But people are going to do what they want to do. What bothers me also is that our courts are pushing a social agenda and we the public don't seem to have a say about it and our squishy (a word?) elected representatives just sit there and collect our tax money.

Now that brings up something that I bet these people have not thought about. The Democrats have said that they will let the tax benefits that all of us received after Bush took office revert back to what they were under Clinton, including the marriage tax. So welcome aboard the tax wagon all of you who want to have "married" by your names!

Taxem,

1. The courts aren't alone on this issue in California. The state legislature voted twice for same sex marriage. Our governor vetoed it because he said it went against the will of the people in Prop.22 in 2000 by voters. But he also said he won't support the drive to overturn the courts decision. So, it looks like all three branches support it. Lastly, California does get a chance to vote on judges.

2. Show me a link where Democrats will charge married couples more just because they are married. Do you want married people to pay the same or less in taxes? If it is less, should any gay people get access to this tax cut or should they pay more because they are gay?

Mongo believes it is important to have a mom and dad so gay marriage should be illegal? News flash Mongo, 50% of marriages are ending in divorce and there are already more households that are unmarried then married. What is it you are trying to protect? Just tell the truth, you think you are speaking with Jesus because that is what Boss Hogg at the VCRCC believes.

You're leaving out part of the story, dilly-wipp. What percentage of those that get divorced remarry and end up with a very happy marriage henceforth?

The point is it's still far better to have a male and female marriage partnership for the well-rounded physical and emotional development of children. Can you logically dispute this, or are you content with trying to throw cold water on every argument without any substantiation?

You offer no proof, you have no brain, you have no guts. Am I missing anything? Come out of the closet Mongo, you must be lonely in there.

Mongo,

Some folks have trouble with change - any kind of change.

There was a time (in this country) when marriage between individuals of differing races was considered harmful to society in general and children in particular. It was still against the law in some Southern states well during the lifetime of some of the older readers of this blog.

There was a time when divorce was considered harmful to society in general and children in particular. Today, the children in the complex web of family relationships that are a result of divorce and remarriage are no longer considered worse off than they would be growing up in a marriage where the parents share neither love or respect for one another.

There was a time when the rights of women in a marriage were regarded as inconsequential under the law to those of the rights of their husbands. Women suffered physical and emotional abuse, were deprived of the custody of their children and often were left in dire poverty by husbands who abandoned them without penalty.

The days of Dick, Jane, Mother (in her frock at home) and Father (with his briefcase and job at the office) were only representative of the notions of editors of grammar school readers of the 1940s and 1950s and not American family reality as a whole. That idealized family (later continued on TV in "Father Knows Best") was only one of the many forms of families that have existed in this country since its early days.

Change happens . . . get used to it.

Again, Harry, I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but please stop patronizing me.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the intent of marriage has always been to unite a man and a woman only. Not for gay couples, not for a man to a dog, not for a man to 3 women or vice versa, not for Joe and his first cousin, Marie. Between a man and a woman only. Capiche?

I am not alone in this thinking either. 61% of the voters of the State of California felt this same way in 2000 when they voted in favor of Proposition 22 and my sense is that a solid majority of the electorate still feels this way.

We will have a chance to see the voters weigh in on this issue once again in November, as the ballot measure reaffirming marriage between a man and a woman only has qualified for the ballot.

Change is good, Harry. But, change needs to be what the people want, not what a couple of activist judges feel is appropriate to foist on the people of the State.

Latest Field Poll shows a majority of Californians support gay marriage. Besides, in a few weeks they can legally marry and even if Mongo's bigoted hate filled anti-freedom Prop passes, the one's who wanted to marry will have. Think about that Mongo, in a few weeks if you and Larry Craig wanted to get married in California you could.

I think we need to know where all the candidates stand on same sex marriage. The voters have a right to know.

Where exactly does Ferial Masry stand on the subject?

She's against it and she's also against abortion rights. Haven't you been paying attention?

Mongo,

No patronizing or head shrinking here, just trying to keep the conversation real and (uncomfortable as that is for both of us) present a point of view or some questions that may encourage you to reexamine your position.

First things first, your arguments in your previous posting had to do with harm to children by such a marriage for which you offered no support. Questioned on that, you have now switched your argument to legal precedent. So, I assume you either cannot or will not address the first issue with something other than what seems like your own unsupported opinion.

On the question of legal precedent, you are wrong in at least one instance. This state already allows for marriage between "a man and 3 women or vice versa" through divorce laws that make serial monogamy a common practical substitute (for some) for polygamy.

Legally, marriage is a simply a legal contract between two persons. History shows that the terms of that contract have been adjusted by societies throughout history.

Isn't your objection really about your personal moral view? Why else use the word "sanctity" which means holiness in describing what is a legal contract? Is that at the heart of your real objection?

P.S. - It is a small thing and know you have been corrected on it before, but the word is "capice" not "capiche."

Based on your comments, Harold, I've reexamined my position and have determined that my original position opposing same-sex marriage is as solid as ever.

You, as usual, have misrepresented my previous statements on the issue, particularly with regard to "harming" children. My previous point on that is that I believe the most healthy relationship that kids can be raised in (just as true today as it was 100 years ago) is in a marital relationshipm between a man and a woman.

There are many, many reasons for this, but let me start by saying that it provides a counter-balancing effect on the child's physiscal and emotional development. Having a prominent male and female role model in your life growing up as a kid has an undeniably profound impact on your maturation and defining who you are (whoever that may be) early on in life.

I am not a licensed psychologist, Harold, but I have read many academic articles and scientific studies supporting this contention and, therefore, I believe it to be undisputable.

Now, of course, you can point to the high divorce rates, dysfunctionality, violence, troubled, male-female marriages out there that have caused untold damage to children, mentally and physically, during their formative years, but the same case could be made for same-sex marriages. What would insulate these marriages from the problems we see today in conventional marriages? These is a completely separate discussion.

There is no doubt that my spirituality and religious beliefs influence my thinking on same-sex marriage. I've never denied this. I think it does, and should, reflect how we think and act as human beings in relation to questions of morality and government's role in responding to social mores and constitutional questions, such as this.

I do respect your opinion, Harold, and I welcome the opportunity for further dialogue on this issue. Thank you for your level-headed points of view.

Both of you earn a point for reasoned debate.

There should be an amendment banning government from the marriage business. Leave marriage up to each religion and help really shrink the size & scope of government.

GS,

How does your idea solve the problem? Various religious groups cannot even agree amongst themselves on what constitutes a marriage.

Moreover, there are legal (rather than spiritual) ramifications for those involved including rights governing inheritance, child custody, spousal insurance and other benefits, etc.

It is a correct for government to be involved.

I didn't say government shouldn't continue to register civil unions but here's how an end to govt marriages could solve the problem:

If church (..for ease of example) is required to sanctify a marriage then those that can't find a church to marry them will either gravitate to another church that does or they'll help establish a church that addresses their concerns. These alternative churches will, over time, grow and cut into the membership of traditional churches by encouraging new ways of looking at and religion.

We can't force a religion to change its rules to satisfy gay couples but we can encourage competition between religions and break the stranglehold over the definition of what is and isn't holy.

It may be that the Xtian Far Right may not want what they wish for.

GS,

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Civil union contracts would be legally the domain of the state, but not marital union contracts? So, the government would then establish religious authority as the sole arbiter and regulator of marital contracts?

It appears that you are saying that marriages officiated by civil authority would be outlawed because they are not approved by a church authority. You appear to say that polygamy and other non-traditional marriage forms could be automatically authorized simply because they originate and are approved by a particular religious tradition and no state authority could regulate such matters even when such marriages have legal consequences that flow from them.

What would happen if a church chose to recognize same sex marriage? Would that be a marriage then since it originated from a religious authority and not the state?

Would this mean that divorce - not recognized by some churches - would no longer be allowed or recognized by the state since it had no authority in matters of marriage?

Do you throw out all provisions on marriage from our ancient tradition of common law as well?

I am not really sure what you are saying here. Sounds very chaotic in any event, but perhaps I am missing something here.

Harold, my point is that government should not be in the business of offering an alternative to the religious sanctifying of marital unions. I agree that government has a vital role as subsequent administrator of all marital unions but strictly in terms of the lawful contracts underlying those unions. To the extent that govt may decide what types of marital unions have legal standing or not, the overwhelming needs of the People and the State must take precedent.

The red herring of this issue has always been semantics. Every civil union is a marriage of persons but not necessarily a Marriage to the devoutly religious. I'm guessing that most of these people see the state as intruding on their belief systems by forcing them to accept a civil marriage as equally as holy as their own. This isn't the case but if a poll was taken today I think that would be their conclusion. If I'm correct then THIS is were the battle really takes place...in the semantics.

So if we allow government to conduct "marriages" and allow the devout to conduct "Marriages", with the state administering the civil contracts underlying both, we may start to see an end to the strife.

Do you mean to say that those not professing an organized religion cannot be legally married?

Such is the position of many churches - including my own - but a position with which I disagree.

It negates common law and flies in the face of common sense and legal order.

No. I'm saying that non-believers have every right to a civil marriage but no right to a religious marriage. The latter apparently bestows some sort of heavenly blessing the former presumably doesn't.

Of course, such distinctions defy logic but logic is never a prerequisite of religion. Those like you and I, who disagree with our religions on same sex marriage, are apostates and thus according to our religions we are incapable of holding a correct view on the matter. Our religions are designed to cut off our debate and turn a deaf ear to any discussion. In the end we can't reason nor compromise with our religions and instead must find another way to remedy the problem that divides us.

I think the problem is one of semantics, ie, the distinction between civil & religious marriages, and one way to remedy the problem is for govt to refuse to acknowledge religious Marriage and only acknowledge civil marriage.

Thanks all for the high minded conversation.

I don't understand the argument that allowing same sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. If Brittany Spears can get married for five hours, and movie stars can marry 7 or 8 times, how can we say that same sex marriages undermine marriage?

In regard to the argument that marriage is only for procreation, does that mean we should forbid people over childbearing age, those who cannot have children, or those who don't want children to marry?

I had a good marriage for almost 30 years. It was ended by my husband's death. Nothing anybody else does can take away from that marriage.

I am 72 years old.