I am really disappointed with this.

What will become of the 16,000 marriages? A nulled, surely not?

According to Dr. Freud, treatment is called for. Freud actually had four theories of homosexuality:
Homosexuality arises as an outcome of the Oedipus conflict and the boy's discovery that his mother is castrated. This induces an intense castration anxiety that causes the boy to turn from his castrated mother to a "woman with a penis," i.e., a boy with a feminine appearance.
In the Three Essays, Freud developed the theory that the future homosexual child is so overattached to his mother that he identifies with her and narcissistically seeks love objects like himself so he can love them like his mother loved him.
If a "negative" or "inverted" Oedipus complex occurs, a boy seeks his father's love and msaculine identification by taking on a feminine identification and reverting to anal eroticism.
Finally, homosexuality could result from reaction formation: sadistic jealousy of brothers and father is safely converted into love of other men.

This from a man that had a chronic oral fixation and ultimately committed suicide. Freud had much insight, but he also held the narrowness of his time in the core of his existence. He theorized about the "mind" when woman had no rights, blacks were slaves, and the new americans were slaughtering the native. Don't misunderstand me, because Freud is of value, but we should not forget that even he could not escape the bias of his time.

janet, janet, janet...until a more elegant and verifiable explanation of sodomistic psychosis is offered, Freud's must be accepted. His was a genius that trancended the biases of his time.

What a bunch of pretentious nitwits!

And while we're on this Freud thing, just to further illustrate your pretentious silliness, let us not forget that old Freud developed most, if not all of his theories while high on cocaine.

Sure he was smart. But he was also a sex-obsessed drug addict.

What this really indicates is that fundamental change has *not* come to America. Sure, we elected Democrats in the hopes that they will replenish our wallets with the money that the Bushies have stolen, but the bigotry that permeates American life has not changed one bit.

Hard to believe that something like this would pass in the 21st Century. Apparently civil rights are still not for everyone. Too bad there isn't a pill to cure ignorance.
Just in case anybody thinks my comments are self serving; my husband and I have been married to each other for 40 years. Now that is what should be called an "alternative" lifestyle in this country. We are also immoral by some peoples standards since we are atheists.

For Ira...

According to the American Psychological Association:

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories.... Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. (I'm sure many gay people will attest that others knew before they did).

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination that Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Experience?

Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well, often as a friend or co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe that negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are prejudices that are not grounded in actual experience but are based on stereotypes and misinformation.

A couple of years ago, Church & State, the periodical put out by Americans United for Separation of Church and State quoted a conservative Christian as having admitted that once "God's design" is removed from the argument, there's no real reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Conservatives do have a point, however, when they argue that if we legalize same-sex marriages, what's to stop us from legalizing incest or polygamy?

Regarding same-sex marriages: back in 1995, when I was traveling with a group of activists, protesting the Republicans "Contract On America," I said that although I couldn't support same-sex marriages, I had no problem with civil unions. This is Jimmy Carter's position today.

A few years ago, my friend Dave Browning, a conservative, pro-life Republican in San Diego, said he opposed same-sex marriages on the grounds that the definition of marriage (an institution that has lasted thousands of years) should not be changed in the name of political correctness. When I asked him about civil unions, however, he couldn't raise any objections!

Also a few years ago, I told my friend Greg, who is gay, that I don't even have any opposition to same-sex marriages, as long as churches and other religious institutions aren't forced to recognize them. In one of his broadcasts from a few years ago, Sean Hannity warned viewers about a future in which churches that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages lose their tax-exempt status. Greg dismissed Sean Hannity's words as right-wing propaganda.

There are many folks who are disappointed or angry that Obama got elected, but they are taking some relief that these antigay measures are still being passed in some locations, run by idiots who can't mind their own business, in states like California, Arizona, and Arkansas. Evangelicals are out of fashion this year, but they still have their nasty agenda to push where they can.

70% of the Black brothers and sisters voted yes on 8, putting it over the top. In solidarity with Obama. You White Liberals, never underestimate the power of the Black vote and the wise leadership of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

70% of the Black brothers and sisters voted yes on 8, putting it over the top. In solidarity with Obama. You White Liberals, never underestimate the power of the Black vote and the wise leadership of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan
Posted by: Maryam

How sad it is to see that those who have been oppressed would seek to oppress others. Have you learned nothing from your struggle? Apparently you haven't. What a sad, delusional person you are.

I live, work, own my house, and pay taxes in Florida. I am not a second class citizen and yet I am treated as one for being a gay man who has been in a twenty-seven year domestic partnership. We have been able to cover one another alternatingly over the years for health benefits through our employers yet those benefits are taxed, whereas, the same benefits for married employees are not taxed. Let me write that again: not taxed. And now with discrimination written into the Florida Constitution, my partner and I cannot marry, cannot have domestic partnership benefits, and may not be able to cover one another when needed for health benefits. He is 54 and I am 52 and we currently enjoy good health, but that is the current situation.

If those seeking to deny common civil rights to unmarried couples plus gays and lesbians are doing so based on their religious convictions, then they are confusing civil marriage with the religious ceremony. It is the State which grants the marriage license, not the Church; it is the State which is supposed to see to the equal welfare and justice of all its citizens regardless of their religious views and convictions.

This discriminatory amendment to the Florida Constitution is mean-spirited, petty, resentful, and divisive. And I will work my hardest to get this amendment challenged and overturned. It is time for a progressive social change to come to Florida.

My youngest son married his partner today. Still legal until we hear otherwise.

Did I care that he was marrying another man? No, I rejoiced that he had found love.

It's as simple as that.

My personal theory: The original Constitution of the United States forbids ex post facto (retroactive) laws that are punitive or diminish a right. This trumps a state constitution so people married before the amendment cannot be declared unmarried. Think of a grandfather clause / privilege. I have a law degree but I am not an attorney; it's less hassle being a paralegal so this no legal advice yadda ...

This gives me a creepy feeling to see a state constitution amended to revoke a right. They do have that right though and I see no legal argument to refute it save for my belief that they cannot go back in time and annul the pre-existing marriages.

Who cares who gets married? I am for making divorce illegal. Let all those married men and women have to go to Canada or Mexico to get a divorce. It is disgraceful how backwards the US really is. We act as though we are so forward thinking because we elected a black man. This should have not been in an issue in this day and age. Get a f'ing grip Americans, we have barely been walking upright lately and it is shameful.

It's called scapegoating.

Re: Russ in CA's comment.

It is most unfortunate, but certainly not unanticipated. Churches in our modern age are agents evil that control the fortunes of the poor to the advantage of the elite leadership. They prey upon the weak, the ill-informed, the poorly educated and the those lacking innate courage of independent and critical thought. This is the at least half of the American electorate. This is that group of people that Obama referred to when he spoke of clinging to guns and religion. This will not change. When a group of people see fit to legislate a the loss of a civil right for another group, they have in fact open the door to their own denigration. I will never again stand in defense of a reigious community in the face of an assault upon their personal privilidge to believe or practice their faith. Thomas Jefferson was right to believe that organized churches (and reigion) were the greatest barriers to the social enlightenment of man.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Has anyone heard of the saying, 'Live and Let Live'? Let us have no doubt - this is not a civil issue - the attitude of controlling other people's lives is based on religious bias by those who will not accept diversity in lifestyles. In addition, Californians should not be proud that they listened to the propaganda financed by a wealthy Mormon from Utah who had no business butting his nose into our affairs. Of all people to condemn others lifestyles - I wonder how many wives the Mormon sponsor has. I might recommend a proposition on the next ballot outlawing religion in public affairs - how would the Prop. 8 supporters feel about that?

The real problem is: do we have the right to impose our personal morals upon our fellow human beings? I think not. Therefore: live and let be. If gay marriage is against our morals: no one ever kept us from choosing someone of the opposite sex. As for incest: this is harmful to the minor involved and also harmful to the potential off spring. Therefore it should be forbidden. As for polygamy: not my cup of tea. But if all parties involved agree: why not? It works in some parts of the world.
The emotions aroused by Obama's election can only be compared with the emotions in Europe after World War II. Free at last! The racial war in the US is finally over. It is about time to settle some other issues. Isn't freedom the national goal?

I see too many racist posts here against Black people. Muslims are against homosexuality plain and simple. Obama also believes that marriage is like what the Christian Bible states, between a man and a woman. Anymore whining about this is divisive and it must stop. The people have spoken. In Europe, sharia law is spreading, soon to come to a state near you too and then you to will know the many blessing that sharia law brings to all.

"...then you to will know the many blessing that sharia law brings to all." Max

Please put your sharia where the sun doesn't shine, sideways.

If you choose to submit to an idea, that's your right and privilege. I choose not, and that is my right and privilege.

And you and I, like Ozymandias, will soon be gone and all our choices dust.

I'm jazzed to see Obama won and history is made, but am saddened by the loss on many of the propositions including 1a, 7, and 10 but am especially troubled by the passing of prop 8.

To me, a yes on 8 was a yes on hate. It's as if we straights said, 'sure we believe in equality for all citizens, but us straights are more equal than you gays.' It smacks of George Orwell's book Animal Farm with their seven commandments including the seventh one that started out as "All animals are created equal" but by the end of the book was modified to read "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others" and creates terms like "animal hero first class" as opposed to "second class."

It seems the majority or powerful within every society finds a way to justify its dominance over the minority. The ultra conservative religious right-winged republicans are great for placing these hurtful wedge issues on our ballots just to get out the vote. Makes me wonder why I call myself a Christian. Maybe I should reject Jesus as son of God and as my savior in favor of God above all because Jesus would not foster hate like the Christians are doing, and thus, if they are false then maybe so is their Lord. Being a deist (like our founding fathers) has the added benefit of no longer violating God's first commandment.

While I don’t pretend to understand homosexuality, I’m less threatened by it than I am by those who protect pedophiles. I'm a fairly tolerant guy but I see no reason to tolerate hate, much less to support it. It appears Christianity is evolving into hate.

I stood on the corner with my NO sign several times, amidst 25-50 Mormons who were assigned a corner, dates and times, provided with t-shirts, and signs by their church. Additionally, they had cars assigned to drive by and honk. This info came from one of them who was pretty proud of it. The CA campaign was funded by out of state interests who hired evil campaign strategists who exploited the fear that is so prevelent in our society today. Lost your job and can't pay the mortgage? Can't put food on the table? Well, at least you can protect your children from the "evil gays."

And by the way -- In 2000 2.9 million Californians voted against discrimination towards LGBT people and against Prop 22; today, at least 5 million Californians voted to reject discrimination and Prop 8. Change IS already here, and the shift will continue as the dinosaurs die out - in the words of Gavin Newsome "Whether you like it or not." It's about time.

Can't a legal marriage be performed by any so called minister and aren't there plenty of people capable and willing to become "ministers"? - I understand it is as easy as getting a driving license, can even be done by mail. (Another lucrative business if there isn't one already - a correspondance school for wanna be preachers who specialize in gay marriage ceremonies.) Since ministers function in a religious capacity and religion is based on one person or group loving to tell people what to do and getting paid for it, and most ministers will do anything (except physical labor) for money, I can't help but believe there are plenty of people who would jump on this lucrative bandwagon. Get mail order minister rights from several state, and travel from state to state with a little advance publicity -- like flyers dropped from small planes like fruit pickers were solicited to come to CA during the depression (no pun intended) and perform hundreds of gay marriages in one day like Vegas. Then tell the IRS and the insurance companies to go piss up a rope.

Social progress doesn't happen overnight. Opponents of Prop 8 sent out an e-mail with the subject header reading: "We Will Not Give Up".

Part of the e-mail reads:

"Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn’t a single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 — passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990; the state of California followed in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.

"Today, we fought to retain our right to marry and millions of Californians stood with us. Over the course of this campaign everyday Californians and their friends, neighbors and families built a civil rights campaign unequalled in California history."

As Morrissey says, "These things take time."

75% of Black women in California voted YES on 8. We are not wrong. You people are the true racists.

The only right and wrong is people trying to control the lives of those they don't agree with. Black people of all should empathize with that. I don't buy the racial or religious part of this controversy.

From another viewpoint, with the overpopulation in the world and the inherent problems this is causing and will continue to cause, people should welcome gay marriages which do not contribute to overpopulation. Perhaps we should put a proposition on the ballot banning bearing of more than two children or heterosexual marriages leading to children. Perception is everything - and my perception is that bearing more than two children is irresponsible in this world of increasing population, compeition for resources and wars to gain territory and resources for a surplus population. Continuing this kind of behaviour in societies will lead at some point to annihilation of the human race and/or Draconian policies to stop reproduction.

Humans cannot seem to get past the shortsightedness of their own prejudices and will destroy themselves in the process.

So many issues to comment on here...First, it just goes to show why Prop 8 passed when there are is much ignorance, misinformation and simple bigotry even in the posts of readers of a hallmark of liberalism, such as MoJo.

Ira C's Freudian rant, Vasu Murti's comment, "Conservatives do have a point, however, when they argue that if we legalize same-sex marriages, what's to stop us from legalizing incest or polygamy?" and DY Foley's common misunderstanding about the nature of marriage.

Enough has been said about the whole Freudian thing. In a nutshell, APA removed homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM back in 1973 and other similar remnants in 1983.

Vasu Muri seems to be supportive but has fallen for the straw man argument so often presented by conservative homophobes. We say there is no reason to prevent two consenting adults from legally marrying each other and they fight back by saying society must be saved from everything from incest, pedophilia, and bestiality to the fall of the church. The other point made in Muri’s post is that the definition of marriage should not be changed simply for the sake of PC. Food for though, marriage has been in a constant state of flux and has taken many forms throughout the world. Here in the US, it has been used as a means of uniting property, wealth and power; to ensure a male centric bloodline; inclusive of polygamy until 1878. Even the notion of marriage has changed as it wasn’t always about virtuous things such as love. That’s a notion that came to be as recently as the 20th century.

But even with all of that revelation, we have to understand the concept of marriage in the West is not one institution but two and here we hit on DY Foley’s comment. Not ONE of the 50 states or the US Federal Government recognizes the institution of religious marriage. Only civil marriage is recognized. While we allow ministers, rabbis, priests and other clergy to act as officiants in a wedding, they aren’t necessary. A Justice of the Peace, a deputy to the clerk of courts or a friend (most cities and states have a way of deputizing someone for a day so a friend or relative can officiate your wedding) can marry someone as well. It’s why the church cannot marry you until you have the civil marriage license and why they all say “by the authority invested in me by the state of _____, I now pronounce you husband and wife.” It’s the right of CIVIL marriage we are looking to obtain. There are plenty of churches willing to marry Queer couples and there won’t be a mad dash to Catholic churches, Mormon churches or Orthodox temples when our rights are granted.

Incidentally, the reason “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” are unacceptable is that they are not equal. Neither in the rights they afford couples, the robust nature of the wedding bond in a court of law (for example with property rights, blood relatives have a better chance of successfully claiming rights to an estate left to the surviving partner in a CU or DP than a wedded spouse) nor in status and acceptance. CU’s and DP’s will always be seen as “less than.”

I donate to several activist groups. Each donation card says that since the group seeks to change laws, my donation is not tax-deductible.

The Morman and Catholic(a church which can NEVER resist trying to control governments) churches poured big money into Calif. to deny gay rights, they should lose ALL tax-exemptions, from proptery taxes, to IRS taxes. You wanna play, you gotta pay!!!

There was a time when Catholics had no voting rights in both the colonies and in England. And Mormons were burned out of their towns, Perhaps that was a GOOD THING.

By the way non-gay people, the ultimate agenda of these religious Xian soldiers is to 1. make ALL abortion illegal.
2. Define ANY form of family planning, including the PILL, condoms, and probaly coitus interuptus as ABORTION and hence illegal. Bring back "stoning to death" as a form of capital punishment. In short, you short-sighted people, they want to run YOUR life and take away YOUR rights NEXT!.